Detainers, Detention and Deportation: From Presence to Personhood

There is no such thing as an “illegal” person.[1] For the virtues of citizenship are not exclusive to law books, but found in the dignity of individuals. Ancient peoples who made the first journeys to new lands quickly discovered that humanity is a flower that can bloom anywhere.[2] Since then, lines on maps have served to separate people from personhood.[3]

Immigration laws and policies have the power to conflate race, ethnicity and national origin[4] with lawbreaking,[5] economic rivalry[6] and terrorism.[7]A targeted noncitizen occupies an indissoluble bubble of isolation and obloquy that separates them from the moral force of state laws, the integrity of its officials, and the decency of its citizens.[8] For them America is an inside out prison[9] comprised of sensitive locations,[10] sanctuary cities,[11] and degrading confinement.[12] If the immigration system bears a resemblance to criminal justice, it is because they share a forge upon which people are hammered out.[13]

In immigration courts, the represented fare better than the unrepresented.[14] And yet, persons facing deportation and detention[15] have no right to counsel.[16] Legal services for noncitizens,[17] such as they are,[18] are confounded by overburdened courts,[19] unavailability of lawyers,[20] and remoteness of detention.[21] All of which is accompanied by assaults on privacy and dignity at the border[22] and the interior.[23] Still, an incipient right to effective assistance of counsel[24] might nourish a right to representation.[25]

Immigration enforcement mimics criminal law without its panoply of protections.[26] Release granted in a criminal case can be cancelled by an immigration detainer.[27] And detainers can be nearly insurmountable.[28] Noncitizenship status haunts charging decisions, bail, pleas, trials and sentences.[29] Misconduct and mistreatment are endemic.[30] False assumptions about crime rates,[31] which are actually lower when associated with noncitizens,[32] contaminate decision-making.[33] Finally, the conditions of confinement, from morbidity[34] to mortality,[35] can be inhumane.[36] So it is that detention and exclusion create a stateless dead zone that racializes, impoverishes and criminalizes the noncitizen.[37]

Nationwide injunctions[38] have emerged in response to the excesses of some deportation policies.[39] Still, unnumbered people remain stateless within the United States—without rights, without counsel, without liberty.[40] And noncitizens are consigned to a class of people denied victimhood, where fear reigns and law enforcement is put at odds with those to be protected.[41]

A mosaic of executive orders and federal court opinions are shaping a landscape of travel bans, sanctuary cities and expedited proceedings. Since this is a fluid field of law, the information cited here represents an evolving timeline—with the latest official pronouncements and decisions captured in news reporting, press releases and government websites.[42] This article provides a snapshot of shifts in immigration law and policy as well as vignettes depicting the human struggle from presence to personhood.[43]

EXECUTIVE ORDERS[44]

Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, Jan. 25, 2017 (Whitehouse)

Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, Jan. 25, 2017 (Whitehouse)

Executive Order: Protecting the Homeland (DHS) including Executive Orders, Implementation Memos, Fact Sheets, Press Releases and Additional Information/Links. See also Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest, Feb. 20, 2017 (DHS)

Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, Mar. 6, 2017 (Whitehouse); Memorandum

Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, Jan. 27, 2017 (Whitehouse); Memorandum (OLC)

Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into The United States – Revised, beSpacific, Mar. 6, 2017

Renewed Commitment to Criminal Immigration Enforcement (DOJ); Attorney General Jeff Sessions Announces the Department of Justice’s Renewed Commitment to Criminal Immigration Enforcement, Justice News (DOJ), Apr. 11, 2017

President Trump is Delivering on Immigration Enforcement for the American People, White House Press Release, Feb. 28, 2017

Trump Stands Up National Vetting Center to Investigate New Immigrants, USA Today, Feb. 6, 201

White House Executive Orders on Protecting the Homeland – Additional Resources, beSpacific, Feb. 22, 2017

GOVERNMENT SITES

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Sensitive Locations FAQs (ICE)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

Whitehouse (WH)

ADVISORIES, ALERTS AND FACT SHEETS

 

287(g) Program: An Overview (AIC)
“The 287(g) program is named for Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 287(g) became law as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). Through the 287(g) program, state and local police officers collaborate with the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws. In the past, the 287(g) program has been costly for localities, has not focused on serious criminals, and has harmed the relationship between police and local communities. This fact sheet provides an overview of how the 287(g) program works and discusses the many problems associated with it.”

Acting Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez Announces New Policy Regarding Handling of Cases Against Non-Citizen Defendants, District Attorney Kings County Press Release, Apr. 24, 2017
“Acting Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez today announced that his Office is implementing a new policy aimed at minimizing collateral immigration consequences of criminal convictions, particularly for misdemeanor and other low-level offenses. The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office has hired two immigration attorneys to train all staff on immigration issues and to advise prosecutors when making plea offers and sentencing recommendations on cases of non-citizen defendants in an effort to avoid disproportionate collateral consequences, such as deportation, while maintaining public safety.”

A.G. Schneiderman Issues Urgent Fraud Alert on “ICE” Immigration Scams, NY Attorney General Press Release, Feb. 15, 2017
“Today, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued an urgent fraud alert, warning immigrant communities of potential scams in light of recent reports that fraudsters have been posing as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents scams and demanding money in order to avoid deportation. The Attorney General’s office has received an increased number of reported scams along these lines following the ICE deportation raids that have taken place over the last few days.”

Challenging Evidence of Gang-Related Activity at Immigration Court Bond Hearings, Immigrant Defense Project, Aug. 3, 2017
“This note is for practitioners seeking release of an individual from immigration detention at an immigration court bond hearing where the detained person is accused of gang-related affiliation. It provides helpful case law for challenging the admissibility and evidentiary value of uncorroborated law enforcement reports of gang affiliation.”

DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] Resources (Immigrant Defense Project)
“Immigrant Defense Project stands with the young people who are now at risk due to the Trump Administration’s shameful September 5, 2017 announcement that it will end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and with all immigrants who face deportation. Read our joint statement with The Fortune Society here.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Guide (Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law)
“This guide is designed to provide general information and links to resources about DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.”

Expedited Removal: What Has Changed Since Executive Order No. 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, American Immigration Council (AIC) Practice Advisory, Feb. 21, 2017
“This Practice Advisory addresses the coming expansion of expedited removal, who likely will be impacted, and possible ways to challenge an expedited removal order. The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and the Immigrant Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union co-authored this advisory with us.”

Family Court: Raising Awareness About Immigration Consequences (Immigrant Defense Project)
“IDP is breaking new ground by raising awareness of the negative immigration consequences that can result from contact with the Family Court system. Like the criminal legal system, the halls of Family Court are disproportionately filled with families of color, many of them immigrants. For such families, court involvement can trigger an array of immigration consequences including preclusion from citizenship, the denial of immigration relief, and even deportation. Yet, few immigrants in family court are aware of what is at stake. Through trainings and presentations IDP seeks to change the culture of Family Court by educating attorneys, advocates, judges, and court staff about how Family Court contact can adversely impact immigrant families. IDP also advocates for systemic reforms that will improve non-citizens’ access to justice in family courts.”

Federal Defenders of New York Advisory Regarding January 25, 2017, Executive Order: “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” (NACDL)
“President Trump’s executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” signed on Jan. 25, may have significant impacts on non-citizens with open federal criminal cases in the relatively near term. The order is only two days old and does not explicitly withdraw existing agency guidance on most issues it addresses, so it is not clear how soon DHS or DOJ will issue revised guidance to field offices regarding implementation. But federal criminal practitioners should be aware of several aspects of this order that may alter the landscape for noncitizen defendants and should closely monitor their implementation.”

Guidance Concerning Local Authority Participation in Immigration Enforcement and Model Sanctuary Provisions (NY Attorney General 2017)
“The enclosed Guidance Concerning Local Authority Participation in Immigration Enforcement and Model Sanctuary Provisions first describes the legal landscape governing local jurisdictions’ involvement in immigration investigation and enforcement, so that local officials understand the extent to which they may decline to participate in such activities. The Guidance follows the letter that I sent on December 2, 2014 to police chiefs and sheriffs throughout the state, but provides much greater detail and context for law enforcement officials and local policymakers. The Guidance also provides model language that localities can voluntarily enact—consistent with current federal law—to limit law enforcement and local agency participation in federal immigration activities. The model language is based on an extensive review of provisions from the numerous states, cities, and towns around the country—including many in New York State—that have already have acted to protect this vulnerable population.” See Anticipating Major Changes to Federal Immigration Enforcement, A.G. Schneiderman Provides Local Governments with Legal Tools to Protect Immigrant Communities, NY Attorney General Press Release, Jan. 19, 2017.

How Does CBO Estimate the Effects of Proposed Legislation Affecting Immigration?, Congressional Budget Office Blog, Mar. 27, 2017
“When CBO’s Director testified at Congressional hearings at the beginning of February, he was asked some questions about how CBO analyzes potential changes to immigration policy. Because answers during Congressional hearings must be brief, this blog post provides additional information.”

ICE Courthouse Policies (Immigrant Defense Project)
“On January 10, 2018, ICE issued its first formal, public policy memo on immigration enforcement actions inside courthouses and subsequently updated its FAQ on Sensitive Locations and Courthouse Arrests. The Immigrant Defense Project and the NYU Immigrants Rights Clinic have published this annotated document to provide legal and factual context for ICE’s new directive. Several chief justices (California and New Jersey) and the American Bar Association pushed ICE to add courthouses to its list of “sensitive locations,” but ICE has maintained that courthouses are not sensitive locations. This directive indicates that ICE is still ignoring those calls and will continue to target immigrants in courthouses regardless of their impact on access to justice, public safety, or the operation of state courts.” See Annotated Ice Courthouse Directive (IDP).

ICE in New York State Courts Survey (Immigrant Defense Project)
“Since the election, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has substantially increased the number of immigrants it targets in New York State Courts. As a result, many advocates are hearing from immigrants that they have a profound fear of going to court. This includes immigrants who need access to the courts for orders of protection, to defend against criminal charges, and to vindicate their rights as tenants. To better understand these concerns, a coalition of legal services and community based organizations sent out a survey to the field from June 12 – 23. 225 advocates and attorneys from 31 counties across New York State participated. The participants work in criminal, family, housing, employment, education, and immigration law, and practice in criminal, family, and civil courts in New York State.”

ICE Raids Toolkit (Immigrant Defense Project)
“Defend Against ICE Raids and Community Arrests, the product of IDP’s and CCR’s [Center for Constitutional Rights] collective work against ICE arrests under Bush and Obama, serves as the first comprehensive guide and organizing resource to fight back against the Trump administration’s efforts to criminalize communities and deport millions of people.”

Immi Website (Immigration Advocates Network and Pro Bono Net)
“Immi helps immigrants in the U.S. understand their legal options. Our online screening tool, legal information, and referrals to nonprofit legal services organizations are always free to use. Immi was created by the Immigration Advocates Network and Pro Bono Net, two nonprofit organizations dedicated to increasing access to justice for low-income immigrants. Do you qualify to stay in the U.S.? Find the path that’s right for you. Answer some simple questions to get started.”

Immigrants and State Courts (Fund for Modern Courts)
“We have compiled a series of legal reference guides on the complex intersection of family court issues and federal immigration laws, policy, and enforcement. Although these guides are NY based, the intersection has parallels in state courts across the country. State laws may vary but every court’s actions may impact immigrants’ rights under federal law.”

Immigration Justice Website
“ImmigrationJustice.US is a portal to harness the energy of the legal profession and coordinate the efforts of volunteer lawyers helping immigrants in response to President Trump’s Executive Orders altering our immigration system. . . . This first-generation rapid response website is organized by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Immigration Council, and American Bar Association Center for Innovation.”

Immigration Pro Bono Resource Hub (NYSBA)
“The New York State Bar Association’s Immigration Pro Bono Portal addresses the problem of matching attorney volunteers with organizations providing immigration legal services throughout New York State. Due to recent Executive Orders and enhanced interior enforcement of our immigration laws, there is an overall climate of uncertainty for immigrants in the United States, be they here legally or not. This uncertainty has resulted in an increased need for legal services for this already underserved community and a rising tide of attorneys who wish to help. NYSBA’s Immigration Pro Bono Portal seeks to match volunteer attorneys with legal service providers that serve immigrant communities in an efficient manner, helping attorneys volunteer in a meaningful way while meeting legal service providers’ needs, and ultimately providing immigrant clients with effective counsel.”

Immigration Resource Directory (California Courts)
“A new directory on the California Courts online self-help center provides a comprehensive set of links to information and resources for immigrants who must access the legal system.” See Council Creates Directory for Information and Resources on Immigration Issues, Cal. Cts. News Rel., Mar. 27, 2017

Information for Lawful Permanent Residents (“Green Card” Holders) Who Want to Apply for U.S. Citizenship but Have Past Criminal Histories (Immigrant Defense Project May 2017)
“If you are a lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) and have ever been arrested – regardless of the outcome of the case – it is important to seek legal advice BEFORE submitting an application for citizenship. Applying could put you at risk of deportation or you could be denied because of your criminal history. IDP has created the following resources to help you start to understand the risks and possibilities of applying for citizenship with a criminal history.”

Introduction to the Travel Ban: In Plain English, SCOTUSBlog, July 10, 2017
“In December 2015, the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump issued a statement calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.” Trump’s statement continued: “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victim of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” Fifteen months later, on March 6, 2017, citing national security concerns, President Trump signed an executive order that ordered a freeze on new visas for travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and suspended travel by refugees into the United States. Two federal appeals courts blocked the Trump administration from implementing the ban, but on June 26 the Supreme Court stepped in. The justices not only agreed to review the lower courts’ rulings in October, when they return from their summer break, but they also allowed the federal government to put at least part of the ban into effect until they can rule on the federal government’s appeals.”

Know Your Rights Flyers, Posters & Trainings (Immigrant Defense Project)
“Know Your Rights” (Jan. 2017); “Immigration Arrests in the Community: What You Need to Know to Protect Your Rights” (Feb. 2017)

Legal Aid Society Unveils Hotline to Assist Immigrant Communities Impacted by Recent ICE Raids, Legal Aid Society, Feb. 12, 2017
“The Legal Aid Society unveiled a hotline this morning following confirmed reports yesterday of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids throughout the city. The hotline went live at 8 a.m. Sunday and Legal Aid attorneys are now reachable in various languages to assist families who have an immediate ICE detention case, questions about their rights or other pressing immigration concerns. Legal Aid also issued an emergency plan fact sheet to help communities prepare in case of detention and deportation of a family member. New Yorkers can contact the hotline by calling – 844-955-3425 and access important information by visiting www.legal-aid.org.” See Emergency Plan in Case of the Detention or Deportation of Family Members (LAS) and Spanish Version. See also Updated: Deportation Hotline, Emergency Plan Information and Providing Sanctuary Factsheet, Legal Aid Society News, Feb. 27, 2017

Liberty Defense Project (NYS)
“In New York, we support the rights of and stand with immigrants faced with deportation so that every New Yorker has access to the full protections afforded under the law. With the Liberty Defense Project, New York State launches the first-in-the-nation, state-led public-private project to assist immigrants, regardless of status, in obtaining access to legal services and process. Governor Cuomo continues our legacy of protecting the rights and freedoms of all New Yorkers. The Liberty Defense Project will be administered by the state’s Office for New Americans and will be run in partnership with law firms, legal associations, advocacy organizations, major colleges and universities, and bar associations.”

Online Detainee Locator System (ICE)
“Use this page to locate a detainee who is currently in ICE custody, or who was released from ICE custody for any reason within the last 60 days.” See also About the Detainee Locator / FAQs.

Policy Brief: Guide for Members of Congress Seeking to Hold the Administration Accountable to Due Process (National Immigrant Justice Center 2017)
“The Department of Justice has recently announced a series of policy changes aimed at expediting the removal of immigrants, with few if any attendant due process protections. These policies include the announcement of new case processing priorities; detailing of immigration judges to remote detained dockets; and expansion of the Institutional Hearing Program, in which immigrants serving criminal sentences undergo immigration proceedings while still in criminal custody and are subject to deportation immediately after completing their sentences. All players in the immigration system – immigration attorneys, government prosecutors, immigration judges, and immigrants themselves – have begun to observe concerning consequences flowing from these policies. NIJC has issued a Guide for Members of Congress Seeking to Hold the Administration Accountable to Due Process for all immigrants facing removal. This document provides background regarding the little we know as to the changes announced by the Department of Justice, and suggests questions members of Congress may ask to hold the agency accountable to its obligation to ensure due process protections in immigration proceedings.”

Practice Advisories (Immigrant Defense Project)
Practice Guide: Using the Second Circuit’s Unpublished Decision in Garcia v. Sessions, __ F. App’x __, 2018WL497201 (2d Cir. Jan. 22, 2018) to Defend Against Deportation Based on New York Convictions (January 23, 2018, by IDP); Jae Lee v. U.S.: Establishing Prejudice Under Padilla v. Kentucky (July 7, 2017); Practical Tips for Defenders on ICE at Courts (April 2017); Practice Advisory and Appendices: Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions: Supreme Court Limits Reach of Aggravated Felony “Sexual Abuse of a Minor” Ground and Provides Support on Other Crim-Imm Issues (June 8, 2017); Practice Advisory and Appendices: Administrative Removal under 238(b): Questions and Answers (February 16, 2017, by IDP and NIP-NLG); Sample Response to Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Order of Removal; Sample Petition for Review of Final Administrative Order of Removal.

Practice Advisories (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers)
NACDL has compiled a variety of advisories and training publications including: Practice Advisories; Padilla in Practice Series; Suggested Reading; Web Links; Champion Articles; and News of Interest.

Practice Advisories (National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild)
“NIPNLG Practice Advisories address select substantive and procedural immigration law issues faced by attorneys, legal representatives and noncitizens. They are based on legal research and may contain potential arguments and opinions of the author. Practice advisories are intended to alert readers of legal developments, assist with developing strategies and/or aid decision making. They are not meant to replaced independent legal advice provided by an attorney familiar with a client’s case.”

Primer on Expedited Removal (American Immigration Council 2017)
“President Trump’s January 25, 2017, executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to dramatically expand the use of “expedited removal.” Created in 1996, expedited removal is a process by which low-level immigration officers can quickly deport certain noncitizens who are undocumented or have committed fraud or misrepresentation. Since 2004, immigration officials have used expedited removal to deport individuals who arrive at our border, as well as individuals who entered without authorization if they are apprehended within two weeks of arrival and within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican border. One of the major problems with expedited removal is that the immigration officer making the decision virtually has unchecked authority. Individuals subject to expedited removal rarely see the inside of a courtroom because they are not afforded a regular immigration court hearing before a judge. In essence, the immigration officer serves both as prosecutor and judge. Further, given the speed at which the process takes place, there is rarely an opportunity to collect evidence or consult with an attorney, family member, or friend before the decision is made.”

Protecting Your Digital Devices at the Border: A Criminal Defense Lawyer’s Primer (NACDL 2017)
“Courts have long made it clear that agents can search the bags of people entering the country. For the past decade or so, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has applied that logic to digital devices. NACDL members are uniquely exposed to abuse in this context: digital devices store materials and information subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, as well as information on overseas clients and witnesses, and other extremely sensitive materials that could be covered by Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility.”

Remedies to DHS Enforcement at Courthouses and Other Protected Locations (National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Apr. 12, 2017)
“Few are aware that Congress provided statutory remedies in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(e)2 that may enable an individual who the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) arrests at certain protected locations to terminate removal proceedings. At a time when DHS enforcement is terrifying immigrant communities, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(e) may provide a potential mechanism to enable noncitizens avoid removal. The advisory discusses the statutory protections, suggests a termination remedy for violations, and addresses selected arguments that DHS might make to oppose termination.”

Resources: Criminal Defense Attorneys (Immigrant Defense Project)
Practice Advisories and Alerts for New York Defenders; Understanding and Fulfilling Your Duty to Immigrant Clients; Resources on Criminal-Immigration Law; and Other Resources.

Social Media, Criminalization, and Immigration (National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Apr. 3, 2017)
“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses social media accounts, such as Facebook and Twitter, in immigration enforcement. Information shared on social media could be used against a person to arrest you, detain you, put you in fast-track deportation or regular deportation proceedings, or to stop you from getting immigration benefits, such as a green card, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS). This advisory is not designed to instruct people how to respond to ICE when it uses social media against a person applying for immigration benefits (DACA, TPS, green card, etc) before an immigration agency, immigration court, or immigration detention.”

Summary of Executive Order “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” (American Immigration Counsel May 19, 2017)
“On January 25, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which announced a massive expansion of interior immigration enforcement. The order defines enforcement priorities so broadly as to place all unauthorized individuals at risk of deportation, including families, long-time residents, and “Dreamers” (those who were brought to this country as children). The order also encourages states and localities to enforce federal immigration laws. This is a change from the Obama administration’s efforts to scale back such initiatives and adopt policies intended to discourage abusive or discriminatory practices by local law enforcement. Finally, the order revives the constitutionally suspect Secure Communities program (which was terminated in 2014), orders the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to consider stripping federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities,” and encourages additional criminal prosecutions for illegal entry into the United States. Overall, the Trump administration’s approach will have devastating consequences for immigrant communities and will undermine, rather than improve, public safety.”

Supplemental Community Advisory on DHS Implementation Memoranda and Factsheets (National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild March 7, 2017)
“The purpose of this community advisory is to provide our legal and policy analysis on key changes in immigration enforcement resulting from these DHS policies. While we do provide some legal summary of the memoranda, this advisory is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of DHS policy changes. Instead, this advisory focuses on providing policy analysis on those topic areas that we believe will most impact community defense strategies and offers key tips and suggestions.”

U.S. Citizen Children Impacted by Immigration Enforcement (AIC Mar. 28, 2017)
“This fact sheet provides an overview of the U.S. citizen children who could be impacted by immigration enforcement actions, the challenges and risk factors that these children face, and the existing mechanisms designed to protect children if a parent is detained or deported.”

What to Do If You’re Stopped by Police, Immigration Agents or the FBI (ACLU 2016)
“We rely on the police to keep us safe and treat us all fairly, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. This card provides tips for interacting with police and understanding your rights. This information is not intended as legal advice.”

What to Do When Encountering Law Enforcement at Airports and Other Ports of Entry into the U.S. (ACLU)
“This page tells you about your basic rights. It is not a substitute for legal advice. You should contact an attorney if you have been arrested or believe that your rights have been violated.”

STATISTICS, DATA AND ANALYTICS

Alien Incarceration Report Fiscal Year 2017, Quarter 4 (DHS 2017)
“A total of 58,766 known or suspected aliens were in in DOJ custody at the end of FY 2017, including 39,455 persons in BOP custody and 19,311 in USMS custody. Of this total, 37,557 people had been confirmed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be aliens (i.e., non-citizens and non-nationals), while 21,209 foreign-born people were still under investigation by ICE to determine alienage. Among the 37,557 confirmed aliens, 35,334 people (94 percent) were unlawfully present. These numbers include a 92 percent unlawful rate among 24,476 confirmed aliens in BOP custody and a 97 percent unlawful rate among 13,081 confirmed aliens in USMS custody. ”

Brennan Center, Protect Democracy, and Lawfare Request Corrections to DOJ-DHS Section 11 Report on Terrorism Data (Brennan Center 2018)
“The Brennan Center, in collaboration with Protect Democracy and Lawfare, filed a request for correction of a misleading report prepared by the Departments of Justice (“DOJ”) and Homeland Security (“DHS”) purporting to provide evidence of the security threats posed by foreign-born people in the United States. On January 16, 2018, the DOJ and the DHS issued a report entitled “Executive Order 13780: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, Initial Section 11 Report” (the “Report”). Cited by the Trump Administration to justify curbing immigration, the Report supports White House efforts to mislead the public on the nature of terrorism in the United States. These efforts have included a false statement by President Trump in a Joint Address to Congress that the “vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country.” As has been widely reported, the Report is rife with inaccuracies and methodological flaws, fails to be transparent about the data on which it relies, and is designed to reinforce a political narrative, not present an objective account of the facts. Therefore, on February 8. 2018, the Brennan Center, in collaboration with Protect Democracy and Lawfare, filed a request for correction under the Data Quality Act and implementing guidelines adopted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) asking that DOJ and DHS issue a corrected version of the Report that adheres to the requirements of federal guidelines or, in the alternative, that both departments retract the Report in its entirety.”

Children: Amid a Growing Court Backlog Many Still Unrepresented (TRAC Report 2017)
“Despite a dramatic drop-off in new Immigration Court cases involving unaccompanied children (UAC) this year, the backlog of pending children’s cases has continued to rise. The latest case-by-case court data show that the court backlog of these children’s cases reached an all-time high of 88,069 at the end of August 2017. The current backlog of 88,069 represents four times the number of new UAC cases that reached the court during the first eleven months of FY 2017.”

Criminal Immigrants: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin (Immigration Research and Policy Brief No. 12017)
“In his first week in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to deport most illegal immigrants who come in contact with law enforcement. His order is based on the widespread perception that illegal immigrants are a significant source of crime in the United States. This brief uses American Community Survey data to analyze incarcerated immigrants according to their citizenship and legal status. All immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than natives relative to their shares of the population. Even illegal immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans.”

Diversity Immigrants’ Regions and Countries of Origin: Fact Sheet (CRS 2018)
“Ongoing congressional deliberations over whether to maintain, alter, or eliminate the diversity immigrant visa program (also known as the “lottery” or DV program) include an interest in the geographical origins of immigrants who have been admitted through this program. This fact sheet provides data on the regional and national origins of diversity immigrants (DV immigrants) and how they have shifted over time.”

Fiscal Year 2017 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report (ICE)
“This report summarizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) activities in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. ERO identifies, arrests, and removes aliens who present a danger to national security or a threat to public safety, or who otherwise undermine border control and the integrity of the U.S. immigration system. ICE shares responsibility for administering and enforcing the nation’s immigration laws with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.”

Hot Spots with Highest Growth in Immigration Court Backlog (TRAC Report 2018)
“Nationally, the Immigration Court backlog over the same period increased by 11 percent, reaching a new all-time high of 667,839 at the end of last December. These pending cases were spread across 2,559 separate counties. Considered for the rankings in this report are the 100 counties among the total of 2,559 counties that had the largest number of cases involving their residents. These “top 100″ counties accounted for almost three out of four (73%) of the court’s total backlog. Certain states stood out. For example, five out of ten of the counties with the fastest growing number of pending Immigration Court cases were located in Maryland. In Baltimore City, Maryland with a growth rate that placed it third in the country, the number of residents with pending court cases increased by 28 percent. The four other Maryland counties in the top ten nationally were Anne Arundel County (up 27%), Baltimore County (up 27%), Prince George’s County (up 25%) and Montgomery County (up 21%).”

ICE Arrests Went Up in 2017, with Biggest Increases in Florida, Northern Texas, Oklahoma, Fact Tank (Pew Research Center), Feb. 8, 2018
“After years of decline, the number of arrests made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) climbed to a three-year high in fiscal 2017, according to data from the agency. The biggest percentage increases were in Florida, northern Texas and Oklahoma. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations made a total of 143,470 arrests in fiscal 2017, a 30% rise from fiscal 2016. The surge began after President Donald Trump took office in late January: From his Jan. 20 inauguration to the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, ICE made 110,568 arrests, 42% more than in the same time period in 2016.”

ICE Data Shows Half of Immigrants Arrested in Raids Had Traffic Convictions or No Record, Washington Post, Apr. 28, 2017
“About half of the 675 immigrants picked up in roundups across the United States in the days after President Trump took office either had no criminal convictions or had committed traffic offenses, mostly drunken driving, as their most serious crimes, according to data obtained by The Washington Post. Records provided by congressional aides Friday offered the most detailed look yet at the backgrounds of the individuals rounded up and targeted for deportation in early February by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents assigned to regional offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio and New York.”

ICE Immigration Arrests of Noncriminals Double Under Trump, Washington Post, Apr. 16, 2017
“Immigration arrests rose 32.6 percent in the first weeks of the Trump administration, with newly empowered federal agents intensifying their pursuit of not just undocumented immigrants with criminal records, but also thousands of illegal immigrants who have been otherwise law-abiding. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 21,362 immigrants, mostly convicted criminals, from January through mid-March, compared to 16,104 during the same period last year, according to statistics requested by The Washington Post. Arrests of immigrants with no criminal records more than doubled to 5,441, the clearest sign yet that President Trump has ditched his predecessor’s protective stance toward most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.”

ICE Immigration Raids: A Primer (TRAC Immigration)
“There are widespread reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted immigration roundups in a number of communities across the country last week (February 6-10). Just how many ICE arrests of individuals who were picked up directly from the community in which they lived is not as yet clear. Immigration officials were quoted as stating that this was just part of “routine” immigration enforcement actions. For example, according to the New York Times, ICE contended that “the immigration roundups that people were seeing did not represent an increased tempo” but simply usual operations by its “fugitive teams constantly working to bring in those wanted on a variety of immigration offenses.” Contrary to the agency’s statement, President Trump said the current activities represented a “crackdown.” He tweeted: “The crackdown on illegal criminals is merely the keeping of my campaign promise. Gang members, drug dealers & others are being removed!” To help gauge the extent a large-scale enforcement surge has indeed begun, it is useful to examine the pace at which ICE arrested individuals in the past. Coming up with some clear numbers to answer that question is the focus of this report.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BJS)
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees – BJS obtains yearend prison counts of persons detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), formerly the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. The Annual Survey of Jails also collects jail counts persons held for ICE. ICE inmates may be held for immigration violations in federal, state, and locally operated prisons and jails, privately-operated facilities under exclusive contract, and ICE-operated facilities.” See also Immigration (BJS)

Immigration and Public Safety (Sentencing Project 2017)
“Foreign-born residents of the United States commit crime less often than native-born citizens. Policies that further restrict immigration are therefore not effective crime-control strategies. These facts—supported by over 100 years of research—have been misrepresented both historically and in recent political debates. . . . By surveying key research on immigration and crime, this report seeks to enable the public and policymakers to engage in a more meaningful policy debate rooted in facts. Immigrants’ impact on public safety is a well-examined field of study.”

Immigration Court Backlog Climbs to 617,527 Cases (TRAC Report 2017)
“The latest available case-by-case court records show that as of the end of July 2017, the Immigration Court’s backlog continued to rise, reaching an all-time high of 617,527. For the first time, individuals with pending cases from El Salvador surpassed the numbers from Mexico in the court’s pending workload. There were a total of 134,645 pending cases involving citizens of El Salvador, edging past the 134,467 cases involving individuals from Mexico. In third place, with 102,532 pending cases were citizens from Guatemala.”

Immigration Court Deciding More Cases (TRAC Report 2017)
“The Immigration Court has steadily increased the number of cases it has completed. According to the latest court data updated through the end of January 2017 and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, case completions during the first four months of FY 2017 are above the comparable period from last year. If this pace continues, this will mark the third year in a row that has seen an increase, and will represent a 17 percent rise since FY 2014. Removal orders after seeing little increase in their numbers since FY 2014, are up so far this year. Unfortunately, this growth in case completions has been insufficient to stem the growing backlog of cases still waiting for resolution before the Immigration Court. At the end of January 2017, the court’s backlog had increased to a record 542,411. Even if no additional cases were filed, the backlog now represents over a two and a half year workload for the court’s judges, based upon its current capacity to handle the matters before it.”

Immigration Court Filings Take Nose Dive, While Court Backlog Increases (TRAC Immigration 2017)
“Preliminary figures based upon case-by-case court records as of the end of September 2017 indicate that the number of DHS issued NTAs (notices to appear) initiating proceedings in Immigration Court is substantially down since President Trump took office. This is surprising since ICE states that its apprehensions were up during this same period. There were also increasing delays at DHS before NTAs, once issued, were actually filed in Immigration Court. This backlog of un-filed NTAs helped obscure the fall in Trump-initiated cases. Over 75,000 DHS filings in court after January 20, 2017 actually were of deportation cases begun under the Obama administration. Despite the drop in court filings, and the hiring of 74 additional immigration judges over the past year, the court backlog also increased by 113,020 cases during FY 2017 – most of it since President Trump assumed office. As of the end of September 2017 the Immigration Court backlog has grown to 629,051 cases.”

Immigration Court Post-Trump Cases: Latest Data (TRAC Report 2017)
“The latest available case-by-case Immigration Court records through the end of February 2017 give an early glimpse at what, if any, changes are emerging in deportation actions by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Court records reveal that so far, since Trump assumed office, a total of 11,040 cases have been initiated by DHS seeking removal orders.”

Immigration Court Post-Trump Cases Show No Increase (TRAC Report 2017)
“The latest available court records through the end of March 2017 reveal little observable change in filings since President Trump assumed office. The pace of DHS issuances of NTAs (notices to appear) that initiate proceedings in Immigration Court under the Trump Administration remain similar to the pace in earlier months under President Obama. However, because of filing and recording delays, any estimate of overall trends at this point in time must be considered very preliminary in nature. The court’s records reveal that since Trump assumed office, a total of 25,942 cases have been initiated by DHS seeking removal orders. This represents the number of DHS Notices to Appear (NTAs), or comparable forms, dated after January 20, 2017 that had been filed in court as of the end of March 2017. NTAs are the official notification to an individual that DHS is seeking to deport them.”

Immigration Crackdown: Is California’s Orange County a Test Case?, Crime Report, Feb. 14, 2017
“In my last column for The Crime Report, I [Daniel Stageman] introduced my ongoing database project looking at local police cooperation with the Trump administration on immigration enforcement. I began this project before Trump signed a pair of immigration-related executive orders on January 25. If anything, those orders made the work of tracking and assessing the impact of local police involvement in immigration enforcement more important than ever.”

Immigration Guidelines Primer (United States Sentencing Commission 2017)
“This primer is intended to provide an overview of sentencing-related criminal immigration topics. It is not a comprehensive compilation of issues and is not a substitute for reading and interpreting the actual cases, statutes, and Guidelines Manual. Rather, it should serve as a helpful supplement to those primary sources.”

Key Findings About U.S. Immigrants (Pew Research Center 2017)
“The U.S. has more immigrants than any other country in the world. Today, more than 40 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country, accounting for about one-fifth of the world’s migrants in 2015. The population of immigrants is also very diverse, with just about every country in the world represented among U.S. immigrants. Pew Research Center regularly publishes statistical portraits of the nation’s foreign-born population, which include historical trends since 1960. Based on these portraits, here are answers to some key questions about the U.S. immigrant population.”

Lawyer Who Used Analytics in Immigration and Asylum Cases Is Named Top Legal Innovator, ABA J., Dec. 15, 2017
“Financial Times has named a lawyer who uses technology and data analytics in immigrant and asylum representation as the top legal innovator in North America. The lawyer is Stephen Manning, legal director of the Innovation Law Lab, according to Financial Times. Manning has helped create large pro bono networks to defend refugees. His Innovation Law Lab uses data analytics to help lawyers create best practices to help lawyers in immigration and refugee cases, according to program director Ian Philabaum, who spoke with PRP FM this summer. Innovation Law Lab leads lawyers representing asylum seekers seeking release from detention centers. “Called Massive Collaborative Representation, the results have been dramatic,” Financial Times reports. “In 2016, the project advocated the release from detention of over 30,000 women and children, representing a 99 percent success rate. In 2014, by comparison, nearly all women and children who had been held in detention centers were deported, he says.””

Legal Logjam in Immigration Court Grows to More Than 540,000 Cases, ABA J., Apr. 1, 2017
“This situation is not unusual—at least not in immigration court, where the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial does not apply. Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a sitting judge in San Francisco, told the ABA Journal that, in the fall of 2016, some judges were setting hearing dates as late as 2022. A backlog of pending cases has been growing in the immigration courts for more than a decade—reaching more than half a million cases last year—and a second surge of Central American families in 2016 has only worsened it. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection says there were 59,692 unaccompanied minors and 77,674 family units apprehended in fiscal 2016.)”

Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065, Hispanic Trends (Pew Research Center), Sept. 28, 2015
“Fifty years after passage of the landmark law that rewrote U.S. immigration policy, nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States, pushing the country’s foreign-born share to a near record 14%. For the past half-century, these modern-era immigrants and their descendants have accounted for just over half the nation’s population growth and have reshaped its racial and ethnic composition. Looking ahead, new Pew Research Center U.S. population projections show that if current demographic trends continue, future immigrants and their descendants will be an even bigger source of population growth. Between 2015 and 2065, they are projected to account for 88% of the U.S. population increase, or 103 million people, as the nation grows to 441 million.”

Most Immigrants Arrested by ICE Have Prior Criminal Convictions, a Big Change from 2009, Fact Tank (Pew Research Center), Feb. 15, 2018
“Immigrants with past criminal convictions accounted for 74% of all arrests made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in fiscal 2017, according to data from the agency. The remainder were classified as “non-criminal” arrestees, including 16% with pending criminal charges and 11% with no known criminal convictions or charges.”

Not Even the Reddest States Support Deportation, Atlantic, Jan. 27, 2017
“But lost amid the anti-immigrant bluster of his campaign, the flurry of executive orders, and the whirlwind of partisan politics in Washington, is a stubborn fact: Very few Americans, and even few Republicans, say their preferred policy solution to the country’s illegal immigration problem is the deportation of an estimated 11 million people. That is the clear result of a study based on over 120,000 interviews with Americans—including 40,509 conducted during the 2016 campaign—that was conducted by my organization, PRRI, over the last three years.” See also No Majority Support for Deportation: Where All 50 States Stand, PRRI Spotlight Analysis, Jan. 30, 2017; How Immigration and Concerns about Cultural Change are Shaping the 2016 Election | PRRI/Brookings Survey, PRRI Research, June 23, 2016

Pursuant to Executive Order on Public Safety, Department of Justice Releases Data on Incarcerated Aliens, Justice News (DOJ), May 2, 2017
“Below is a summary of data collected under Section 16 of the Order, which directs “the Secretary [of Homeland Security] and the Attorney General . . . to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports” regarding the following subjects: (a) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision of the Bureau of Prisons; (b) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as federal pretrial detainees; and (c) the immigration status of all convicted aliens in state prisons and local detention centers throughout the United States.”

Sex Abuse and Homeland Security, Crime Report, May 12, 2017
“From 2010 to 2016, there were “33,126 complaints of sexual and/or physical abuse against DHS component agencies.” This data was reported by the San-Francisco-based Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC) in an April 11th Letter to Kelly and others, and is based on documents from the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG). Of those complaints, 44% were made against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and 31% against Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The Inspector General’s office opened investigations into just 247 of the 33,126 complaints.”

Six Countries Named in Revised Trump Travel Order Accounted for More Than 650,000 U.S. Entries Since 2006, Pew Research Center Fact-Tank, Mar. 10, 2017
“The six nations affected by a new executive order that prevents their citizens from obtaining new visas to enter the United States for 90 days accounted for 649,932 legal U.S. entries between fiscal years 2006 and 2015. This group includes visitors, students and diplomats as well as refugees and new lawful permanent residents, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Entries from the affected countries made up about 0.1% of the more than 517 million total entries to the U.S. over the same period. (Entries include individuals visiting the U.S. as well as new lawful immigrants and refugees. They do not include unauthorized entries or asylum seekers. One person may account for multiple entries.)”

Suits Challenging Confinement of Noncitizens Jump (TRAC Report 2017)
“Habeas corpus filings in federal courts challenging the confinement of noncitizens have risen sharply. The latest available data from the federal courts show that during January 2017 the government reported 168 new habeas corpus civil filings by noncitizens. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is up 24.4 percent over the previous month when the number of civil filings of this type totaled 135.”

There Were More Device Searches at U.S. Border Last Month Than All of 2015, Ars Technica, Mar. 15, 2017
“According to new figures released by Customs and Border Patrol, the number of electronic devices searched at the border has jumped by five times between 2015 and 2016. Device searches this year appear to be well on pace to exceed last year’s totals as well. However, when compared with the total number of people arriving into the United States, such searches remain exceedingly rare. Robert Brisley, a CBP spokesman based in Atlanta, sent Ars a lengthy statement detailing the agency’s policy regarding such searches.”

TRAC Challenges ICE’s Abrupt Change in Disclosure Practices, TRAC News, May 9, 2017
“The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) has filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) charging Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with unlawfully withholding records related to ICE’s immigration enforcement actions and its interaction with other law enforcement agencies. At issue are ICE’s use of detainers. These are requests from ICE to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to hold immigrants in their custody and to turn them over to ICE for possible deportation. Under President Trump, the agency announced that it was making stepped up usage of detainers a cornerstone of its immigration enforcement strategy. The agency further threatened local jurisdictions with the withholding of federal funds if they failed to comply with ICE detainers.”

TRAC – Immigration Court Priority Family Case Backlog Surpasses 100,000, beSpacific, Jan. 17, 2017
“The number of judges is still insufficient to handle the growing backlog in the Immigration Court. The court’s crushing workload reached a record-breaking 533,909 pending cases as the court closed out calendar year 2016, up 4.2 percent in just the last four months. The problem is particularly acute for priority cases involving women with children according to the latest court data updated through the end of December 2016 and analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.”

Tracking Immigration Court Outcomes by County of Immigrant’s Residence (TRAC Immigration)
“The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University has just added new features that permit the public to examine the immigrant’s residence in all deportation cases before the Immigrant Court. The new features track the state and county of residence during the period FY 2001 through February of 2018. The newly expanded detail tool covers all Immigration Court deportation cases, both past and present. This joins TRAC’s earlier released mapping tool which focuses just on currently pending court cases. The new tool is particularly powerful because users can drill in to see for any particular county or state the immigrants’ custody status as well as the eventual outcomes for their Immigration Court proceeding. Details on whether the immigrants were represented or not are also available.”

TRAC’s New Web Tool Maps Cases Pending in Immigration Court (TRAC Immigration)
“The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University has just released a brand new web mapping application that allows the public to examine for the very first time the number of individuals residing in each state, county, and local community within a county, who have pending cases before the Immigration Court. Using this new interactive web tool, the location of individuals involved in Immigration Court cases can be displayed based upon each individual’s recorded home address. Where the individual is detained, the address shown may be that of the detention facility where the individual is being held. While TRAC’s original backlog tool tabulated cases for each Immigration Court and hearing location, each court covers a wide geographic area – sometimes encompassing several states. Thus, only a very gross picture of the location where cases were situated was possible. TRAC’s new mapping tool, in contrast, uses the individualized location where each person appearing before the court currently resides. Users can therefore pinpoint with great precision just where cases are located throughout the country.”

Truth About Immigrant-Crime Data, Newsday, Apr. 21, 2017
“President Donald Trump plans to collect a lot more data about crimes committed by immigrants. This will inevitably give him a weapon to use against them, thanks to a peculiarity of crime statistics: If you look for something, you’ll almost always find more of it.”

Under Trump: Civil Lawsuits Up to Redress Immigration Action and Inaction (TRAC 2017)
“The latest available case-by-case records from the federal courts show that as of the end of March 2017, 763 new civil immigration lawsuits have been filed in disputes involving immigration matters since January 20, 2017. Under President Trump, monthly filings in March were up 40.5 percent when compared with those of the same period in the previous year, and have more than doubled from levels of five years ago. According to the case-by-case court records analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, nearly half (47%) of these 763 suits were brought by individuals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These individuals sought release from their detention and/or a court order to prevent their deportation. Most of the remaining suits challenged government inaction. One third (33%) were mandamus actions to compel the federal government to act on visa or related applications. Another 8 percent sought a hearing or other action on naturalization applications.”

Urban Crime Rates and the Changing Face of Immigration: Evidence Across Four Decades, 15 J. Ethnicity Crim. Just. 52 (2017)
“Research has shown little support for the enduring proposition that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. Although classical criminological and neoclassical economic theories would predict immigration to increase crime, most empirical research shows quite the opposite. We investigate the immigration-crime relationship among metropolitan areas over a 40 year period from 1970 to 2010. Our goal is to describe the ongoing and changing association between immigration and a broad range of violent and property crimes. Our results indicate that immigration is consistently linked to decreases in violent (e.g., murder) and property (e.g., burglary) crime throughout the time period.”

U.S. Immigration Policy: Chart Book of Key Trends (CRS 2016)
“This report is a chart book of selected immigration trends. Key immigration issues that Congress has considered in recent years include increased border security and immigration enforcement, expanded employment eligibility verification, reforms to the system for legal temporary and permanent immigration, and options to address the millions of unauthorized aliens residing in the country. The report offers snapshots of time series data, using the most complete and consistent time series currently available for each statistic. The key findings and elements germane to the data depicted are summarized with the figures. The summary offers the highlights of key immigration trends.”

Use of ICE Detainers: Obama vs. Trump (TRAC Report 2017)
“The latest case-by-case Immigration and Customs Enforcement data reveal that its use of detainers, commonly called immigration holds, began to increase last year well before either the election or inauguration of Donald Trump. Once President Trump assumed office, detainer usage rose rapidly. By March 2017, the second full month of the Trump Administration, ICE recorded preparing 13,971 detainers – up 31.7 percent from January’s level.”

What Happens If Mom and Dad Get Deported?, Observer, Mar. 27, 2017
“From 2003 to 2013, ICE deported up to 925,000 parents of U.S.-born children. In 2011, Race Forward, a liberal think tank, found that roughly 5,000 children with detained or deported parents had been placed in foster care nationwide — an alarming possibility for the already-overwhelmed Texas foster care system. ICE shifted policy in 2013, issuing a directive to safeguard parent-child rights; it could also exercise discretion in removing parents of minors. The agency has continued to deport parents, however. According to a 2016 congressional report, ICE deported nearly 15,500 parents of U.S.-born children in the second half of 2015. ICE will allow parents to make arrangements for their children “as practicable,” the agency said in a statement, offering them access to consular officials, lawyers and family members to help them through the process. Adelina Pruneda, an ICE spokesperson, told the Observer that parents must decide where their children will go next.”

What the Data Tells Us About Immigration and Terrorism, Brennan Center for Justice Blog, Feb. 17, 2017
“On January 27, President Donald Trump signed an executive order enacting a 90-day suspension of all visas for nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somali, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The asserted purpose of the order is to protect the United States from “terrorist attacks by nationals” under the pretext that “numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001.” This claim underlies the order’s indefinite bar on Syrian refugee admittance, 120-day bar of other refugees, and the 90-day travel ban affecting nationals from the seven Muslim countries listed above. An earlier version of the order which was leaked to the press stated that “hundreds of foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001.””

Where Are Immigrants with Immigration Court Cases Being Detained? (TRAC Immigration 2018)
“Nearly two out of every three immigrants who have been detained during Immigration Court proceedings during the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations were housed in just twenty-five counties out of the over three thousand counties in this country. This and other findings emerge from TRAC’s newly expanded online tool which provides Immigration Court details based on the immigrant’s address recorded in court records. Among these top 25 counties, Texas tops the list with 200,719 detainees in total who were housed across 6 counties, followed by California with 165,367 detainees who have been held at facilities in 4 counties. Together these 10 counties in just two states accounted for three out of every 10 detained immigrants since FY 2001. These counts include only immigrants who were detained until the court proceedings on their case ended, and excludes detainees who were originally detained but then subsequently released.”

Who Is Represented in Immigration Court? (TRAC Report 2017)
“Many factors impact the odds that an individual can obtain representation in Immigration Court. Using very recent case-by-case court records, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University has just completed a detailed analysis examining how the odds of representation varies with the particular court and hearing location, the nationality and custody status of the immigrant, and the length of time the person has been in the U.S. Cases are followed so the ultimate outcome of each case can be linked to whether the individual was represented or not. Among the highlights are the impact of nationality and detention status on whether or not persons obtain representation. Individuals from Mexico generally had the lowest representation rates, while those from China had the highest. Representation rates for detained individuals have ranged between roughly 10 and 30 percent, and after falling from 2000 – 2005, stabilized for several years before they began to steadily improve from 2009 onward, leveling out during 2015 – 2017 at slightly about 30 percent. Representation rates for those who were never detained in contrast have generally ranged between 60 and 80 percent.”

BOOKS

Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States (CUP 2007)
“Although America is unquestionably a nation of immigrants, its immigration policies have inspired more questions than consensus on who should be admitted and what the path to citizenship should be. In Americans in Waiting, Hiroshi Motomura looks to a forgotten part of our past to show how, for over 150 years, immigration was assumed to be a transition to citizenship, with immigrants essentially being treated as future citizens–Americans in waiting. Challenging current conceptions, the author deftly uncovers how this view, once so central to law and policy, has all but vanished. Motomura explains how America could create a more unified society by recovering this lost history and by giving immigrants more, but at the same time asking more of them. A timely, panoramic chronicle of immigration and citizenship in the United States, Americans in Waiting offers new ideas and a fresh perspective on current debates.”

Beyond Deportation: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases (NYU 2015)
“Beyond Deportation is the first book to comprehensively describe the history, theory, and application of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. It provides a rich history of the role of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration system and unveils the powerful role it plays in protecting individuals from deportation and saving the government resources. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia draws on her years of experience as an immigration attorney, policy leader, and law professor to advocate for a bolder standard on prosecutorial discretion, greater mechanisms for accountability when such standards are ignored, improved transparency about the cases involving prosecutorial discretion, and recognition of “deferred action” in the law as a formal benefit.”

Crimmigration Law (ABA 2015)
“Crimmigration law is simply too new to have gained widespread recognition until the last few years. Several recent law enforcement trends and judicial decisions, including U.S. Supreme Court cases, have drastically changed the legal landscape such that, today, crimmigration is developing into a distinct field of law and a palpable feature of law enforcement in communities throughout the country. This book is intended to provide readers with a fundamental understanding of this developing area of law. It includes case studies and “problem scenarios” that place the concepts discussed within each chapter in a real-world context in addition to “practice pointers” designed to give crimmigration lawyers and students of crimmigration law tips and techniques to help them implement the tools into their daily practice.” See also crImmigration (Blog).

Immigration & Consular Access Supplement (2nd ed. 2017) in A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual (11th ed. 2017)
“Immigration law has changed a lot in recent years and changes all the time. You should NOT assume that everything you read in this Chapter is up-to-date or accurate. You should ALWAYS make sure the laws mentioned here are correct. You can make sure the laws are correct by looking at the sources listed in Appendices A–D. You can find Appendices A–D at the end of the Chapter. Each immigration court case is different. An attorney might better understand important differences in your case and can help you with your case. So, it is ALWAYS best to consult with an attorney. If you do not have access to an attorney, you should ask a family member or trusted friend to consult with an agency listed in Appendix D. Appendix D can be found at the end of this Chapter. The agencies can help you get in touch with an attorney or some other professional who might be able to assist you with your immigration case. Many of the agencies listed in Appendix D provide free or low-cost legal services. This Chapter and its contents are not meant to replace the advice of an attorney.” Chapter I: The Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity and Chapter II: The Right to Consular Access.

Immigration Law and Crimes (Thomson Reuters)
“Written for both immigration and criminal law practitioners, Immigration Law and Crimes provides complete coverage of relevant law including statutory, judicial, and regulatory developments, emerging issues, practical guidance, and tactical considerations.” See App. A2 Bibliography.

Making Foreigners: Immigration and Citizenship Law in America, 1600–2000 (CUP 2017)
“This book reconceptualizes the history of U.S. immigration and citizenship law from the colonial period to the beginning of the twenty-first century by joining the histories of immigrants to those of Native Americans, African Americans, women, Asian Americans, Latino/a Americans and the poor. Parker argues that during the earliest stages of American history, being legally constructed as a foreigner, along with being subjected to restrictions on presence and movement, was not confined to those who sought to enter the country from the outside, but was also used against those on the inside. Insiders thus shared important legal disabilities with outsiders. It is only over the course of four centuries, with the spread of formal and substantive citizenship among the domestic population, a hardening distinction between citizen and alien, and the rise of a powerful centralized state, that the uniquely disabled legal subject we recognize today as the immigrant has emerged.”

Representing Immigrant Defendants in New York (Immigrant Defense Project 6th ed. 2017)
“Representing Immigrant Defendants in New York provides information about the foundations of crim-imm and strategies to avoid adverse immigration consequences in either criminal or immigration proceedings.”

REPORTS

Amnesty International Report 2017/18: The State of the World’s Human Rights (Amnesty International 2017)[45]
“The Amnesty International Report 2017/18 documents the state of the world’s human rights in 159 countries and territories during 2017. Conflict, austerity measures and natural disasters pushed many into deeper poverty and insecurity; millions were forced to flee their homes and seek refuge elsewhere in their own countries or across international borders. Discrimination remained rife in all regions of the world, and at times had deadly consequences for the victims. Governments of all persuasions continued to crack down on the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.”

Analysis: Undocumented Immigrants Not Linked with Higher Crime Rates, Governing, Mar. 2, 2017
“Decades of research largely dismiss the commonly-held belief that immigrants are disproportionately responsible for committing crimes. Numerous studies, in fact, suggest immigrants may play a role in slightly suppressing crime rates. Still, many Americans continue to associate immigration with out-of-control crime, perceiving the presence of foreigners as a public safety threat. Academic research examining immigration and crime has relied largely on foreign-born population totals as estimates for only undocumented immigrants are scarcely available. This has made distinguishing any effects of undocumented immigrants from the majority of those legally in the country difficult, leading some to maintain that the undocumented may yet pose significant public safety risks. Governing conducted an analysis to identify how this demographic, the subject of much of the current federal policy debate, may be associated with crime rates. We utilized recently published estimates from the Pew Research Center for “unauthorized immigrants,” a group that includes individuals crossing the border illegally or overstaying visas. Regression models compared these estimates to crime rates in 154 metro areas, controlling for several socioeconomic measures. Our analysis found a statistically significant correlation for unauthorized immigrant populations with slightly lower violent and property crimes rates, while no relationship was present for murder rates.”

Assumption of Risk: Legal Liabilities for Local Governments that Choose to Enforce Federal Immigration Laws (NIJC 2018)
“A joint report by attorneys from NIJC, American Immigration Council, American Immigration Lawyers Association, National Immigration Law Center, and Southern Poverty Law Center, Assumption of Risk: Legal Liabilities for Local Governments that Choose to Enforce Federal Immigration Laws, describes the legal liabilities local governments face when they honor ICE requests, known as “detainers,” to hold individuals past the completion of their criminal custody until immigration agents take them into administrative custody.”

Bad Trip: Debunking the TSA’s ‘Behavior Detection’ Program (ACLU 2017)
“Under the government’s “behavior detection” program, thousands of TSA officers at airports around the country watch passengers for behaviors that the TSA claims are associated with stress, fear, or deception. The officers then flag certain people for additional inspection and questioning. The program has long been criticized as unscientific, ineffective, and wasteful, and it has been blamed by passengers and TSA officers themselves for racial and religious profiling – but still it continues. This report, based on documents the ACLU obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, reveals that materials in TSA’s own files discredit this junk-science program.”

Boston’s Sanctuary City Protections: A Philosophical Perspective (Northeastern University 2017)
“Rather than re-brief the issues before the courts, this White Paper examines this controversy through the lens of philosophy, drawing on principles of human rights to consider what is at stake when the federal government seeks to confront and dismantle “safe communities.” To ground the discussion, we focus our analysis on Boston’s self-identified status as a sanctuary city. Notably, sanctuary city is not a legally defined term, but simply denotes a community that seeks to provide some sense of safety, or sanctuary, to otherwise law abiding undocumented immigrant residents. The terms “safe communities” and “cities of refuge” are also used to refer to such local jurisdictions. This White Paper proceeds in four parts. First, following this introduction, we set out the underlying principles of federalism relevant to this controversy. Second, we review Boston’s Sanctuary City policy, comparing its provisions to other sanctuary proposals, including a proposed Massachusetts state law. Third, grounded in philosophy, we examine why non-citizen residents within a territory have rights and the scope of those rights. Finally, we conclude that these philosophical and legal perspectives point in the same direction, indicating that safe community policies are necessary components of a legitimate State and should be strengthened.” See A Multi-College Research Team Examines “Sanctuary Cities” to Better Understand and Advance Community Resilience, Northeastern University News, Aug. 2, 2017.

Concerns about ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at Detention Facilities (OIG 2017)
“Our inspections of five detention facilities raised concerns about the treatment and care of ICE detainees at four of the facilities visited. Overall, we identified problems that undermine the protection of detainees’ rights, their humane treatment, and the provision of a safe and healthy environment. Although the climate and detention conditions varied among the facilities and not every problem was present at all of them, our observations, interviews with detainees and staff, and our review of documents revealed several issues. Upon entering some facilities, detainees were housed incorrectly based on their criminal history. Further, in violation of standards, all detainees entering one facility were strip searched. Available language services were not always used to facilitate communication with detainees. Some facility staff reportedly deterred detainees from filing grievances and did not thoroughly document resolution of grievances. Staff did not always treat detainees respectfully and professionally, and some facilities may have misused segregation. Finally, we observed potentially unsafe and unhealthy detention conditions. ”

Costs of Crimmigration: Exploring the Intersection Between Criminal Justice and Immigration (Justice Policy Institute 2017)
“Among heightened, negative rhetoric around immigration issues, current federal programs seek to entice localities to form immigration enforcement partnerships with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in exchange for additional federal funding. However, the cost to local jurisdictions when they partner with DHS goes well beyond what few dollars a community might get from the federal government, and often increases the already high criminal justice expenses localities are currently paying. In the Costs of Crimmigration: Exploring the Intersection Between Criminal Justice and Immigration, JPI highlights the mounting costs federal immigration policies have on local taxpayers through additional law enforcement deployment, increased spending on jail beds, lawsuits from residents, and losses to the labor force when noncitizens are removed from the community. While costing counties and cities more, immigration enforcement also undermines public safety as residents fear interacting with local law enforcement, and policing resources are deployed away from more effective crime prevention and enforcement activities. Read JPI’s interactive flipbook to learn more about how the negative financial and social impacts of federal immigration enforcement are much more significant than currently understood.”

Detained and Denied: Healthcare Access in Immigration Detention (NYLPI 2017)
“NYLPI’s Health Justice Program released a report today documenting the serious, often life-threatening, deficiencies in the medical care provided to people detained in New York City-area immigration detention facilities. The facilities, County jails that contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), regularly failed to provide adequate medical care to those who were detained, violating their constitutional rights. People confined to immigration detention have the right to adequate health care. Our work has shown that ICE and the County jails are delaying and denying necessary and essential care – leading to devastating health consequences such as emergency surgery, delayed cancer diagnoses and worsening conditions of treatable diseases and pain. We hope this report shines a light on this population, a population of people we can only presume will increase as ICE raids happen across the country and President Trump promises more deportations.” NYLPI Press Release, Feb. 15, 2017

Dismantle, Don’t Expand: The 1996 Immigration Laws (Immigrant Defense Project 2017)
“As the Trump administration seeks to further expand the multi-billion-dollar budget for deportations, the Immigrant Rights Clinic at the NYU School of Law and the Immigrant Justice Network have issued Dismantle, Don’t Expand: The 1996 Immigration Laws to provide policy-makers, advocates, and journalists with an accessible analysis of the 1996 Laws, the devastating human and fiscal impact their implementation has had on millions of Americans, and the argument for doing away with them.”

Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration (NAS 2016)
“The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration finds that the long-term impact of immigration on the wages and employment of native-born workers overall is very small, and that any negative impacts are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born high school dropouts. First-generation immigrants are more costly to governments than are the native-born, but the second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. This report concludes that immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.”

Evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (Vera Institute of Justice (2017)
“This study evaluates the impact of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP). NYIFUP is the nation’s first public defender system for immigrants facing deportation—defined as those in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Funded by the New York City Council since July 2014, the program provides a free attorney to almost all detained indigent immigrants facing deportation at Varick Street Immigration Court who are unrepresented at their first court appearances. This evaluation offers quantitative and qualitative analyses about the impact of government-funded counsel in New York City deportation proceedings on clients, their families, and the local economy.”

Extreme Vetting and the Muslim Ban (Brennan Center for Justice 2017)
“The White House’s three attempts at a travel ban and “extreme vetting” policies for certain visa applicants are part of an overall strategy for closing off the country to particular visitors, especially Muslims. This report identifies at least three key failings of Trump’s travel and vetting policies: their failure to enhance national security, engendered in part by the administration’s perhaps willful blindness to the fact that the U.S. already has one of the world’s most rigorous visitor screening systems; their discriminatory nature and reliance on unproven methodologies that target particular groups; and their real costs, including economic harm, to the American people.”

Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention (ACLU 2016)
“Egregious violations of ICE medical care standards played a prominent role in eight deaths in immigration detention facilities from 2010 to 2012. Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention, a report jointly produced by the American Civil Liberties Union, Detention Watch Network, and National Immigrant Justice Center, examines these deaths and the agency’s response to them. Our research shows that even though ICE conducted reviews that identified violations of medical standards as contributing factors in these deaths, routine ICE detention facility inspections before and after the deaths failed to acknowledge—or at times dismissed—these violations. Instead of forcing changes in culture, systems, and processes that could reduce future deaths, ICE’s deficient inspections system essentially swept the agency’s own death review findings under the rug.”

ICE Lies: Public Deception, Private Profit (National Immigrant Justice Center 2018)
“ICE Lies: Public Deception, Private Profit, a joint report by the National Immigrant Justice Center and Detention Watch Network, proposes that DHS’s patterns of irresponsible governance—including fiscal mismanagement and opacity in detention operations—contribute to a failure of accountability for its ongoing rights violations. Addressing these good governance concerns would not address all the problems in the system, or even the worst of them, but would constitute a critical first step toward oversight that has been sorely lacking on the part of Congress and independent oversight bodies like the DHS Office of Inspector General.”

Immigration Court’s Institutional Hearing Program: How Will It Be Affected (TRAC Report 2017)
“Special Immigration Court hearings under the court’s Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) appear slated for expansion under President Trump. A new directive, signed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on Monday, February 20, provides that “to the maximum extent possible” removal proceedings be initiated against noncitizens currently “incarcerated in federal, state, and local correctional facilities.” Such court removal proceedings are carried out through the Department of Justice’s Institutional Hearing Program within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Through this program, immigration judges determine whether noncitizens are deportable while they are still incarcerated and serving their sentence.”

Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers (Penn State Law 2017)
“Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers focuses on the conditions of two detention centers in the state of Georgia: The Stewart Detention Center (Stewart) and the Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin). This report is an update to one created in 2012 titled Prisoners of Profit.”

Integration of Immigrants into American Society (NAS 2015)
“The United States prides itself on being a nation of immigrants, and the country has a long history of successfully absorbing people from across the globe. The integration of immigrants and their children contributes to our economic vitality and our vibrant and ever changing culture. We have offered opportunities to immigrants and their children to better themselves and to be fully incorporated into our society and in exchange immigrants have become Americans – embracing an American identity and citizenship, protecting our country through service in our military, fostering technological innovation, harvesting its crops, and enriching everything from the nation’s cuisine to its universities, music, and art.”

Land of The Free, No Home to the Brave the Moral Cost of Deporting Vets (Tex. Civ. Rts Project 2018)
“This report analyzes the legal implications and human impact of placing veterans in so-called removal proceedings, the process under immigration law to deport or otherwise expel a person from this country. As the report shows, deporting noncitizen veterans harms not only the individual veterans put into these proceedings, but also the Texas communities in which they live, creating a social, economic, and moral disservice to both the veterans who served this country and the nation itself.”

Laws on Extradition of Citizens (LOC 2013)
“This chart covers extradition rules for citizens in 157 jurisdictions. Note that many countries will not extradite anyone for political crimes or will not extradite an individual to a country that imposes capital punishment. Those two restrictions were not considered in the making of this chart, as they generally apply to requests to extradite both citizens and foreigners.”

New Americans in San Diego (New American Economy 2018)
“San Diego’s growing immigrant population accounted for a quarter of all contributions to the local economy and paid billions in taxes, according to a study released Friday. The study, conducted by New American Economy – a nonpartisan research group that supports immigration reform to grow the economy – is part of the Welcoming San Diego Kickoff Summit, a partnership between the city, local chamber of commerce, economic development corporation and other organizations and advocacy groups aimed at better integrating immigrants and refugees into the community.” Study Quantifies Immigrant Contributions to San Diego Economy, Courthouse News, Feb. 3, 2018.

Overview of the Federal Government’s Power to Exclude Aliens (CRS 2017)
“The merits of these so-called “Travel Ban” cases raise significant questions about the extent to which the rights of U.S. citizens limit the executive power to exclude aliens. It seems relatively clear that, under existing jurisprudence, the “facially legitimate and bona fide” standard should govern the Establishment Clause claims against the revised executive order. However, Supreme Court precedent does not clarify whether that standard contains an exception that might permit courts to test the government’s proffered justification for an exclusion by examining the underlying facts in particular circumstances. Nor does Supreme Court precedent resolve whether the standard governs U.S. citizens’ statutory claims against executive exercise of the exclusion power, or even whether such statutory claims are cognizable. The outcome of the Travel Ban cases would likely turn upon these issues, if the Supreme Court were to decide the cases on the merits rather than on a threshold question such as mootness (a key issue in light of a presidential proclamation modifying the entry restrictions at issue in the cases).”

Promise of Sanctuary Cities and the Need for Criminal Justice Reforms in an Era of Mass Deportation (Fair Punishment Project 2017)
“This report is a collaboration between the Fair Punishment Project and the Immigrant Defense Project, with the support of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Together, we hope that our breadth of experience can help advance the conversation that has already started about the intersection between criminal justice and President Trump’s immigration policies. In this report, we first explain the various ways that non-citizens are trapped in the deportation web, starting with arrest. We then offer concrete form proposals that officials at every level of city and county government can implement. These reforms can lead to meaningful change that will protect immigrant communities and increase public safety. This is just the beginning of the dialogue and is by no means an exhaustive list—criminal justice reform is complicated—but we hope this report advances a necessary conversation with extraordinarily high stakes.”

Reception and Placement of Refugees in the United States (CRS 2017)
“The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), which is managed by the Department of State (DOS), resettles refugees from around the world in the United States. Under U.S. law, a refugee is a person fleeing his or her country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Once a refugee case is approved for U.S. resettlement, the USRAP determines where in the country the refugee(s) will be resettled. This determination is made through DOS’s Reception and Placement Program (R&P), which provides initial resettlement services to arriving refugees.”

Refuting Fear: Immigration, Youth, and California’s Stunning Declines in Crime and Violence (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2017)
“As California’s population moved from two-thirds white in 1980 to over 60 percent people of color today (Table 1), the state has seen dramatic reductions in crime in each category. Additionally, indicators of social health and safety—such as violence, violent death and school dropouts—have decreased significantly, and California has weathered the national opioid epidemic better than elsewhere in the country. As of 2015, the state’s total violent and property crime rate was 52 percent lower than in 1970, 61 percent lower than in 1980, and 54 percent lower than in 1990, much larger declines than the nation overall experienced during the same periods (DOJ, 2017; FBI 2017).”

Right to Counsel for Detained Migrants (LOC 2017)
“This report provides information on the laws of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Sweden, and the United Kingdom regarding the right to counsel for detained migrants. All countries included in the study allow detained migrants to be assisted by a lawyer. In Canada and Israel the authorities are required to inform detained migrants about their right to legal representation, and in France, Germany, and Sweden the right to counsel is considered a constitutional principle. In most of the countries, it is up to the migrant or asylum seeker to hire counsel; the government does not have an obligation to provide legal services to a person who entered the country without a valid visa or is subject to deportation. The United Kingdom appears to be the only country where legal counsel is provided by the government’s legal aid agency free of charge to all migrants in detention. Financial assistance may be requested by those migrants who cannot afford a lawyer at their own expense in France. In some countries, the provision of government-paid legal assistance depends on the specific circumstances. In Sweden, the government has an obligation to provide legal assistance to minors, and to some other migrants because of their needs. In Germany, a legal representative may be appointed by the court if the court deems it necessary. No country was found where the law would prevent a migrant from receiving assistance from volunteer lawyers or legal aid organizations funded by other than national budget sources. The details of each country’s governing laws are provided below, in alphabetical order.”

Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief (CRS 2017)
“This report examines the interplay between the federal government (i.e., ICE) and state and local jurisdictions in enforcing immigration law, with a specific focus on noncitizens who have been convicted of a crime. It explores federal resources available to state and local law enforcement agencies that cooperate with ICE to enforce immigration law. The report begins by briefly discussing the evolution of cooperation between the federal government and local law enforcement in carrying out federal immigration policy. It then discusses current administrative efforts to involve state and local law enforcement in enforcing immigration law. A brief discussion of resources dedicated to these efforts follows. The report concludes with a discussion of select issues and an analysis of possible policy approaches for Congress.”

State and Local “Sanctuary” Policies Limiting Participation in Immigration Enforcement (CRS 2015)
“This report discusses legal issues related to state and local measures that limit law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The report begins by providing a brief overview of the constitutional principles informing the relationship between federal immigration authorities and state and local jurisdictions, including the federal government’s power to preempt state and local activities under the Supremacy Clause, and the Tenth Amendment’s proscription against Congress directly “commandeering” the states to administer a federally enacted regulatory scheme. The report then discusses various types of measures adopted or considered by states and localities to limit their participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts, including (1) limiting police investigations into the immigration status of persons with whom they come in contact; (2) declining to honor federal immigration authorities’ requests that certain aliens be held until those authorities may assume custody; (3) shielding certain unlawfully present aliens from detection by federal immigration authorities; and (4) amending or applying state criminal laws so as to reduce or eliminate the immigration consequences that might result from an alien’s criminal conviction.”

Systemic Indifference: Dangerous & Substandard Medical Care in Immigration Detention (Human Rights Watch 2017)
“This report examines serious lapses in health care that have led to severe suffering and at times the preventable or premature death of individuals held in immigration detention facilities in the United States. The lapses occur in both publicly and privately run facilities, and have persisted despite some efforts at reform under the Obama administration, indicating that more decisive measures are urgently needed to improve conditions. At time of writing, it was unclear how the Trump administration would address the issue, but its pledge to sharply increase the number of immigrants subject to detention and reports it is also planning to roll back protections for immigrants in detention, raise serious concerns that the problems fueling the unnecessary suffering could grow even worse.”

Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues (CRS 2018)
“When civil unrest, violence, or natural disasters erupt in countries around the world, concerns arise over the ability of foreign nationals in the United States from those countries to safely return. Provisions exist in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to offer temporary protected status (TPS) and other forms of relief from removal under specified circumstances. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to issue TPS for periods of 6 to 18 months and can extend these periods if conditions leading to TPS designation do not change. Congress has also provided TPS legislatively. A foreign national who is granted TPS receives a registration document and employment authorization for the duration of a given TPS designation. The United States currently provides TPS to approximately 437,000 foreign nationals from 10 countries: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. TPS for Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone expired in May 2017, but certain Liberians maintain relief under an administrative mechanism known as Deferred Enforced Departure (DED). Since September 2017, the Secretary of Homeland Security has announced plans to terminate TPS for four countries—El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan—and extend TPS for South Sudan. No decision about Honduras was made by the statutory deadline in November 2017, thus automatically extending that country’s designation for six months. There is ongoing debate about whether migrants who have been living in the United States for long periods of time with TPS should receive a pathway to legal permanent resident (LPR) status. In addition, Venezuela’s political and economic strife have prompted some U.S. lawmakers to call for its designation for TPS.”

Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals: Legislative Options (CRS 2017)
“In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began granting deferred action through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to certain individuals without lawful immigration status who had arrived in the United States as children and met other requirements. The requirements included initial entry into the United States before age 16, continuous U.S. residence since June 15, 2007, and being under age 31 as of June 15, 2012. Deferred action provides protection against removal from the United States. Individuals granted deferred action also may receive work authorization. Initial grants of deferred action under DACA were for two years and could be renewed in two-year increments. As of March 31, 2017, DHS had approved 787,580 initial requests for DACA from applicants residing in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories. On September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration announced plans to terminate the DACA program. In a memorandum issued the same day, DHS explained that DACA would be phased out and that beneficiaries whose grants of deferred action were set to expire after March 5, 2018, would not be able to request a renewal. As a result, under the Administration’s plan, a beneficiary whose period of deferred action expires after March 5, 2018, will lose DACA protection on the expiration date. (For additional information, see CRS Report R44764, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Frequently Asked Questions, and CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1871, The End of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program: Some Immediate Takeaways.)”

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy (CRS 2018)
“Family reunification has historically been a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based immigration categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based immigration. The five categories include immediate relatives (spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents) of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant. . . . Long-standing debates over the level of annual permanent immigration regularly place scrutiny on family-based immigration and revive debates over whether its current proportion of total lawful permanent immigration is appropriate. Proposals to overhaul family-based immigration were made by two congressionally mandated commissions in 1980 and 1995-1997. More recent legislative proposals to revise family-based immigration include S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act in the 113th Congress and S. 1720, the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act in the 115th Congress.”

“What Kind of Miracle …” – The Systematic Violation of Immigrants’ Right to Counsel at the Cibola County Correctional Center (National Immigration Justice Center 2017)
“This report focuses on the Cibola County Correctional Center, a prison complex in rural New Mexico owned and operated by the private prison giant CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America)1 with the capacity to jail 1,100 immigrants facing deportation. Located far from any major urban center in a state with no immigration court, the prison has become a black hole of due process rights. The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) is particularly alarmed by the lack of meaningful access to counsel at the Cibola prison. Federal immigration law allows immigrants the right to counsel in deportation proceedings, but immigrants must locate and pay for it themselves. Immigrants detained in Cibola and many other immigration jails nationally are unable to avail themselves of this right because the capacity of nearby legal service organizations to provide representation is dwarfed by the need. An NIJC survey of legal service providers reveals that New Mexico and Texas immigration attorneys, at their maximum capacity, are only able to represent approximately 42 detained individuals at the Cibola prison at any given time — six percent of the jail’s population in April 2017. The due process violations occurring at Cibola and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) prisons are the latest consequences of the Trump administration’s scheme to jail so many immigrants, and in such remote locations, that their right to representation is rendered meaningless.”

Where You Live Impacts Ability to Obtain Representation in Immigration Court (TRAC Report 2017)
“If you happen to live in Honolulu, Hawaii then the odds are good that if an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent comes knocking at your door, you will be able to find an attorney to represent you – even an attorney who volunteers on a pro bono basis if you don’t have the money to hire one. Likewise, the odds of ending up with representation is particularly high if you live in Manteca, California or in Pontiac. Michigan. But you won’t be so fortunate if you reside in Roma-Los Saenz or Huntsville, Texas, or in Coral Springs-Margate, Florida, or even in Atlanta-Decatur, Georgia. These places rank among the worst in the proportion of their residents who have found an attorney in their proceedings before the Immigration Court.”

White Residents of Urban Sanctuary Counties Are Safer from Deadly Violence Than White Residents in Non-Sanctuary Counties (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2017)
“As the debate over U.S. immigration policy intensifies, sanctuary areas, which limit their assistance to federal immigration enforcement, have come under harsh criticism. In this new research report, CJCJ’s Senior Research Fellow, Mike Males, studies 68 large urban counties with various levels of ICE’s Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) compliance, to examine the impacts of sanctuary policies on public safety.”

SCHOLARLY ARTICLES

 

Abolishing Immigration Prisons, 97 B.U. L. Rev. 245 (2017)
“This Article is the first to argue that immigration imprisonment is inherently indefensible and should be abolished. The United States should instead adopt an alternative moral framework of migrants and migration that is grounded in history and attuned to human fallibility. Doing so will help discourage harmful immigration rhetoric steeped in myths of migrant criminality and will foster better understanding of migrants and their reasons for coming to the United States.”

Administrator-in-Chief, 69 Admin. L. Rev. 347 (2017)
“This Article provides a framework for understanding the role of the President as administrator-in-chief of the executive branch. President Obama, in the face of heated controversy around immigration, relied on executive action in his agencies to advance policy. Which of these policies is legitimate, and which are vulnerable to challenge, will determine the legacy of these policies. This Article posits that the extent to which the president takes steps to enhance the procedural legitimacy of agency actions strengthens the legacy of the policies when confronted with controversy over their substance. This emphasis on shoring up administrative procedure is a form of expertise that should be counted alongside traditional normative criteria such as political accountability, democratic participation, and efficiency. Institutional analysis of three immigration policies elucidates President Obama’s attempt to strengthen the procedural legitimacy of substantively contentious policies: deferred action for long-term undocumented immigrants, immigration detention for immigrants with criminal histories, and priority docketing of recently-arrived immigrants seeking asylum. Interviews with DHS officials and other policymakers shed light on the internal dynamics of agency policies. The Article concludes with prescriptions for safeguarding the conditions under which executive action in immigration can be defended and rethinking the conditions under which it cannot.”

Backpacking the Border: The Intersection of Drug and Immigration Prosecutions in a High Volume U.S. Court, 57 Brit. J. Criminology 112 (2015)
“Drawing from data obtained in a comparative study of US district courts’ criminal justice practices, this paper examines adjudication processing responses at the intersection of immigration and drug offences in a Southwestern federal district court, where the logic of immigration enforcement subsumes more traditional federal drug law enforcement. I [Mona Lynch] demonstrate how characteristics of ‘drug cases’ are constructed at this intersection in such a manner that they stand apart from the prototypical federal drug case, and more closely resemble criminal immigration cases. I argue that in this border jurisdiction, the prevailing adjudicatory logic is concerned with defendants’ status as unauthorized outsiders such that these defendants are barely distinguishable from immigration defendants in how their sentences are calculated and rhetorically justified.”

Common-Law Privilege to Protect State and Local Courts During the Crimmigration Crisis, 127 Yale L.J. F. 410 (2017)
“This essay examines the current impasse over courthouse immigration arrests. Part I briefly describes the “crimmigration” crisis that has been ongoing for three decades, and Part II situates the courthouse-arrest issue in that context, as the latest front in the federalism battle brought on by federal efforts to coopt local criminal justice systems to serve the immigration enforcement mission. Part III examines a longstanding common-law doctrine establishing a privilege against courthouse arrests, and Part IV suggests this common-law privilege gives states and localities the authority needed to break the current impasse.”

Crimmigration: The Missing Piece of Criminal Justice Reform, 51 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1093 (2016-2017)
“Over the last decade, a new push for criminal justice reform has taken hold. While the moral and fiscal costs have been exorbitant over the last forty years, failing state budgets and bipartisan recognition of the “broken” system have finally caused legislatures, politicians, and advocates to reassess the costs and benefits of the criminal justice system. Breaking the “tough on crime/soft on crime” binary, the “smart on crime” motto has become a helpful tool in reform efforts aimed at reducing the number of individuals incarcerated and ensuring its fairness, regardless of race and socioeconomic status. Little attention, however, has been given to the criminal justice system’s shifting focus to noncitizens, targeted as “criminal aliens.” Notwithstanding that the interrelationship between the immigration and criminal justice system raises similar concerns about race, racial profiling, severity in sentencing, hyper-incarceration and cost, it has been largely overlooked as a significant component of the criminal justice system and its reform efforts. This Article discusses this failure. By recognizing the role that the criminal-immigration relationship, also known as crimmigration, plays within the criminal justice system, advocates, politicians, and scholars can enter into a dialogue on criminal justice reform that recognizes its true impact and establish better mechanisms for criminal justice reform that will attack the changing structure of the criminal justice system in the 21st century. Without taking into account its expanding focus, successful reform will not only fail but also exacerbate the issues it alleges to combat.”

Criminalizing Immigration, SSRN (2017) in 1 Reforming Criminal Justice (Erik Luna ed., 2017)
“Over the past two decades, criminal justice systems at both the federal and the state level have been repurposed to serve immigration enforcement goals. Many significant problems in the criminal justice system have been both mirrored in and amplified by this criminalization of immigration. Generous immigration reform and the decriminalization of many migration-related offenses are needed to address the resulting problems comprehensively. But more limited reforms within state and federal criminal enforcement systems can help mitigate some of the biggest problems in the current system. This chapter recommends that all law enforcement agencies develop legal guidelines and training that discourage reliance on racial profiling in immigration policing, that states and localities prioritize their own state public safety goals over cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts when such efforts undermine those goals, and that state and local laws and practices be revised so as to send appropriate signals of leniency to immigration adjudicators and enforcement agents.”

Due Process Abroad, 112 Nw. U. L. Rev. 377 (2017)
“Up to now, scholars have uniformly concluded that the founding generation did not understand due process to apply abroad, at least not to aliens. This Article challenges that consensus. Based on the English historical background, constitutional structure, and the early practice of federal law enforcement on the high seas, this Article argues that the founding generation understood due process to apply to any exercise of federal law enforcement, criminal or civil, against any person, anywhere in the world. Outside the context of war, no one believed that a federal officer could deprive a suspect of life, liberty, or property without due process of law—even if the capture occurred abroad or the suspect was a non-citizen. This history has important implications. It strongly supports the extension of due process to federal criminal and civil law enforcement, regardless the suspect’s location or citizenship. This principle has immediate implications for cross-border shootings, officially sponsored kidnappings and detentions abroad, the suspension of immigration benefits, and the acquisition of foreign evidence for criminal defendants.”

Family Reunification and the Security State, 42 Const. Comment. 247 (2017)
“The right to family unity and the government’s power over immigration have had a shifting and complex relationship to one another. This essay traces the history of this relationship, exploring the major shifts and upheavals. It argues that family rights and the federal immigration power have had three very different relationships over time. In the first period, family rights were robust but extra-constitutional, a bedrock assumption of how American democracy operated. Regardless of whether the nation was in a mode of conquest and expansion (and therefore encouraged migration), or in a mode of restriction (actively circumscribing immigration), family relationships were assumed by courts, administrators, and citizens to be important enough that they could override the state’s interest in regulating its borders. In the second period, which began roughly with the quota system in the 1920s and continued roughly through the 1980s, courts shifted to conceiving family rights and the immigration power as conflicting with one another, and when pressed they usually found that the government’s interest in restricting immigration and protecting its borders outweighed the interests of individual families in reuniting. Most recently, as family law itself has become “constitutionalized,” a new understanding is emerging, whereby individual family members have a constitutionally protected interest in their relationships, and the state’s national security and border regulation interests are recognized still as significant but must be balanced with these interests.”

Five Steps to a Better U: Improving the Crime-Fighting Visa, SSRN (2018)
“Congress created the U nonimmigrant status to assist noncitizen victims of serious crime and to encourage them to assist law enforcement in the investigation of that crime. Despite these laudable goals, the process has been flawed since the outset. U visas were capped at 10,000 per year, eventually precipitating a multi-year backlog that diminishes the incentive to report crime for persons who fear deportation. Of particular importance, the willingness of law enforcement officers to provide a certification of helpfulness — a mandatory component of an application for U status — varies tremendously across agencies. Eligibility for U status is thus a matter of “geographic roulette.” New policies implemented under the Trump Administration threaten this already fraught scheme. In particular, the Department of Homeland Security has reinvigorated cooperative enforcement agreements with state and local police and expanded removal priorities to include those merely charged or suspected of criminal activity. These developments mean that undocumented victims of serious crime expose themselves to significant risk of deportation when they involve the police. When crime is unreported, perpetrators may remain at large, free to offend again. Particularly in domestic violence situations, survivors and their families remain vulnerable to further harm. Ironically, these results conflict with another stated initiative of the Trump Administration: fighting crime. This symposium essay offers five concrete reforms that would ameliorate the problems hampering the effectiveness of the U visa.”

Immigrant Protective Policies in Criminal Justice, 95 Tex. L. Rev. 245 (2016)
“The increasing focus of federal immigration enforcement on persons accused of crimes has hastened the creation of local criminal justice policies that govern the treatment of immigrants. In this Article, I [Ingrid V. Eagly] report my findings from public records requests sent to prosecutor offices, city police departments, and county sheriffs in four large counties in California: Alameda, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and Ventura. I analyze the text of three types of written criminal justice policies that emerged in every county: (1) police policies that prohibit inquiry into immigration violations during routine policing; (2) prosecutor policies that consider deportation penalties in negotiating pleas for low-level offenders; and (3) sheriff policies that reject certain federal requests to detain immigrants in their jails for deportation purposes. All of these policies function to protect at least some immigrants who come into contact with the criminal justice system from possible deportation. Yet, close analysis of these policies — which I refer to as “immigrant protective policies” — also reveals key differences in how these protections are structured and, hence, in which immigrants are covered by these policies. In short, some policies are more protective than others.

This Article argues that the protective gaps in these local policies have evolved against a backdrop of an incomplete set of organizing principles for advancing such policies. The justifications most often put forth by advocates, scholars, and policymakers in favor of protective criminal justice policies are community policing, immigrant integration, and budgetary constraints. Each of these justifications, while important, has supplied only a partial framework for formulating criminal justice policy that decouples local policing and prosecuting from federal immigration enforcement priorities. To help guide the development of next-generation protective policies, which will be particularly crucial to pro-immigrant states and localities during the administration of President-elect Donald Trump, this Article explores an alternative justification for immigrant protective policies — immigrant equality. Immigrant equality seeks to insulate noncitizens from harsher forms of punishment, racial and ethnic profiling, and other substantive and procedural distortions that immigration enforcement imposes on criminal cases involving noncitizens. To illustrate how adherence to a norm of immigrant equality would further refine and shape next-generation protective policies, this Article applies the approach to current criminal justice issues facing localities around the country.”

Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Contentious Issues, 1:1 Ann. Rev. Criminology 63 (2018)
“Are immigration and crime related? This review addresses this question in order to build a deeper understanding of the immigration-crime relationship. We synthesize the recent generation (1994 to 2014) of immigration-crime research focused on macrosocial (i.e., geospatial) units using a two-pronged approach that combines the qualitative method of narrative review with the quantitative strategy of systematic meta-analysis. After briefly reviewing contradictory theoretical arguments that scholars have invoked in efforts to explain the immigration-crime relationship, we present findings from our analysis, which (a) determined the average effect of immigration on crime rates across the body of literature and (b) assessed how variations in key aspects of research design have impacted results obtained in prior studies. Findings indicate that, overall, the immigration-crime association is negative—but very weak. At the same time, there is significant variation in findings across studies. Study design features, including measurement of the dependent variable, units of analysis, temporal design, and locational context, impact the immigration-crime association in varied ways. We conclude the review with a discussion of promising new directions and remaining challenges in research on the immigration-crime nexus.”

Inclusive Immigrant Justice: Racial Animus and the Origins of Crime-Based Deportation, SSRN (2017)
“The merger of immigration and criminal law has transformed both systems, amplifying the flaws in each. In critiquing this merger, most scholarly accounts begin with legislative changes in the 1980s and 1990s that vastly expanded criminal grounds of deportation and eliminated many forms of discretionary relief. As a result of these changes, immigrant communities have experienced skyrocketing rates of detention and deportation, with a disparate impact on people of color. Despite increasing awareness of the harshness of the modern system, however, many people still view criminal records as a relatively neutral mechanism for identifying immigrants as priorities for detention and deportation. Drawing on the early history of crime-based deportation, this essay argues that criminal records have never been a neutral means for prioritizing immigrants for detention and deportation from the United States. Rather, as this essay sets forth, racial animus has driven the creation and development of crime-based deportation from the beginning.”

Invisible Adjudication in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 106 Geo. L.J. ___ (forthcoming 2017)
“Non-precedent decisions are the norm in federal appellate courts, and are seen by judges as a practical necessity given the size of their dockets. Yet the system has always been plagued by doubts. If only some decisions are designated to be precedents, questions arise about whether courts might be acting arbitrarily in other cases. Such doubts have been overcome in part because nominally unpublished decisions are available through standard legal research databases. This creates the appearance of transparency, mitigating concerns that courts may be acting arbitrarily. But what if this appearance is an illusion? This Article reports empirical data drawn from a study of immigration appeals showing that many – and in a few circuits, most – decisions by the federal courts of appeals are in fact unavailable and essentially invisible to the public. The Article reviews the reasons why non-publication is a practical, constitutional and philosophical challenge for judges. It argues that the existence of widespread invisible adjudication calls for a re-thinking of the way courts operate and the way scholars study them.”

Legal Attitudes of Immigrant Detainees, 51 Law & Soc’y Rev. 99 (2017)
“A substantial body of research shows that people’s legal attitudes can have wide-ranging behavioral consequences. In this paper, I [Emily Ryo] use original survey data to examine long-term immigrant detainees’ legal attitudes. I find that the majority of detainees express a felt obligation to obey the law, and do so at a significantly higher rate than other U.S. sample populations. I also find that the detainees’ perceived obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities is significantly related to their evaluations of procedural justice, as measured by their assessments of fair treatment while in detention. This finding remains robust controlling for a variety of instrumental and detainee background factors, including the detainees’ experiences with the legal system and legal authorities in their countries of origin. Finally, I find that vicarious procedural justice evaluations based on detainees’ assessments of how others are treated are as important to detainees’ perceived obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities as their personal experiences of fair or unfair treatment. I discuss the broader implications of these findings and their contributions to research on procedural justice and legal compliance, and research on legal attitudes of noncitizens.”

Making Noncitizens’ Rights Real: Evidence from Legal Services Fraud Complaints, SSRN (2017)
“What are the factors associated with noncitizens claiming the rights of territorial membership? Noncitizens applying for immigration benefits such as green cards and employment authorization encounter a bureaucratic labyrinth. Limited information, costly fees, and fear of coming out of the shadows create incentives to defraud immigrants. The federal government (Federal Trade Commission, FTC) tracks immigration legal services crime. In the first empirical study of legal services crime targeting immigrants, this paper explores the county level determinants of legal service fraud complaints submitted to the federal government. Claims to justice emerge in locations where immigrant integration efforts have taken hold. This paper focuses on two proxies for integration: the social safety net and nonprofit legal aid services. Results suggest FTC reports of immigration scams are concentrated in counties with above-average food stamp use among Hispanic households and legal aid services for immigrants, net of other factors.”

National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2015-2016)
“This Article presents the results of the first national study of access to counsel in United States immigration courts. Drawing on data from over 1.2 million deportation cases decided between 2007 and 2012, we find that only 37% of all immigrants, and a mere 14% of detained immigrants, secured representation. Only 2% of immigrants obtained pro bono representation from nonprofit organizations, law school clinics, or large law firm volunteer programs. Barriers to representation were particularly severe in immigration courts located in rural areas and small cities, where almost one-third of detained cases were adjudicated. Moreover, we find that immigrants with attorneys fared far better: among similarly situated removal respondents, the odds were fifteen times greater that immigrants with representation, as compared to those without, sought relief, and five-and-a-half times greater that they obtained relief from removal. In addition, we show that involvement of counsel was associated with certain gains in court efficiency: represented respondents brought fewer unmeritorious claims, were more likely to be released from custody, and, once released, were more likely to appear at their future deportation hearings. This research provides an essential data-driven understanding of immigration representation that should inform discussions of expanding access to counsel.”

“Prison Is a Prison Is a Prison”: Mandatory Immigration Detention and the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 522 (2015)
“While there can be little doubt that Padilla represents a watershed moment in the Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, it is also not obvious that in laying down a rule governing standards for the effective assistance of counsel, the Court would have understood itself to be expanding the scope of the underlying right. Both the Supreme Court and lower courts have in some circumstances found a right to the effective assistance of counsel even in the absence of an underlying right to the appointment of counsel. Standing alone, therefore, Padilla is unlikely to provide a solid foundation upon which to erect a universal right to the appointment of counsel for noncitizens facing criminal charges that may result in deportation. There is, however, another aspect of the modern immigration enforcement regime that arguably provides a sounder basis for such a right: mandatory detention. Because the INA mandates that nearly all noncitizens who are deportable because of criminal convictions — even for extremely minor crimes — be detained during the pendency of their deportation proceedings, those criminal convictions do, for all practical purposes, result in the “actual imprisonment” required by Scott. As a result, while deportation is often “the most important part . . . of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen” criminal defendants, it is detention that provides the most promising basis for expanding the right to the appointment of counsel. Though the Court has previously characterized immigration detention as “civil” or “regulatory” rather than criminal, this Note argues that the Court should recognize that, in the words of one scholar, “a prison is a prison is a prison.” Immigration detention should thus satisfy Scott and provide the basis for a Sixth Amendment right to counsel.”

Producing Liminal Legality, 92 Denv. U. L. Rev. 709 (2014-2015)
“Inside and outside of the sphere of immigration law, liminal legal statuses are proliferating. These legal categories function simultaneously as a means to effectuate administrative resource conservation through community-oriented risk management strategies and as a form of “preservation through transformation” that enable governmental actors to reassert and maintain control over populations identified as risky in ways that do not trigger the rights-protective schemes that evolved both internationally and domestically in the mid-Twentieth Century. This Article uses the existing literature on liminal legal subjects as a starting point for understanding and critiquing the legal mechanisms that produce liminal legality.”

Promise and Failure of Silence as a Shield Against Immigration Enforcement, SSRN (2018)
“When confronted by law enforcement, criminal suspects’ most powerful, and constitutionally protected tool has been silence. The right to remain silent has become ingrained into our shared understanding of criminal law, but its potential use in immigration enforcement remained largely untested, even as legal advocates regularly tell the public to remain silent when encountering immigration enforcement officials. This paper examines the potential force of silence in protecting people from immigration enforcement and concludes that it is unlikely to have a significant impact on immigration detention without a corresponding change in how people view their immigration status. As long as immigration status continues to be viewed by citizens and non-citizens alike as potentially relevant identifiers, the power of silence to protect against deportation will remain weak.”

Promise of a Subject-Centered Approach to Understanding Immigration Noncompliance, 5 J. on Migration & Hum. Sec. 285 (2017)
“Unauthorized immigrants and immigration enforcement are once again at the center of heated public debates and reform agendas. This paper examines the importance of applying a subject-centered approach to understanding immigration noncompliance and to developing effective, ethical, and equitable immigration policies. In general, a subject-centered approach focuses on the beliefs, values, and perceptions of individuals whose behavior the law seeks to regulate. This approach has been widely used in non-immigration law contexts to produce a richer and more nuanced understanding of legal noncompliance. By contrast, the subject-centered approach has been an overlooked and underappreciated tool in the study of immigration noncompliance. This paper argues that a subject-centered understanding of why people obey or disobey the law has the potential to generate new insights that can advance public knowledge and inform public policy on immigration in a number of important ways. Specifically, the paper considers how the use of this approach might help us: (1) recognize the basic humanity and moral agency of unauthorized immigrants, (2) appreciate not only direct and immediate costs of immigration enforcement policies, but also their indirect and long-term costs, and (3) develop new and innovative strategies for achieving desired policy goals.”

Providing Driver’s Licenses to Unauthorized Immigrants in California Improves Traffic Safety, PNAS Early Edition (Mar. 3, 2017)
“The integration of immigrants presents a major challenge for policymakers in the United States. In an effort to improve integration, several US states recently have implemented laws that provide driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants. These new laws have sparked widespread debate, but we lack evidence on the traffic safety impact of these policies. We examine the short-term effects of the largest-scale policy shift, California’s Assembly Bill 60 (AB60), under which more than 600,000 licenses were issued in the first year of implementation in 2015 alone. We find that, contrary to concerns voiced by opponents of the law, AB60 has had no discernible short-term effect on the number of accidents. The law primarily allowed existing unlicensed drivers to legalize their driving. We also find that, although AB60 had no effect on the rate of fatal accidents, it did decrease the rate of hit and run accidents, suggesting that the policy reduced fears of deportation and vehicle impoundment. Hit and run behaviors often delay emergency assistance, increase insurance premiums, and leave victims with significant out of pocket expenses. Overall, the results suggest that AB60 provides an example of how states can facilitate the integration of immigrants while creating positive externalities for the communities in which they live.”

Punishment, Citizenship and Identity: An Introduction, 16(3) Criminology & Crim. Just. 257 (2016)
“This collection of articles addresses the interconnections between punishment, citizenship and identity. As immigration and crime control measures have intersected, prisons in a number of countries have ended up housing a growing population of foreign-national offenders and immigration detainees. It is somewhat surprising that criminologists have traditionally spent so little time exploring the relationship between the prison and national identity. With notable exceptions, scholars almost universally treat the prison as an institution bounded by and within the nation-state. This special issue seeks to disrupt that convention of prison studies and criminology more broadly. Focusing on the incarceration of foreign nationals in diverse contexts, the contributions to this issue collective argue that the prison is a projection of national sovereignty and an expression of state power. It is also a concrete space where global inequalities play out. When considered through the lens of citizenship, our understanding of imprisonment shifts to include other geographical sites both within the nation-state and elsewhere, the prison’s intersections with other legal frameworks, and enduring matters of race, gender and class. The contributions capture these dimensions by weaving together policy analysis and first-hand narratives from around the world.”

Rights of Aliens Under the United States Constitution: At the Border and Beyond, SSRN (2017)
“This article describes the intricacies of U.S. constitutional law on the rights of aliens. It identifies three general tendencies that bear on recognition of these rights: status as a citizen or alien, and if the latter, what status under the immigration laws; where the activity violating the right took place, either inside, outside, or at the border of the U.S.; and the text and nature of the right, including its recognition in other countries. None of these factors yield a determinate answer to every case involving rights of aliens (or citizens for that matter), but they do organize the complex web of constitutional decisions on these issues. Those complexities have been most controversial in recent years in cases involving immigration and the war on terror. The lesson to be drawn from these cases is that the strength of constitutional rights, especially in the international context, depends on the actions by the political branches to make those rights truly effective. The article concludes by examining how, even in this limited role, constitutional rights might operate to check the immigration orders recently issued by President Trump.”

The Ten Parts of ‘Illegal’ in ‘Illegal Immigration’ That I Do Not Understand, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. Online 43 (2017)
“Many who support immigration enforcement measures will justify their position by asking what part of illegal in illegal immigration do you not understand? This essay provides ten answers to that question. The term “illegal immigrant” is without legal meaning, sweeping in both undocumented immigrants and legal immigrants who commit violations, including violations which may be minor or unintentional. The presumption that some immigrants are worthy of status while others are not distracts us from appreciating that our enforcement-only immigration policies are irrational, expensive, and detrimental to our long-term interests. For over 20 years, ever since President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, we have pursued immigration enforcement at the expense of legalizing the status of those who are contributing to our society. We have done so by demonizing immigrants in general and those whom we call “illegal immigrants” in particular. But who is illegal and who is legal is not a matter of character or an ability to follow the rules—it is a matter of pure luck, based on what the current law is. Immigrants have not changed, but our laws most certainly have. Instead of following common sense rules that allow parents of citizen children, veterans, and tax payers to remain and continue to give—which is what the old immigration law provided—we have been pursuing policies that harm our short-term economic interests, long-term economic interests, and the very fabric of society. The test of character is not for those who can or cannot follow these new arbitrary rules, but for a society that elects to enact irrational and costly policies.”

Transforming Crime-Based Deportation, 92 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 698 (2017)
“Why not rid the United States of criminal noncitizens and the disorder they cause? Because, scholars urge, immigrants reduce crime rates, deporting noncitizens with criminal convictions costs far more than it is worth, and discarding immigrants when they become inconvenient is wrong. Despite the force of these responses, reform efforts have made little headway. Crime-based deportation appears entrenched. Can it be transformed, rather than modified at the margins? Transformation is possible, but only if crime-based deportation is reenvisioned as the prerogative of local governments. National transformation, this Article shows, is a dead end. When the problem of immigrant crime is digested at the national level, under the rubric of “the national interest”—where noncitizen interests do not count by definition — there are numerous “rational” reasons why a self-interested citizenry would want to deport noncitizens, even for minor crimes. Additionally, whatever rational reasons exist are exaggerated by the national media, which gives the rare violent crime committed by an immigrant outsized national attention. The danger posed by this distorted media reality was highlighted by Donald Trump throughout his campaign for president. Trump’s establishment of an office to publicize crimes committed by deportable noncitizens will make the problem more acute. Local governments, by contrast, can be more concrete, flexible, and pragmatic; they are apt to think in terms of residents and community, rather than citizen versus alien. Local residents think about neighbors, classmates, and fellow churchgoers, and the economic and social contributions of noncitizens who run afoul of the law loom larger in the local calculus than the national one. Were local governments granted responsibility for crime-based deportation, the humanity, value, and membership of immigrants who commit crimes would be more likely to enter the conversation about appropriate responses, helping to transform crime-based deportation.”

Understanding ‘Sanctuary Cities’, SSRN (2017)
“In the wake of Trump’s election, a growing number of local jurisdictions around the country have sought to disentangle their criminal justice system from federal immigration enforcement initiatives. These localities have embraced a series of reforms that protect immigrants from deportation when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. In response, President Trump and his administration have labeled these jurisdictions “sanctuary cities” and promised to “end” them by cutting off federal funding. This Article is a collaborative project authored by law professors specializing in the intersection between immigration and criminal law. In it, we set forth the central features of the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans and his recently-announced campaign to “crack down” on “sanctuary cities.” We then outline the diverse ways in which localities have sought to protect their residents from deportation by refusing to participate in the Trump immigration agenda. Such initiatives include limiting compliance with immigration detainers, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing immigration agents from accessing local jails. Finally, we [Christopher N. Lasch et al.] analyze the legal and policy justifications for sanctuary that local jurisdictions have advanced with increasing intensity since Trump’s election. These insights have important implications for how sanctuary cities are understood and preserved in the age of Trump. As a complement to this Article, we have created a public online library of sanctuary policies that includes all the policies cited here and many more we considered in our research.”

NEWS ARTICLES

5 Hypotheticals That Show How Complicated the Travel Ban Case Is, Nat’l L.J., May 8, 2017
“In taking their first crack at President Donald Trump’s immigrant travel ban Monday, judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit resorted to hypothetical situations to make up for a lack of precedent when forming their questions. The judges and lawyers repeatedly turned to hypothetical situations throughout the roughly two-hour en banc hearing to formulate their points on Trump’s second version of the order. What if Trump apologized? What if someone else was elected and signed the executive order? What if Trump targeted Israel? The judges added that the complicated nature of the case was compounded by a lack of precedent to draw from. The revised order bans entry by immigrants from six majority-Muslim countries. Plaintiffs include refugee and Muslim rights organizations, as well as individuals affected by the order, mostly those with loved ones in the six targeted countries. Here’s a rundown of the key hypotheticals that came up in Monday’s hearing, most of which came from the conservative judges.”

13 States Back Trump’s Travel Ban in Court Filing, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 28, 2017
“A group of 13 states have come out in support of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban [text]. Twelve state attorneys general and one governor filed a brief [text, PDF] with the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] Monday stating that the president lawfully acted in the interest of national security. The states claim that the action is not a “pretext for religious discrimination” and does not violated the constitution. The states, which include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and West Virginia, argue that: The Executive Order’s temporary pause in entry by nationals from six countries and in the refugee program neither mentions any religion nor depends on whether affected aliens are Muslim. Thus, the Executive Order is emphatically not a “Muslim Ban.””

50 ACLU Affiliates Seek Information on Immigration Order’s Enforcement, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 3, 2017
“Fifty American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] affiliates filed [press release] 18 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [text, PDF] requests on Thursday with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) [official website] to find out how administration officials are interpreting and executing the U.S. immigration executive order. Border Litigation Project Staff Attorney with ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties Mitra Ebadolahi says, “It is imperative that the public learn if federal immigration officials are blatantly defying nationwide federal court orders that block President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban.” According to various news reports, CBP officials are detaining and deporting individuals although federal courts have ordered them to stop enforcing [press release] the executive order [text]. The immigration order signed by President Donald Trump administration is reportedly being executed at more than 55 international airports across the country.”

9th Circuit Finds Juvenile Facing Deportation Has No Right to Free Lawyer, ABA J., Jan. 29, 2018
“A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a minor brought to the United States with his mother from Central America has no right to a court-appointed lawyer in immigration proceedings. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found no due process or statutory right to a government-funded lawyer for the Honduran youth. The decision upheld a deportation order, Reuters reports. Though minors are entitled to heightened protection in removal proceedings, legal precedent does not “include any suggestion that the government should foot the bill for counsel,” the 9th Circuit said in a decision by Judge Consuelo Callahan.” See also Federal Appeals Court Rules Alien Minors Do Not Have Right to Court-Appointed Counsel, Paper Chase (Jurist), Jan. 30, 2018

9th Circuit Lets Stand Restraining Order Against Trump Travel Ban, ABA J., Feb. 9, 2017
“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to reinstate President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries. The decision (PDF) released Thursday afternoon says the three-judge panel is “mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides.” However, the court said, the federal government has not demonstrated that it’s likely to succeed when the full case is heard.” See also Federal Appeals Court Upholds Stay Blocking Trump Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 9, 2017.

A Day in the “Assembly-Line” Court That Prosecutes 70 Border Crossers in 2 Hours, Mother Jones, July 21, 2017
“On a scorching June morning, nearly 50 immigration detainees shackled at the feet, the waist, and the wrists shuffle into the federal courthouse in Tucson, Arizona. Inside the courtroom, they sit down in rows of seven. Some are in street clothes, others in blue jumpsuits. They’ve all been strip-searched before reaching the courthouse. They’ll be strip-searched again after being sentenced. Many will be strip-searched once again before they get to the federal prison where they will serve their sentences before being deported. The men are here to be funneled through Operation Streamline (OSL), a fast-track prosecution program that charges and sentences as many as 70 border crossers in this courtroom in a single day. They have agreed to plead guilty to the crime of entering the United States illegally, knowing that it carries a predetermined prison sentence followed by mandatory deportation. Typically, the whole process is over within a couple of hours. Critics call it “assembly-line justice.””

ABA Groups Build Rapid-Response Website to Help Respond to Trump Immigration Order, ABA J., Feb. 6, 2017
“[T]he Futures Initiative and the Center for Innovation created ImmigrationJustice.us, a portal for attorneys and others responding to the executive order. People interested in volunteering their legal or language expertise can sign up there to work on behalf of affected immigrants. Attorneys and members of the public can also find information there on the travel ban and other immigration-related issues, such as habeas corpus and detention. The site also provides resources for attorneys working on those issues and more. AILA has already taken up the website, Walters says, and it is further customizing it.”

ABA House Urges President Trump to Withdraw Travel Ban, ABA J., Feb. 6, 2017
“The ABA House of Delegates today passed a resolution urging that the executive branch ensure that any executive orders concerning border security, immigration enforcement and terrorism be within the bounds of laws, treaties and other agreements, and to facilitate a just system for adjudicating various requests for entry into the country as well as ensuring protections for refugees. Further, Resolution 10C (PDF) urges President Donald Trump to withdraw his executive order issued Jan. 27, titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” and that as long as it remains in effect, he ensure full, prompt and uniform compliance with court orders concerning it. A companion resolution—Resolution 10B (PDF)—also passed, reaffirming the ABA’s support for laws, policies and practices to ensure access to legal protections for refugees, asylum seekers, torture victims and others similarly deserving of humanitarian refuge. It urges Congress to make new laws and provide adequate funding for refugee applications, and legislatively create timely, individualized assessment of their cases, without banning otherwise eligible individuals on the basis of national origin or religion.”

ABA President Says Harsh Treatment of Noncriminal Immigrants Undermines American Values, ABA J., Feb. 14, 2018
“ABA President Hilarie Bass has issued a statement on behalf of the ABA condemning federal immigration officers’ harsh treatment of immigrants who entered the United States without authorization. “While the country needs to protect its borders, enforce laws and ensure the safety of citizens, such callous treatment of individuals, whose only transgressions are immigration violations, undermines the nation’s values,” the statement says. “Taking people off the street, refusing them the opportunity to say goodbye or inform their families about why they have disappeared are not the actions of a democratic society and do not represent the values of most Americans.””

ABA Urges DOJ to Continue Allowing Immigration Judges to Close Appropriate Cases, ABA J., Feb. 20, 2018
“The American Bar Association has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Department of Justice, urging it not to revoke immigration judges’ ability to administratively close cases. The brief was filed in response to a call by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions for comment on the matter, after he referred a case on administrative closure to himself. (Sessions has that power because the immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice, not an independent body.) Sessions asked the parties and amici to weigh in on whether the immigration judges have the authority to administratively close a case, and if not, whether he should grant them that power.”

ACLU and Other Groups Ask for Emergency Hearing on the Muslim Ban from International Human Rights Body, ACLU News, Feb. 8, 2017
“This week, the ACLU and the International Resource Justice Center, along with more than 40 other groups, sent an urgent letter to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requesting an emergency hearing on likely violations of U.S. commitments under the charter of the Organization of American States and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. The commission — a human rights instrument tasked with monitoring and protecting human rights across the Americas — has a particular interest and stake in this case. Not only is the executive order intended to lock out tens of thousands of migrants from the seven majority-Muslim countries named, but the order’s sweeping ban on refugees also bars entry to Central American children fleeing violence in countries including Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. The order recklessly and gratuitously endangers the lives of these unaccompanied children.”

ACLU Files New Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 8, 2017
“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a federal lawsuit [complaint, PDF] on Tuesday challenging President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order [executive order] restricting immigration. The ACLU claims [press release] that the ban is unconstitutional under the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion and the Fifth Amendment [text] guarantee of equal treatment under the law. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the president have argued [JURIST report] that the order does not fall under the First Amendment as it does not specify religion, but country. Furthermore, the Trump administration has stated that the Fifth Amendment does not apply as the government has no obligation to foreigners and non-US residents and citizens. In response, the ACLU and other advocates for argue that the order amounts to a Muslim ban that is reminiscent of when the US turned away Jewish refugees that were fleeing Germany before World War 2.”‘

ACLU Reaches Settlement With Pennsylvania School District Over Education Of Refugee Students, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 29, 2017
“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania [advocacy website] reached [press release] a settlement with the School District of Lancaster Tuesday over the placement of newly arrived 17 to 20-year-old immigrant students. The lawsuit [complaint] states that the students, who knew little or no English, were prevented from attending the local high school, and instead required to attend the Phoenix Academy. In the complaint, Phoenix Academy is described as a private disciplinary school that did not have appropriate support for immigrant students. The settlement creates a “Newcomer Program” at the high school for these students. The students will not be required to attend Phoenix Academy instead, but are still offered the option to do so. The students who were previously forced to attend Phoenix Academy are also given the option to transfer to the Newcomer Program. A fund of $66,500 is also being established for supplemental educational services for these students. District officials had previously stated that Phoenix Academy gave students twice as long in English courses due to the required age-out time of 21-years-old in the public school system.”

ACLU Sues Trump Administration Over Termination of Protected Status for Immigrants, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 13, 2018
“The ACLU of Southern California [advocacy website], on behalf of several people with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and citizens whose parents have Temporary Protected Status, filed [press release] a lawsuit [complaint, pdf] in federal court on Monday challenging the Trump Administration’s termination of protected status that could push over 200,000 people out of the country.”

Activists Want to Know Why Feds Are Searching More Devices at the Border, Ars Technica, Mar. 27, 2017
“A free speech advocacy organization sued the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Monday, seeking “statistical, policy, and assessment records regarding the government’s searches” of digital devices at the United States border. The group, the Knight First Amendment Institute based at Columbia University, said on Twitter that the lawsuit came about as a result of recent journalism on the issue.”

Advocates Push for Lawyers for Immigrant Detainees, Courthouse News, Mar. 3, 2017
“Unlike in criminal cases, immigrants facing deportation have no right to an attorney unless they pay for one or find one to take their case pro bono. And a stark disparity exists in outcomes based on access to counsel. A recent study by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review found detained immigrants with an attorney were four times more likely to be released on bond, 11 times more likely to seek asylum or other relief from deportation, and twice as likely to successfully obtain the relief they sought. According to that same study, 37 percent of immigrants have no legal representation in removal cases, a proportion that shrinks to 14 percent for those held in detention. Responding to newly expanded deportation policies under President Donald Trump, government officials in San Francisco have sought more funding to provide legal representation for immigrants facing deportation. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee pledged an additional $1.5 million to nonprofits that provide legal counsel for immigrants.”

Advocates Want #MeToo Debate to Include Immigrant Detention, U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 8, 2018

“As the national discussion of sexual misconduct grows, advocates for immigrants say they hope the conversation will include immigrant detention facilities. They point to the FBI announcing in December that it had opened a civil rights investigation into Monterrosa’s case as a positive sign.”

AGs Take Census Bureau to Court on Citizenship Question, Courthouse News, Apr. 3, 2018
“Filing suit Tuesday to keep citizenship status out of the 2020 U.S. census, a broad coalition of attorneys general and politicians denounced the Trump administration’s tweak of the survey as a bigoted power grab.”

All Immigrants Should Be Given Lawyers, Some City Council Members Say, NY Times, May 31, 2017

“City Council members and immigrant activists cheered in April when they saw the $16.4 million in legal services that Mayor Bill de Blasio budgeted for defending poor immigrants facing deportation. But then they saw the asterisk. The mayor said that the services would be denied to immigrants who had been convicted of certain crimes over the past five years, the 170 serious crimes for which the city requires law enforcement officials to turn over those detained to immigration enforcement agents. Was he prioritizing or discriminating? Weeks away from the deadline for the city budget, the City Council and the mayor are haggling over that point. On Wednesday, 27 of the 51 Council members signed a letter that was delivered electronically to Mr. de Blasio, urging him to provide legal help without restrictions. That is the public defender model currently used by the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project, a model studied nationally that since 2013 has provided services primarily for indigent immigrants who have been detained.”

Amid Spike in Courthouse Immigration Arrests, ICE Issues Formal Policy, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 1, 2018
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced Wednesday it has issued a formal policy on making arrests in federal, state and local courthouses, saying it will target convicted criminals and persons considered threats to public safety, but leaving a window open for arrests under “special circumstances.” The written policy was dated Jan. 10, 2017, nearly one year since President Donald Trump’s inauguration. In that time ICE has stepped up enforcement, chalking up more than 111,000 arrests between Jan. 20, 2017, when Trump took the oath of office, and Sept. 30, a 42 percent increase over the same time period in 2016.”

Animation Maps Two Centuries of US Immigration, BeSpacific, May 2, 2017
“As described by FastCompany, Galka also has a high impact project that is very timely – a “new animation maps the path of the 79 million people who came to the U.S. over the last two centuries and became permanent residents (it doesn’t include people who were forced to come as slaves, mapped here, or undocumented immigrants). Each dot represents 10,000 people.””

Anti-Immigrant Resentment: A Threat to Our Justice System?, Crime Report, Oct. 18, 2017
“The presumption of innocence is among the sacred precepts encoded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” It’s also a cardinal principle of U.S. justice. Yet with a tide of anti-immigrant resentment sweeping across the U.S., political grandstanding and, even worse, outright racism pose serious threats to the values enshrined in our system.”

AP Explains: Trump’s Office on Immigrant Crime, Assoc. Press, Mar. 2, 2017
“President Donald Trump is spotlighting violence committed by immigrants, announcing the creation of a national office that can assist American victims of such crimes. He said during his address to a joint session of Congress that the Homeland Security Department’s Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office will provide a voice for people ignored by the media and “silenced by special interests.””

Argument Preview: Criminal Removal – Is “Crime of Violence” Void for Vagueness?, SCOTUSBlog, Sept. 25, 2017
“Recent years have seen the Supreme Court regularly review criminal immigration cases. That should be no surprise in light of the fact the immigration courts have relied on criminal-removal grounds to remove hundreds of thousands of noncitizens annually from the United States. Sessions v. Dimaya, which will be reargued next week, is another criminal-removal case. However, it is not just any criminal-removal case. Unlike other recent removal cases decided by the court revolving around the interpretation of the immigration laws – for example, 2017’s Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, in which the Supreme Court interpreted the statutory phrase “sexual abuse of a minor” for removal purposes – Sessions v. Dimaya involves a constitutional challenge to a provision of the immigration laws allowing for removal of an immigrant convicted of a crime. Those laws historically have been largely immune from judicial review under what is known as the “plenary power” doctrine, originally announced in 1889, in The Chinese Exclusion Case. Although not yet overruling the doctrine, the court has slowly moved away from a hands-off approach to the judicial review of the immigration laws; just last term, in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, it rejected gender distinctions favoring mothers over fathers in the award of derivative citizenship. The issue in Dimaya is whether, and if so how, the Constitution applies to judicial review of the immigration laws. The court’s approach to the question could mean big things for a body of law chock full of nationality, gender and class classifications, many which would be constitutionally suspect if the rights of U.S. citizens were involved.”

As Sanctuary State, California Takes Deportation Fight to New Level, Stateline, Oct. 23, 2017
“As more states and counties take immigration policy into their own hands, California is stepping up its fight to protect unauthorized immigrants by not only refusing to detain immigrants slated for deportation, but now also by declining to tell federal immigration officials when they will be released from local jails. Advocates say it’s the next logical step in defying the Trump administration’s expanding threats to deport more unauthorized immigrants. Such tactics have been tried in smaller jurisdictions — immigrant-friendly counties in Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Texas — but never by a whole state. California’s new approach could have sweeping implications for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The state has the lion’s share of unauthorized immigrants, and its action might prompt other states to defy the Trump administration’s quest to deport more of them.”

Bail Reform Act Controls Whether Defendant Released Pretrial; ICE Cannot Detain a Defendant Held for Prosecution, Fed. Def. NY Blog, July 31, 2017
“In the first decision of its kind within the Second Circuit, Judge Caproni in the SDNY held that once a defendant has met the conditions of release imposed under the Bail Reform Act, ICE cannot detain that defendant unless it is actually taking steps to remove him. You can read the opinion in United States v. Galitsa, 17 Cr. 324 (VEC), here.”

Bill Would Make It a Felony to Intimidate Immigrant Crime Victims, Witnesses, Albany Times Union, Feb. 27, 2017
“Democratic assemblywoman is proposing legislation that seeks to protect crime victims and witnesses from being intimidated on the basis of their citizenship status. Assemblywoman Aravella Simotas, D-Queens, is to introduce a bill that would make it a felony to report a crime victim or witness’ citizenship or immigration status to any federal, state or municipal agency or department “with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm or intimidate.” It similarly would make it a felony to report the citizenship or immigration status of a person who is a family member of a crime victim or who is seeking an order of protection in family court. The bill seeks to expand current statute prohibiting intimidation of a witness or crime victim. The bill, according to its draft language, would not make it a crime to report immigration status as part of a person’s official duties, an area that some lawmakers are seeking to address through so-called sanctuary state legislation. Additionally, state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has offered guidance to local governments on how to follow sanctuary policies aimed at protecting undocumented immigrants from deportation.” See A06447 (NY Legis. 2017-2018).

Border Agents Test Facial Scans to Track Those Overstaying Visas, NY Times, Aug. 1, 2017
“An executive order signed in January by President Trump would require all travelers to the United States to provide biometric data on entry and exit from the country. Currently, visitors provide biometric data only when they enter the country. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have long viewed a biometric exit system as preferable to paper documents to ensure border security, but for years the technology to collect that information was slow to take hold. Now devices that gather biometric information, from smartphones to security systems, are in widespread use.”

Brennan Center Condemns DHS Proposal to Collect Social Media Passwords, Brennan Center for Justice, Mar. 14, 2017
“The Brennan Center, together with a coalition of human rights and civil liberties organizations, trade associations, and experts, released a joint statement on February 21, 2017 condemning a recent proposal by Secretary John Kelly that would require non-citizens to provide social media passwords to the Department of Homeland Security as a condition for entrance to the United States. On March 10, 2017, the Brennan Center joined over three dozen leading civil rights organizations in writing to Secretary Kelly directly regarding the dangers of such a policy.”

Brooklyn DA Aiming to Limit Immigration Impact for Low-Level Offenders, N.Y.L.J., Apr. 24, 2017
“The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office is enacting a new policy to limit immigration consequences for defendants it prosecutes for low-level offenses. As part of the new policy, announced Monday, to reach “immigration-neutral” disposition of cases, it has hired two immigration attorneys to train prosecutors and to work on cases that prosecutors have flagged as having potential immigration consequences. Prosecutors also will have a greater role determining defendants’ immigration statuses and ensuring that defense attorneys are aware what, if any, immigration consequences their clients are facing.”

California Chief Justice Asks ICE Agents to Stop Following Undocumented Immigrants to Courthouses, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 17, 2017

“In an open letter [text] issued Thursday, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye [official profile] asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [official websites] agents to stop following undocumented immigrants to courthouses in order to make arrests. In her letter, addressed to Attorney General Jefferson Sessions and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly [official profiles], Cantil-Sakauye stressed what she believes to be the importance of separation of power between federal, state and local government to the rule of law. She also argued that, regardless of expediting of their efforts, such actions by ICE agents serve to undermine public confidence in the state court systems and may incline them to believe these institutions are being used to facilitate other goals and objectives of the federal government.

California Senate Approves Bill to Prohibit State Police from Enforcing Immigration Laws, Paper Chase (Jurist), Apr. 4, 2017
“The California State Senate [official website] overwhelmingly passed a bill [text] on Monday that would expand protections for undocumented immigrants by prohibiting state or local law enforcement from using resources to investigate, detain, report or arrest people for immigration violations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be barred from working inside county jails and from receiving notifications when a prisoner is released from custody, unless the prisoner has a violent felony record and has been previously deported.”

Can Border Agents Search Your Electronic Devices? It’s Complicated., ACLU Blog, Mar. 14, 2017
“The Supreme Court recognized this reality when it ruled in 2014 that the Constitution requires the police to obtain a warrant to search the smartphone of someone under arrest. As the ACLU has argued in various court filings, there’s no reason the Constitution’s safeguards against unwarranted searches shouldn’t also apply when we travel internationally given the ubiquity of these devices, and their ever-growing capacity to track the minutiae of our private lives. Unfortunately, the government doesn’t agree, and the law on the matter is far from settled. Because of the high-stakes implications of these kinds of searches, and amidst evidence suggesting they’re on the rise, it’s important to understand the landscape so that you can make decisions that are right for you ahead of your travels. This resource offers a basic snapshot of possible scenarios relating specifically to electronic device searches. For a fuller picture of the many other civil liberties issues that often arise at the border, click here. And if you think your constitutional rights have been violated, tell us what happened by filling out this form.” See Infographic: What Happens if Border Patrol Agents Demand Access to Your Electronic Devices?, DNA Newsletter (LAS), Mar. 22, 2017.

Can Farebeating Lead to Deportation? Advocates Say NYPD’s Enforcement of Minor Offenses Puts Some Immigrants at Risk, NY1, Mar. 1, 2017
“Legal aid lawyers and immigration advocates are angry at the de Blasio administration, saying it is understating the risk posed to undocumented immigrants by the enforcement of low-level crimes, especially subway farebeating.”

Can Federal Agents Detain Citizens at Border Checkpoints Until They Disclose Their Smartphone Passcodes?, Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2017
The Verge has a story about the recent border-crossing experience of a U.S. citizen, Sidd Bikkannavar, who is an employee at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. On a return flight from a personal trip to Chile on Jan. 30, Bikkannavar was allegedly detained by employees of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and “not allowed to leave” until he told CBP the passcode to the government-issued smartphone he used for work that he carried with him. A few people have sent me the story and wondered whether the government has the authority to do that. The short answer is that they can’t hold a person forever on that basis, but that it’s not entirely clear whether they can detain a person for a few hours based on it. It seems like a somewhat tricky question. Here are a few tentative thoughts on why.”

Can Medieval Law Keep ICE from the Courthouse?, Crime Report, Aug. 8, 2017
“Courthouses have become the latest battleground in the federal government’s attempt to co-opt local criminal justice systems for immigration enforcement, raising concern among state judges that ICE arrests are interfering with the basic administration of justice. But could local jurisdictions find defense in a medieval law? In an article forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal Forum, Christopher Lasch reaches back to the era of Henry IV and blows the dust from a doctrine that may help protect the courthouse, and those coming before it: the common-law privilege from arrest.”

Can States and Cities Stop ICE from Impersonating Police?, Governing, Aug. 25, 2017
“California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill, AB 1440, that establishes a difference between California police officers and federal immigration agents. The bill’s fact sheet goes further and stresses that these agents are “not allowed to refer to themselves as a police officer under California State Law.” But legal experts say neither California nor any other state, city or county has the authority to enforce such a law.”

Cancer No Bar to Immigrant’s Imprisonment, Courthouse News, Mar. 2, 2017
“With a tumor growing in her breast, a Pakistani woman who’s lived in Texas with a spotless record for 23 years could not persuade a federal judge to free her from an immigration jail to get medical treatment. U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas did, however, tell Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take Roshan Akbar Momin from the Houston Processing Center, a private immigration prison, to see her Houston doctor, and then return her to prison. Momin, 48, a convenience store clerk, lives with her husband and their two U.S. citizen sons, both born in America, in a suburban Houston home they bought in 2011, according to her federal habeas petition.”

Census Staff Warned of Immigrant Fears Long Before Citizenship Question, ABC News, Apr. 3, 2018
“The Census Bureau warned last fall, that based on focus groups and pre-testing for the 2020 Census, its staff members were reporting increased fear among immigrants that the information they volunteered would be used against them and their families.”

Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye Objects to Immigration Enforcement Tactics at California Courthouses, California Courts News Release, Mar. 16, 2017
“As Chief Justice of California responsible for the safe and fair delivery of justice in our state, I am deeply concerned about reports from some of our trial courts that immigration agents appear to be stalking undocumented immigrants in our courthouses to make arrests.”

Cities, States Seek to Protect Immigrants’ Data from Federal Officials, Stateline (Pew), Apr. 20, 2017
“In the face of stepped-up deportation efforts, many unauthorized immigrants worry that state and local programs that are designed to help them could instead be used by federal agents to identify and expel them from the country. About a dozen states have created special driver’s license programs for people who can’t prove U.S. citizenship, and more than a dozen cities have started identification programs so that unauthorized immigrants and others can complete tasks such as opening bank accounts, enrolling their children in school and receiving government services. . . . To try to ease the fear, lawmakers in states such as Hawaii, Massachusetts and Vermont have pushed various measures to prevent state and local resources from being used to enforce federal immigration law. In Vermont, Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed a law requiring local governments to get approval from the governor before assisting federal enforcement. In Washington state, Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee issued an order saying state agencies will not collect information on immigrants beyond what is necessary to perform agency duties and will not use resources to apprehend people for being in the country illegally, except as required by law.”

Class Action Challenges Indefinite Detention of Immigrant Children by Trump Administration, NYCLU News, Feb. 20, 2018
“The New York Civil Liberties Union today announced a class action lawsuit against the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for trapping immigrant children in prolonged detention. Though the agency is obligated to promptly reunify children with their families, the release of children who have been held in restrictive detention has nearly ground to a halt under a new policy that requires sign-off by the ORR director, a Trump administration appointee.”

Confidential ICE Handbook Lays Out Paths for Investigators to Avoid Constitutional Challenges, The Intercept, Feb. 23, 2018
“When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents go after suspected violators of immigration and customs law, they do whatever they can to get consent from their targets. The idea is simple: By getting their targets’ consent, ICE agents can avoid the complications that arise from the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Internal policies, laid out in documents reviewed by The Intercept, show how the agency’s investigative wing, Homeland Security Investigations, uses a complex web of civil and criminal warrants, statutory regulations, and legal tactics to effectively operate with as few restrictions as possible across the country.”

Congress Should Enact Legislation Allowing DACA Recipients to Apply for Citizenship, ABA House says, ABA J., Feb. 5, 2018
“The ABA House of Delegates on Monday passed a resolution urging Congress to put legislation in place allowing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients and others to apply for permanent legal status and citizenship. Beyond DACA recipients, Resolution 108E, passed by the ABA House of Delegates at the midyear meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, would also want the legislation to help other “undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children and who meet age, residency, educational and other qualifications (‘DREAMers’) who meet certain educational, work, or military requirements, successfully pass a background check, and remain in good legal standing.””

Constitutional Expert Explains the Issues at State in Trump’s Travel Ban, Vox, Feb. 7, 2017
“All of these cases raise an array of constitutional objections to President Trump’s executive order, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. The most common challenges are the Fifth’s Amendment protection against the denial of due process of law and extension of equal protection of the law, and the First Amendment’s protections against religious discrimination. Challengers also argue that there are statutory problems with the order, such as violations of the Immigration and Nationalization Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Administrative Procedure Act.”

Constitutional Wall Between Trump and Sanctuary Cities, N.Y.L.J., May 31, 2017
“At the end of this month, New York City and other jurisdictions resisting the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown will be required to certify to the federal government their compliance with a federal statute that bars interference with federal access to immigration information. When the Justice Department on April 21 ordered so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” to make this certification, the stakes appeared enormous in light of a highly-touted executive order President Donald Trump signed shortly after his inauguration in which he threatened to cut off all federal funding to jurisdictions that did not comply with the immigration information-sharing law. As with so much of the Trump administration, however, its immigration executive order has played as tragicomedy. Just four days after the April 21 Justice Department letter demanding certification, a federal district court issued a nationwide injunction against the order’s funding cut-off provisions. And in an effort to undo that injunction, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week issued a memorandum that narrowed the scope of the executive order so substantially as to eviscerate it. The litigation surrounding the sanctuary city executive order highlights the administration’s ignorance of or disregard for basic constitutional principles, the awkward position in which Justice Department lawyers find themselves, and the impact of public statements by government officials on federal judges. In these respects, the sanctuary city dispute is the domestic counterpart to the controversy that has engulfed the Trump administration’s two Muslim travel ban executive orders.”

Court Hands Each Side a Partial Victory in Dispute Over Scope of Travel Ban, SCOTUSBlog, July 19, 2017
“On the same day that it scheduled oral argument in the dispute over President Donald Trump’s March 6 executive order, the Supreme Court turned down a request by the federal government to clarify exactly what it meant when it said that individuals with a close family relationship could continue to apply for visas to enter the United States even while the freeze on new visas for travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries is in place. Today’s order left in place a ruling by a federal district judge in Hawaii that had defined the relationships more expansively than the government had wanted – to include, among others, grandparents and grandchildren. But the justices also put a portion of that lower-court ruling relating to refugees on hold while an intermediate federal appeals court reviews it.”

Courthouses Should Not Be Used for Routine Immigration Arrests, House Says in Resolution, ABA J., Aug. 15, 2017
“Recent news of immigration officials detaining people at courthouses has raised much controversy. On Tuesday, the ABA House of Delegates voted to urge the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Protection to treat courthouses as sensitive locations and to only conduct such arrests there “upon a showing of exigent circumstances and with prior approval of a designated supervisory official.” The House of Delegates also urged Congress to codify into law guidelines like those issued in a 2011 memo (PDF) by the ICE director. The memo advised that immigration enforcement actions should only be undertaken in “sensitive locations” if there was prior approval or exigent circumstances. These sensitive locations included schools, hospitals, houses of worship, public demonstrations and public religious ceremonies, such as weddings and funerals.”

D.Ariz.: State Criminal Case Remedy Doesn’t Preclude Injunctive Relief Against Unlawful Arrests, FourthAmendment.com, Mar. 30, 2017
“In an injunctive relief action against former Sheriff Arpaio over state enforcement of federal immigration laws, the court considers the factors for injunctive relief, and concludes that having state Fourth Amendment remedies doesn’t undo irreparable harm. Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44517 (D. Ariz. March 24, 2017)”

DACA Recipient in ICE Detention to Be Released, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 29, 2017
“Lawyers for Daniel Ramirez Medina, a Mexican-born man detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [official website], despite being a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) [USCIS materials] program, have said that their client is expected to be released as early as Wednesday on a $15,000 bond [KCPQ report]. DACA recipients are granted permission to stay and work in the U.S. without fear of deportation. ICE alleges that Ramirez Medina has gang ties and should therefore be deported, an allegation that he has repeatedly denied [AP report]. Ramirez Medina was arrested on February 10 in Seattle, Washington and has remained in detention for 45 days. His lawyers also allege his arrest is a violation of his constitutional right to due process. ”

Decoding Trump’s Immigration Orders, Marshall Project, Feb. 3, 2017
“The refugee program was not the only part of the immigration system that sustained shocks this week from three executive orders by President Donald Trump. While the White House scrambled to contain the widening furor over his ban on refugees and immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries, the administration was laying the groundwork for a vast expansion of the nation’s deportation system. How vast? Here’s a close reading of Trump’s orders.”

“Dehumanized” at the Border, Travelers Push Back, Just Security, Feb. 2, 2018
“Border agents searched the electronic devices of 30,200 travelers last year, up more than 11,000 from the previous year. In complaints newly obtained by the Knight First Amendment Institute, many of those travelers pushed back. The complaints—submitted to the hopefully named “Compliments and Complaints Branch” of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—mirror traveler-redress complaints obtained last year by the Knight Institute and published in December by the New York Times. The new set of complaints underscores the intrusiveness of electronic device searches and the discrimination and harassment travelers often suffer in connection with those searches. They also document travelers’ insistence that these searches, conducted without cause, violated their rights—to which CBP effectively responded: You have no rights at the border.”

Delays, Detentions and Due Process – Why Jennings Matters, SCOTUSBlog, June 27, 2017
“On June 26, the Supreme Court ordered reargument in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez, which involves an individual who was held in immigration detention for more than three years without a bond hearing. The question before the court was whether detained immigrants have a right to a bond hearing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded that detained immigrants must be given bond hearings at least every six months. Kevin Johnson has summarized the case in detail here. The decision by the Supreme Court to postpone Jennings is a disappointment, because it delays the uncertainty over fundamental questions about liberty and due process.”

Deportation Loophole Faces Supreme Court Scrutiny, Courthouse News, Jan. 16, 2018
“Picking up a thorny bit of immigration law, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to review the deportation of a Brazilian man who has been in the United States for over 13 years. Continuous physical presence in the United States for at least 10 years is one factor on which a nonpermanent resident alien can rely to have his removal canceled under the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

Deportation Priorities Will Expand to Include Those Convicted of Even Minor Crimes, ABA J., Feb. 21, 2017
“The federal government will expand an Obama administration policy that prioritized deportations by focusing on those who commit serious crimes, according to guidance memos released on Tuesday by the Department of Homeland Security. Now, according to an immigration-enforcement memo (PDF), priorities have been expanded to remove those who commit any criminal offense (even if the charges haven’t been resolved or even been brought), as well as those who abuse public benefits programs or who engage in fraud before any public agency. Also, a priority for removal are those who “in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.” Politico, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and the New York Times are among the publications that covered the documents, which describe how the department intends to implement President Donald J. Trump’s executive orders on immigration. The other memo, on border security, is here (PDF); fact sheets are here (PDF) and here (PDF).”

Detention Push Ignites New Deportation Battles, Stateline, Nov. 17, 2017
“Detention centers to house prisoners for deportation have become a new battleground for states and cities seeking to resist the Trump administration’s push to deport more immigrants. As U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement gears up for President Donald Trump’s promised push to deport more unauthorized immigrants, more and more jail space will be needed to hold immigrants as they get court hearings and are processed for deportation. But as ICE starts planning the extra detention space called for by Trump’s executive orders, the agency is facing more resistance from states and cities that have also pushed back against other deportation tools such as federal requests to detain inmates scheduled for release, new waves of ICE arrests, and the disclosure of inmates’ release date

DHS Adds Social Media to Immigration Review Policy, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 26, 2017
“The Federal Register posted a notice [text] on Monday detailing an updated rule that will allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to track social media accounts of immigrants. The social media accounts will be collected as part of the standard immigration review process to decide if an individual is permitted to remain within or gain entry into the US.”

DHS’ Constant Vetting Initiative: a Muslim-Ban by Algorithm, Brennan Center for Justice News, Mar. 12, 2018
“Late last week, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) wrote to the Department of Homeland Security, urging it to stop ICE’s “Extreme Vetting Initiative,” saying that the program would “unfairly target the minority communities [the CBC] represent[s].” The initiative – now relabeled “Visa Lifecycle Vetting” – is an effort to develop an automated system to continuously monitor visitors and immigrants to the United States by looking at what they say, including on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Among other things, the system is meant to predict whether a traveler will be a “positively contributing member of society” and “contribute to national interests” (broad criteria drawn from Trump’s blatantly discriminatory first Muslim ban order). It is required to generate a minimum of 10,000 annual investigative leads.”

DHS Ends Plan to Separate Women and Children at Us Border, Paper Chase (Jurist), Apr. 6, 2017
“A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesman announced [materials] Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s administration was no longer planning to separate women and children at the US’ southern border as a means of deterring immigration. Speaking to a US Senate [official website] panel, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly [official website] stated that it was no longer within the Trump administration’s plans to separate families. Speaking anonymously, a DHS official attributed [Reuters report] the change in procedure to declining numbers of women attempting to travel to the US with their children. ”

DHS Inspector General Finds Egregious Rights Violations at Immigration Prisons, Nat’l Immigrant Justice Center News, Dec. 14, 2017
“As Congress deliberates the Trump administration’s request for a historically inflated budget to expand the immigration detention and deportation system, a new report from the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Office of Inspector General details appalling human rights and due process violations harming more than 3,000 men and women detained at five large immigration prisons. The investigation was prompted by reports from the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and other nongovernmental organizations citing ongoing human rights violations in the DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention system, as well as calls from detained immigrants to the Inspector General’s complaint hotline. Reports in 2015 and 2016 from NIJC and other nongovernmental organizations found that ICE’s inspections system relies on pre-announced visits to detention centers, obscures egregious rights violations and may have even contributed to preventable immigrant deaths.”

DHS Memos: Speed Up Mass Deportations & Prosecute Parents Who Help Undocumented Children Enter, Democracy Now, Feb. 20, 2017
“Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has drafted and signed sweeping new guidelines to speed up the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. The memos instruct federal agencies to begin hiring 10,000 more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, as well as 5,000 more Border Patrol agents. They also detail plans to accelerate deportation hearings and to expand the number of people prioritized for removal from the United States. McClatchy is reporting hundreds of thousands more undocumented immigrants in the United States would be subject to what’s known as expedited removal proceedings to get them quickly out of the country. According to McClatchy, children who arrived in the United States as “unaccompanied minors” would no longer be protected against deportation, and their parents would be subject to criminal prosecution if they had paid human traffickers to bring their children across the border. For more, we speak with Franco Ordoñez, White House correspondent for the McClatchy Washington Bureau. His latest article is “DHS chief proposes prosecuting parents of children smuggled into U.S.””

DOJ Introduces New Immigration Court Policies, Paper Chase (Jurist), Jan. 18, 2018
“The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] issued a memo [text, PDF] Wednesday outlining policy changes to help combat the caseload backup throughout immigration courts over the past few years. This memo seeks to address the former policies that added confusion and ambiguity to the immigration court process and according to DOJ spokesperson Devin O’Malley, “contribute[d] to a three-fold increase of the courts’ pending caseload.””

DOJ Orders Increased Criminal Immigration Enforcement, Paper Chase (Jurist), Apr. 12, 2017

“US Attorney General Jeff Sessions [official website] on Tuesday announced [press release] his office has mandated immigration enforcement as a priority. In order to limit the number of undocumented immigrants in the country, the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] sent a memo [text, PDF] to all federal prosecutors instructing them to prosecute harboring and reentry cases as felonies instead of misdemeanors for repeat offenders. Furthermore, the order requires the designation of border security coordinators to ensure enforcement and track the amount of cases prosecuted. The memo also instructs felony charges for those who enter into a marriage to prevent deportation.”

DOJ Outlines Defense of Revised Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 14, 2017
“The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] on Monday outlined [memorandum, PDF] its legal defense in support of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order restricting travel and immigration. This came after Hawaii filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in February arguing [WP report] that the revised order would cause serious business and constitutional concerns if implemented. The DOJ is arguing [ABA Journal report] that Hawaii is not entitled to a restraining order citing that Hawaii’s claims are “mere speculation.” Furthermore, the revised order’s text and purpose are “religion-neutral” thereby hindering arguments of religious animus against Muslims. The DOJ also argues that unlike the previous order, emergency relief is not required as waivers are available and nobody has been turned away due to the order yet. A hearing in the matter is scheduled for Wednesday.”

DOJ Releases Memo Approving of Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 3, 2017
“The US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel [official website] released a memorandum [text, PDF] Thursday approving of President Donald Trump’s executive order [text] to restrict immigration refugee entry into the US. The document outlines the actions the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies will need to take: suspending the US Refugee Admissions Program, developing uniform screening standards, and suspending the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, subject to case-by-case exceptions. Curtis Gannon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, signed the memorandum and concluded that “the proposed Order is approved with respect to form and legality.””

DOJ Report: Federal Law Enforcement Resources Concentrated on Immigration Arrests, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 23, 2017
“The US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) [official website] on Thursday released a report [text, PDF] finding that a significant portion of federal law enforcement resources were directed to immigration-related offenses. The analysis showed that half of all federal arrests in 2014 [summary, PDF] were related to immigration, with 61 percent of them occurring in five districts along US-Mexico border. BJS also found that 17 percent of offenders released in 2012 went back to federal prison within three years, that federal arrests were down 12 percent in 2014, and that only 3 percent of defendants received a bench or jury trial that year.”

DOJ Tightens Sanctuary Cities EO and Moves to Reconsider Court’s Injunction, Const. L. Prof Blog, May 23, 2017
“AG Jeff Sessions issued a memo yesterday tightening President Trumps “sanctuary cities” executive order. The government then asked Judge Orrick to reconsider his earlier preliminary injunction halting the EO. We posted on Judge Orrick’s order here, with links to earlier posts. Sessions’s memo specifies that the government can only withhold certain DOJ and DHS grants (and not all federal grants) from sanctuary cities. Moreover, he wrote that DOJ will apply a certification requirement (putting the grant recipients on notice that they could lose funds if they “willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373” (see below)) “to any existing grant administered by the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services that expressly contains this certification condition and to future grants for which the Department is statutorily authorized to impose such a condition.” This portion of the memo is designed to satisfy the clear-notice requirement, the relatedness requirement, and no-pressure-into-compulsion requirement for conditioned federal spending.”

DOJ Withdraws Appeal on Previous Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 8, 2017
“The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] on Tuesday withdrew [motion, PDF] its appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] regarding a challenge [case materials] to President Donald Trump’s previous executive order on immigration. The move comes after Trump signed [JURIST report] a new executive order [text] on Monday. The new order bans the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen for 90 days. Iraq, which was included in the first executive order, was removed from the list. The number of refugees admitted into the US has been restricted to 50,000 for 2017. Decisions on refugee status are suspended for 120 days under the new order. The new executive order becomes effective March 16, 2017.”

‘Double Punishment’ for Black Undocumented Immigrants, Atlantic, Dec. 30, 2017
“Research suggests that because black people in the United States are more likely to be stopped, arrested, and incarcerated, black immigrants may be disproportionately vulnerable to deportation. The criminal-justice system acts like a “funnel” into the immigration system, said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a University of Denver law professor who studies the nexus of policing and immigration law. New York University law professor Alina Das said black immigrants are “targeted by criminalization.””

EDNY Holds That ICE Can’t Detain a Defendant for Criminal Prosecution, Fed. Def. NY Blog, Nov. 14, 2017
“Chief Judge Irizarry recently issued the first EDNY decision holding that once a defendant has been granted pretrial release under the Bail Reform Act, the defendant may not be detained by ICE while his prosecution is pending. In United States v. Rosario Ventura, 17-cr-418, Judge Irizarry held that “the Government must either release Defendant under the bond conditions set in this case and continue the instant prosecution, or dismiss the indictment without prejudice, forego its illegal reentry prosecution, and proceed with Defendant’s removal.” The decision is available here. (As we’ve reported, Southern District Judge Caproni recently issued a similar decision.)”

EDNY Requires Government to Choose Between Complying with Bail Reform Act and Detaining for Immigration Removal, Fed. Def. NY Blog, Dec. 29, 2017
“In an otherwise slow holiday week, Eastern District Chief Judge Irizarry has reaffirmed that ICE cannot detain noncitizens who are being federally prosecuted and have met their bond conditions. The opinion in United States v. Benzadon Boutin, No. 17-cr-590 (DLI), is available here. The decision is the latest in the “Trujillo” line of cases, see United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2012). This case law now include two opinions by Chief Judge Irizarry and one by Southern District Judge Carproni. (Our discussion of Judge Caproni’s opinion includes suggestions for attorneys considering whether to file a “Trujillo” motion.)”

Elia, Schneiderman Remind School Districts to Protect Immigrant Student Rights, Data, Albany Times Union, Feb. 27, 2017
“State officials are reminding New York school districts of their duty to uphold the rights of immigrant students and protect student data following news last week of President Trump’s plan to arrest and deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants. State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Education Commissioner MaryEllen Elia issued guidance to districts on Monday outlining their legal obligations when it comes to assisting federal officials who are seeking to gain access to immigrant students and their records. In New York, children over five and under 21 are entitled to a free public education regardless of their immigration or citizenship status, and should be able to attend school “without fear of reprisal,” they said.”

Empty Promise of “Waivers” from Trump’s Muslim Ban, Brennan Center for Justice, Mar. 8, 2018
“As legal battles over the Muslim ban make their way up to the Supreme Court, reports from U.S. embassies are casting doubt on a central legal defense to the ban’s constitutionality: individualized waivers. There were 8,406 visa applications from countries subject to the ban as of February 15th. Only two applicants were granted waivers. That’s a success rate of 0.02 percent. While the State Department is now reporting that a hundred waivers have been granted, the success rate is still minuscule. Such a high rate of refusal shows the futility of the waiver process and only confirms the Fourth Circuit’s recent finding that the ban was motivated by religious animosity, not national security.”

En Banc 4th Circuit Says Trump’s Latest Travel Ban Is ‘Tainted with Animus Toward Islam’, ABA J., Feb. 15, 2018
“A second federal appeals court has ruled against President Donald Trump’s latest travel ban. The en banc 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban is “unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam.” Politico, BuzzFeed News, the National Law Journal and the Associated Press have stories on the 9-4 decision. Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote the majority opinion.”

Exonerated, Then Deported, Marshall Project, Feb. 6, 2017
“Jules Letemps thought he would be celebrating. On October 14, 2016, he was exonerated of the 1989 rape of a woman in Orlando, Florida, after serving 27 years in prison. Letemps, now 53, had dreamed of this day: of seeing the ocean, attending Baptist church with his mother, and reconnecting with his extended family and three children. Most importantly, he could finally prove that he was innocent. But Letemps is not a U.S. citizen. And instead of being freed, he was transferred to immigration detention because of a 30-year-old drug conviction. He now resides at the Glades County Detention Center, a rural Florida facility, facing deportation to Haiti, a country he left when he was 17 years old. As a new president mobilizes the machinery of immigration enforcement to purge America of “criminal aliens,” the case of Jules Letemps is a stark reminder of how unforgiving the system was already, even before the arrival of Donald J. Trump.”

Family Court Judges Get Guidance on How to Help Immigrant Crime Victims, WNYC News, Mar. 22, 2017
“Immigrants who don’t have legal status, and who are victims of crime, can apply to stay in the country legally if they’re determined to be helpful to law enforcement. But victims’ advocates have complained some family court judges weren’t signing the paperwork for these U visas, because they didn’t understand the process. On Wednesday, the Advisory Council on Immigration Issues in Family Court responded by giving New York judges a guidance memo with background history and frequently asked questions.”

FDR Rejected Anne Frank Twice as a Refugee, Advocate Urges Trump Not to Close U.S. Borders Again, Democracy Now, Feb. 22, 2017
“As President Trump prepares to issue a new executive order barring all refugees and visitors from seven majority-Muslim nations, we speak to Steven Goldstein, the executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect. He reflects back on how FDR twice denied permission for the Frank family to come to the United States as refugees to escape Nazi-occupied Amsterdam.”

Fearful of Court, Asylum Seekers are Banished in Absentia, Marshall Project, July 30, 2017
“Of nearly 100,000 parents and children who have come before the courts since 2014, most asking for refuge, judges have issued rulings in at least 32,500 cases, court records show. The majority – 70 percent – ended with deportation orders in absentia, pronounced by judges to empty courtrooms. Their cases are failing just as President Trump is rapidly expanding deportations.”

Fearing Deportation, Some Immigrants Forego Health Care, Governing, Feb. 23, 2017
“Some foreign-born Californians are canceling their Medi-Cal coverage or declining to enroll in the first place, citing fears of a Trump administration crackdown on immigrants. Among those dropping coverage are people in the country legally but concerned about jeopardizing family members who lack permanent legal status, according to government officials, immigration attorneys and health care advocates. Others worry they will be penalized in the future for using public benefits such as Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program that provides health coverage to low-income residents.”

Federal Agents Ask Domestic Flight Passengers to Show IDs in Search for Undocumented Immigrant, Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2017
“U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed Thursday that their agents requested to see the identification of domestic flight passengers landing at a New York airport Wednesday night as they searched for an undocumented immigrant who had received a deportation order to leave the United States. According to the agency, two CBP agents asked passengers who had been on Delta Flight 1583 from San Francisco to show their identification while deplaning after landing at John F. Kennedy Airport at about 8 p.m. Wednesday. The search was conducted at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, CBP said in a statement, but the person they were seeking was not on the flight.”

Federal Appeals Court Allows Immigration Order Appeal to Proceed, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 28, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Monday denied [order, PDF] a request to stay the appeal regarding President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration executive order [text]. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] requested [JURIST report] a hold on the court proceedings until Trump issues a new order on immigration. Minnesota and Washington opposed the request, claiming that the Trump administration has stated that the standing executive order will not be rescinded, and that the government plans to defend the order in court. The court sided with the states, denying the DOJ’s request without explanation or opinion. The court did extend the briefing schedule in the appeals case, giving until the end of March for mandatory briefs to be filed.”

Federal Appeals Court Allows Partial Implementation of Travel Ban, Paper Chase (Jurist), Nov. 14, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday allowed [order, PDF] President Donald Trump’s latest travel ban to go partially into effect. The partial ban applies to people of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad, who do not have a connection to the US, defined in the ban as, “such persons including grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins.” Citizens with a tie to an “entity” in the US may also be admitted, if their connection to the entity is, “formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading.””

Federal Appeals Court Declines to Reinstate Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 5, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Saturday denied [order, PDF] the Trump administration’s motion to reinstate immigration restrictions until the case could be heard by the court. The emergency motion [text, PDF] to reinstate the immigration restrictions was filed by the Trump administration on Friday, arguing that only the president can decide who can enter the US and that the district court had “overreached” by second guessing the president’s decision in a matter of national security. Saturday’s ruling means that the restrictions will be suspended until arguments have been heard by the court. The court gave the two states challenging the executive order, Minnesota and Washington, and the Trump administration until Monday to file further briefs. The restraining order [text, PDF] was granted by a judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Washington [official website] on Friday following a hearing

Federal Appeals Court Denies Rehearing of Trump’s Original Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 16, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Wednesday denied an en banc rehearing [order, PDF] regarding US President Donald Trump’s [official website] original immigration order. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] had previously withdrawn its appeal [JURIST report] regarding Trump’s original immigration order [case materials], which was filed after the Ninth Circuit denied a request to stay the proceedings [JURIST reports]. A judge on the Ninth Circuit called for a vote to hear the issue en banc, but the matter did not receive a majority vote in favor of the rehearing. The Ninth Circuit noted that the issue became moot since the DOJ had voluntarily withdrawn its appeal and mentioned that no party had moved to vacate the order denying the stay.”

Federal Appeals Court Grants Teen Immigrant Right to Abortion, Paper Chase (Jurist), Oct. 25, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] on Tuesday ruled [opinion, PDF] 6-3 that a 17-year-old unidentified, undocumented immigrant has the right to obtain an abortion.”

Federal Appeals Court Hears Oral Arguments on Reinstating Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 8, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments

on Tuesday regarding the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order [materials] on immigration. The government [official website] argued that the executive order was well within the president’s power as delegated by Congress and therefore was constitutional. The government also provided previous risk assessments done before the Trump presidency indicating the need to avoid various risks. Furthermore, the government attempted to establish that the president is charged with making decisions about the rights of national security and the congressional delegation of authority to the president about excluding classes of foreigners is an exercise of sovereignty shared by Congress and the president and therefore the courts do not have standing. The Solicitor General for the state of Washington [official website] argued against the order, stating that it has caused irreparable harm to the state of Washington. He cited instances of residents stranded overseas, families separated, and economic loss. The state of Washington also argued that they have standing to bring this matter before they court as it is their duty to be the legal protector of people who are unable to protect themselves. Finally, the state of Washington argued that the order amounted to religious discrimination as it targeted countries which are mostly made up of Muslims. The losing side of the appeal is expected to appeal the decision up to the US Supreme Court.”

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Revised ‘Travel Ban’, Paper Chase (Jurist), June 12, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Monday ruled against [opinion, PDF; case materials] the majority of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order limiting travel from six Muslim-majority countries. The ruling affirmed the majority of a district court injunction [JURIST report] that blocked the order from being enforced. The judges affirmed the injunction on statutory grounds, finding the order in violation of federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [text], rather than constitutional grounds.”

Federal Appeals Court Rules Immigrants Have No Right to Lawyer in Expedited Cases, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 8, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] 2-1 Tuesday that immigrants who are caught entering the US illegally have no right to legal representation in an expedited hearing. A law passed in 1996 allows Customs and Border Protection officers to use a process of “expedited removal” to remove immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of the border without valid documentation. Immigrants who are subject to expedited removal are not given a lawyer, nor do they receive a trial. The appeals court upheld the deportation of a Mexican immigrant who was returned to his country the day after being arrested while crossing the US border in 2012, finding that his “expedited removal was not fundamentally unfair.” One judge dissented, stating he “would hold that there is a due process right to counsel during expedited removal proceedings.””

Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Stops Deportation of Afghan Man Who Aided US Military, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 16, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] on Wednesday granted a temporary restraining order to an Afghan man trying to enter the US on a Special Immigration Visa, which are granted to those who have assisted the US military in Afghanistan. Earlier in the week, Judge Linares [official website] of the US District Court for the District of New Jersey had ruled to allow the deportation [order, PDF], saying that the Afghan man “voluntarily withdrew his application for admission to the United States” and gave up his Special Immigration Visa when he was questioned at Newark International Airport. And because the unnamed Afghan man no longer possessed a valid visa, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant a temporary restraining order.”

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Blocking Trump’s Travel Ban, Paper Chase (Jurist), May 25, 2017
“The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [official website] on Thursday upheld an injunction [opinion, PDF] against President Donald Trump’s travel ban that targets six Muslim-majority countries. The ban, announced in March [CNN report], was the second version of a travel prohibition preventing people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the US for 90 days. The first order included Iraq. Both orders ban all refugees for 120 days. The second order clarified that only those attempting to enter without valid visas would be prevented from entering the US while “lawful permanent residents, dual citizens traveling under a passport issued by a non-banned country, asylees, or refugees already admitted to the United States” will be granted access. The court was unconvinced that the travel ban was concerned with national security and is more likely an attempt at creating a “Muslim ban.” The opinion cited several pages of comments Trump made during his campaign and concluded the “statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States.” The court also found that those affected by the ban would suffer “irreparable harm” by being separated from their families and livelihoods. It is likely that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court [official website]. The travel ban will not be implemented as long as one injunction remains in effect.”

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Texas Law Banning Sanctuary Cities, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 15, 2018
“The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] on Tuesday upheld [text, PDF] a Texas law banning sanctuary cities. The law, Senate Bill 4 (SB4) [text, PDF], “prohibits local authorities from limiting their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and it requires local officers to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘ICE’) detainer requests.” The court held that the plaintiffs did not show they “are likely to succeed on the merits of any of their constitutional claims, except as to the enforcement” of SB4’s ‘endorse’ prohibition against elected officials.” Further, SB4 is not facially unconstitutional, and there is no merit for the remaining arguments.”

Federal Court Orders Disclosure of Immigration Ban Draft, Paper Chase (Jurist), May 13, 2017
“The US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan [official website] on Thursday ordered [text, PDF] the Trump administration to disclose the draft of the so-called “Muslim ban” executive order. Arab American Civil Rights League v. Trump, is a case before the court arguing that the immigration ban initially proposed by the administration had discriminatory intent against Muslims. The previous draft in question was alleged to have been made by an adviser of Trump who said the administration asked him to find a way to make a Muslim ban legal. The court held the draft had enough significance to warrant limited discovery as the parties involved had standing to proceed with the case.”

Federal District Judge Enjoins “Muslim Ban” in Washington v. Trump, Const. L. Prof Blog, Feb. 4, 2017
“In a Temporary Restraining Order, United States District Judge James Robart enjoined the federal government from enforcing sections 3(c), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(e) of the Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, commonly known as the “Muslim Ban” or “Travel Ban.” Judge Hobart’s Order is brief and concludes that there is a likelihood of success on the merits, although it does not specify which of the claims is likely to succeed. Washington State’s complaint contains 7 counts claiming violations of constitutional guarantees of Equal Protection, Establishment Clause, and Procedural Due Process, as well as statutory violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (2 counts), Foreign Affairs and Restructuring Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (2 counts), and the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA).”

Federal District Judge Orders Release of Detained Immigrant: The Right to Say Goodbye, Const. L. Prof. Blog, Jan. 29, 2018
“In a brief and impassioned Opinion and Order in Ragbir v. Sessions, United States District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York ordered the immediate release of immigrant rights activist Ravidatha (“Ravi”) Ragbir, whose case has attracted much attention.”

Federal Investigation Finds ‘Significant Issues’ at Immigrant Detention Centers, NPR, Dec. 14, 2017
“Immigrants detained at four large centers used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement are subject to inhumane treatment, given insufficient hygiene supplies and medical care, and provided potentially unsafe food, according to a federal report. The “concerns” about the treatment of detained immigrants in facilities in California, Georgia, New Jersey and New Mexico is summarized in a report issued by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Homeland Security.”

Federal Judge Affirms Trump’s Authority to Revisit Travel Ban, Paper Chase, Mar. 25, 2017
“On Friday a judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] released an opinion [text, PDF] affirming Trump’s authority to issue his second travel ban executive order. Despite arguments that the latest travel ban is a rehash of the initial “Muslim ban,” the judge held the new ban had undergone “substantive revisions” and further deliberations, making it “no longer likely that Plaintiffs can succeed on their claim that the predominate purpose of [the new travel ban] is to discriminate against Muslims based on their religion and that [the new travel ban] is a pretext or sham for that purpose.” In addition, the judge said Trump provided sufficient reasons to justify the order, particularly national security needs. The court also held that “[t]he President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” The Muslim activists who initiated this suit vowed to appeal [Politico article] this case further following Friday’s ruling.”

Federal Judge Agrees to Reconsider Ruling Blocking Trump’s Order to Defund Sanctuary Cities, Paper Chase (Jurist), May 24, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District Court of California [official website] agreed Tuesday to reconsider his ruling [opinion, PDF] blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order that cuts funding from so-called “sanctuary cities.” In his opinion, San Francisco-based Judge William Orrick [official website] stated, “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration-enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves.” Orrick accepted a request from the Trump administration after Attorney General Jeff Sessions [website] issued a memo [text, PDF] that outlined how sanctuary cities could lose their funding. Only cities that “willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 [LII materials]” will lose financial support from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security [official websites], according to the memo. The Justice Department, which issued a proposed budget [text, PDF] that seeks to require law enforcement to comply with federal immigration detainers, argued that Orrick’s reasoning no longer applies and that his judgment should be reconsidered.”

Federal Judge Allows Immigrants’ Lawsuit Against Private Prison to Go Forward, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 2, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the District of Colorado [official website] ruled [order, PDF] Monday that there was a sufficient basis for a class action lawsuit, brought on behalf of former and current inmates against one of the nation’s largest private prison companies, thereby certifying class status. GEO Group [corporate website], the private prison management company that runs the federal immigration detainment center in Aurora, Colorado, is accused of forcing detainees to work for little to no wages, and allegedly threatening some with solitary confinement if they refused to work. Plaintiffs’ attorney Andrew Free [website] stated, “[t]his is the first time that a private prison company has ever been accused of forced labor, and this is the first time that a judge has ever found that the claims can go forward under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the bans in federal law on forced labor.””

Federal Judge Allows Immigration Order Lawsuit to Proceed at District Court Level, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 14, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Washington [official website] on Monday determined that a lawsuit [materials] regarding President Donald Trump’s immigration executive order [text] can proceed in district court while the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] hears the appeal of a temporary injunction on the ban. District Judge James Robart decided [Reuters report] at a hearing that the lawsuit brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota can proceed despite the fact that Justice Department (DOJ) [official website] sought a delay until appellate review is complete. A judge on the appellate court has requested [order, PDF] a vote as to whether the court will re-hear the appeal of the travel ban injunction en banc. The DOJ argued [memorandum response, PDF] that “[f]urther proceedings in the Ninth Circuit will likely inform what additional proceedings on a preliminary injunction motion are necessary in district court.” Robart is the same judge that initially issued [materials] the temporary restraining order halting the travel ban.”

Federal Judge Bans Revocation of Deportation Protections Program, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 27, 2018
“A judge for the US District Court for the Central District of California on Monday banned [order] the Trump administration from revoking an Obama-era deportation protections program for immigrants that were brought to the country illegally as children.”

Federal Judge Blocks Defunding of ‘Sanctuary Cities’, Paper Chase (Jurist), Apr. 26, 2017
“US District Judge William Orrick from the Northern District of California [official profile] on Tuesday issued a temporary injunction [text, PDF] against Executive Order 13768, titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States [text, PDF] which would have allowed the federal government to withhold funds from cities which have been designated as “sanctuary cities.” In the injunction, Orrick rejected the government’s argument that it did not reach beyond the president’s scope, saying “[t]he President has called it [‘]a weapon[‘] to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his preferred policies of immigration enforcement” and holding that “[t]he Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds.” Orrick found that the counties had a likelihood of success in the case against section 9(a) of the order and that they would be irreparably harmed without an injunction in place. The court also noted that the injunction did not “impact the Government’s ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 U.S.C. 1373, nor does it restrict the Secretary from developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction.'” Earlier this month, Orrick heard arguments [JURIST report] over President Trump’s executive order withholding federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities”.”

Federal Judge Blocks Order Limiting Legal Aid to Immigrants, Paper Chase (Jurist), May 18, 2017
“The US District Court for the Western District of Washington [official website] on Wednesday granted [order, PDF] a temporary restraining order to allow legal aid groups to continue to provide certain kinds of assistance to undocumented immigrants. Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) [advocacy website] filed NWIRP v. Sessions [case summary] after being informed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) they could no longer provide legal advice to individuals unless they offered full representation of the clients. NWIRP argued the EOIR enforcement would leave them unable to assist the immigrates as there were too many to provide full representation for. The group had previously agreed to inform the court if they worked on a case in any capacity by including a note on all documents they had assisted with.”

Federal Judge: Executive Order on Immigration Does Not Restrict Legal Residents, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 3, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan [official website] issued an order [text, PDF] on Thursday that enjoins two subsections of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting immigration [text] from seven Muslim-majority countries. The lawsuit was filed [complaint] on Tuesday by the Arab-American Civil Rights League [advocacy website], and “[a]ll Plaintiffs have either been denied ability to return to the United States or face a real and immediate threat of not being permitted to travel to Detroit, their place of residence,” according to the complaint. The order, issued by Judge Victoria Roberts [official profile], permanently enjoins sections 3(c) and 3(e) of Trump’s executive order, thereby removing legal citizens from those affected by the travel restrictions.”

Federal Judge Expands Travel Ban Exemptions, Paper Chase (Jurist), July 14, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the District of Hawaii [official website] expanded [opinion, PDF] the exemptions permitted under the Trump administration’s temporary travel ban on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries late Thursday night. Earlier this month the state of Hawaii asked Judge Derrick Watson to interpret the scope of a ruling [JURIST report] from the Supreme Court [official website] that was further defined [JURIST report] by the administration a week later. Watson initially denied [JURIST report] the state’s request because he did not want to “usurp the prerogative of the Supreme Court.” Hawaii appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website], but the application was dismissed [JURIST report] on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction. Although he refused to define the Supreme Court’s ruling, Watson agreed to review the government’s interpretation and after doing so widened the definition [AP report] of “close family members” to include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and brothers-and-sisters-in-law. Additionally, Watson stated that refugees with an assurance from a US resettlement agency meets the Supreme Court’s requirements because it is a formal, documented contract that places obligations upon a specific individual who has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security [official website]. He concluded, “Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.””

Federal Judge in Hawaii Blocks New Travel Ban, Paper Chase (Jurist), Oct. 17, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for Hawaii on Tuesday blocked [order, PDF] the implementation of the latest version [text, PDF] of President Donald Trump’s so-called travel ban [JURIST news archive]. The ban significantly limits travel to the US from six majority-Muslim countries and North Korea.”

Federal Judge Orders National Halt on Immigration Restrictions, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 4, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled Friday in favor of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson [official websites] in issuing a stay [text, PDF] of President Donald Trump’s controversial immigration restrictions. The nationwide temporary retraining order forbids government employees from carrying out Trump’s executive order [text] barring immigration from certain states, based on the irreparable economic damage the states would incur from such a ban. Judge James Robart stated, “[t]he executive order adversely affects the state’s residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations and freedom to travel,” and added that “[t]hese harms are significant and ongoing.””

Federal Judge Requires Bail Hearing for Immigration Detainee, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 18, 2017
“US Magistrate Judge James Donohue [official website] on Friday ruled that Daniel Ramirez Medina [IBT backgrounder], a Mexican immigrant-detainee, must be granted a bail hearing during the pendency of his immigration case [JURIST report]. Ramirez Medina was granted permission to stay and work in the U.S. by the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, but is now being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE alleges that Ramirez Medina has gang ties and should therefore be deported in accordance with President Donald Trump’s mandate to deport DACA beneficiaries with criminal ties. According to his lawyers, Ramirez Medina is the first DACA beneficiary the Trump administration has sought to deport.”

Federal Judge Rules for Philadelphia in ‘Sanctuary City’ Funding Case, Paper Chase (Jurist), Nov. 16, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] for the city of Philadelphia in a dispute over Attorney General Jeff Sessions withholding federal law enforcement grants in response to the city’s refusal to adhere to his heightened immigration security measures.”

Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Cannot Withhold Grants from ‘Sanctuary Cities’, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 15, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that the Trump administration cannot withhold grants to so-called “sanctuary cities,” issuing a nationwide injunction. US Attorney General had said in March that cities failing to enforce immigration laws may be cut off [JURIST report] from Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] grants, and the city of Chicago filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in August after the DOJ placed restrictions on certain grants.”

Federal Judge Rules Trump Had Right to End DACA, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 7, 2018
“A federal judge in Maryland on Monday rejected [PDF, text] a challenge to President Donald Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Child Arrival (DACA) program, an Obama-era immigration policy that protects undocumented children. Judge Roger Titus stated that while he does not agree with Trump’s decision, it is not the job of the judiciary to set immigration policy. “This Court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached,” Titus wrote. “Hopefully, the Congress and the President will finally get their job done.””

Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump’s Executive Order Withholding Funding from Sanctuary Cities, Paper Chase (Jurist), Nov. 21, 2017
“The US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] on Monday struck down [order, PDF] as unconstitutional President Donald Trump‘s [official profile] Executive Order “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” (Order 13768) [text], which prohibited federal funding to cities that did not cooperate with federal immigration officials.”

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Discontinuation of DACA Program, Paper Chase (Jurist), Jan. 10, 2018
“Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] on Tuesday temporarily blocked [order, PDF] the Trump administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) [official website] program, which gives undocumented immigrants brought into the US as children, known as “Dreamers,” protection from deportation.”

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Texas Anti-Sanctuary Cities Bill, Paper Chase (Jurist), Aug. 31, 2017
“A judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Texas on Wednesday temporarily blocked [order, PDF] the implementation and enforcement of Texas Senate Bill 4 (SB4) [text, PDF], which sought to ban so-called “sanctuary cities.” Judge Orlando Garcia enjoined the state of Texas from enforcing, endorsing or otherwise implementing various sections of SB4 that would have prohibited local agencies from enforcing policies that bar officers from inquiring as to an individual’s immigration status even during routine traffic stops. Some of these provisions also provide for fines or discipline such as “removal from office” against local officials who refuse to or otherwise fail to cooperate with federal immigration officials. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton [official website] released a statement [press release] vowing to appeal the ruling, joining Governor Greg Abbott‘s [official website] own calls for appeal. American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Director of Immigrants’ Rights Project, Lee Gelernt, welcomed the order [ACLU press release] granting the injunction stating that: “Senate Bill 4 would have led to rampant discrimination and made communities less safe. That’s why police chiefs and mayors themselves were among its harshest critics — they recognized it would harm, not help, their communities.””

Federal Judges in Hawaii, Maryland Temporarily Block Trump’s Travel Ban, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 16, 2017
“Two federal judges—one in Maryland on Thursday and another in Hawaii [official websites] on Wednesday—issued temporary restraining orders [Hawaii order, PDF] on President Donald Trump’s new 90-day travel ban [JURIST report]. Finding that the state had established a strong likelihood of success on the merits, Hawaii District Judge Derrick Watson issued an opinion permitting continued travel from six predominantly Muslim countries listed on Trump’s order. Trump responded to the order, calling it “the bad, sad news,” and “an unprecedented judicial overreach.” The new order, which dropped Iraq from the banned countries list, would have limited emigration from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days, and completely banned immigration of refugees for 120 days. In his stinging order, Watson stated, “The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%. It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam.” The Justice Department [official website] has vowed to fight for the ban, and Trump proposed the question go to the Supreme Court.”

Federal Prisons Don’t Even Try to Rehabilitate the Undocumented, Marshall Project, Oct. 17, 2017
“The truth is that the BOP discriminates against undocumented people by denying them access to essential drug counseling and job training in prison. As President Trump threatens to lock up even more undocumented immigrants, it’s time for the BOP to reform these exclusionary policies, which are both ineffective and inhumane.”

Florida State Judge Grants Writ of Habeas Corpus to Immigration Detainee on Tenth Amendment Grounds, Const. L. Prof Blog, Mar. 4, 2017
“In his opinion in LaCroix v. Junior, Florida state judge Milton Hirsch confronted the constitutionality of the Executive Order threatening to revoke federal funding for sanctuary cities which as we previously predicted “overreaches.” The judge granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus by a man “incarcerated in the Miami-Dade County correctional system.” Although there were no state charges against him, LaCroix had “no prospect of imminent release,” because as “often happens” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the federal agency “responsible for the deportation of those whose presence in this country is unlawful, had filed a detainer or lodged a request with the corrections department, seeking to have the department retain an inmate whom would otherwise be released, because ICE has a basis to inquire further as to the status of the person sought.”

For Some Black Immigrants, Life in Limbo, Stateline, Sept. 27, 2017
“Immigration experts say that black immigrants face more discrimination and scrutiny than other migrant groups. Many of the challenges they face intersect with the challenges of native-born African-Americans, from housing discrimination to disproportionate representation in the criminal justice system.”

Fourth Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction of Third Trump Travel Ban, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 15, 2018
“The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals [official website] on Thursday upheld [opinion, PDF] a lower court’s preliminary injunction [JURIST report] preventing enforcement of U.S. President Donald Trump’s most recent travel ban [JURIST news archive].”

Fuzziness of ‘Moral Turpitude’ Stops Deportation, Courthouse News, July 27, 2017
“The First Circuit this week canceled the deportation of a 30-year resident of the United States, rejecting a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling that assault and battery with a “dangerous weapon,” which can be a “common object,” is necessarily a crime of moral turpitude. The Monday ruling vacating the removal order against Joao Lopes Coelho and remanding with instructions to the Board of Immigration Appeals does not indicate Lopes’ nation of origin. Joao is a Portuguese-language name.”

Government’s Case Against California’s ‘Sanctuary’ Policies Is on Weak Legal Ground, ACLU News, Mar. 12, 2018
“Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or localities to participate in a federal program. The Supreme Court announced that principle in 1997, in Printz v. United States, where it ruled that the federal government could not command states to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. The same principle applies here: The federal government cannot require states to participate in its deportation program. Indeed, no federal law mandates that states or localities use their own resources to aid federal immigration agents in locating and arresting people.”

Governor Pardons Prisoner in ICE Custody as Lengthy Battle Continues, NY Times, May 19, 2017
“A convicted robber in Colorado was granted a full pardon by Gov. John Hickenlooper on Friday, two days after he was detained by immigration officials upon his release from state custody by a judge’s order. The pardon was yet another dramatic twist in a yearslong battle for the man, Rene Lima-Marin, 38, who is now trying to avoid deportation to his native Cuba. It is unclear how Immigration and Customs Enforcement plans to respond. Just after the pardon was granted, an agency spokesman said Mr. Lima-Marin remained in ICE custody and was still facing a final order of deportation. Mr. Lima-Marin’s case drew national attention in 2014 when he was arrested after leading a productive life for six years following an accidental release from prison in 2008.”

Governor Signs Law Limiting Illinois Police on Immigration, Courthouse News Service, Aug. 28, 2017
“Illinois will limit how local and state police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities under a plan signed into law Monday by Gov. Bruce Rauner, a move that puts the first-term Republican at odds with his party on immigration issues. The narrow measure prohibits police from searching, arresting or detaining someone solely because of immigration status, or because of so-called federal immigration detainers. But local authorities will be able to communicate with immigration agents and hold someone for immigration authorities if there’s a valid criminal warrant, according to the new law.” See also TRUST Act Signed into Law in Illinois, National Immigrant Justice Center News, Aug. 28, 2017.

How Does Trump Plan to Stop Illegal Immigration? A Texas Court Offers a Model Approach, Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 25, 2017
“Illegal immigration straddles a line in federal courthouses. Being in the United States illegally – whether after crossing a border or overstaying a visa – is a civil offense. But those caught crossing the border illegally, can face criminal charges, though that generally doesn’t happen. Those who return illegally after being convicted can face years imprisonment. The Del Rio prosecution strategy was the result of an earlier push to secure the border. Before it started, agents in the Border Patrol’s Del Rio Sector arrested more than 68,000 people in a 12-month period. Now arrests in the area have dropped to an average of about 20,000 a year.”

How ICE Uses Secret Police Databases to Arrest Immigrants, Marshall Project, Aug. 28, 2017
“Local police departments have long shared their gang intelligence with federal immigration authorities. But the feds may be using that information more now as Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests have increased nearly 40 percent from last year. Critics of gang databases say that because of the loose criteria used to identify potential members, people with no gang affiliation are likely to be swept up in raids meant for serious criminals. Several recent lawsuits have been filed by immigrants who say they were wrongly identified as gang members and detained by ICE as a result.”

How Immigrants Make Communities Safer, Marshall Project, Feb. 28, 2017
“A trove of empirical research contradicts the notion that immigrants are the violent criminal horde Trump makes them out to be. In fact, studies consistently show that they commit significantly less crime than native-born Americans, and although the data are difficult to untangle, this appears to be true of both authorized and unauthorized immigrants. Even more, new findings suggest that immigrants may actually cause crime to decline in the areas where they live.”

How the Supreme Court Handed Trump a Free Pass for Discrimination and Abuse Against Detainees, Solitary Watch, July 12, 2017
“In a far-reaching decision issued last month, the Supreme Court has ruled that high-ranking federal officials cannot be held responsible for abuse against individuals held in prisons and detention centers, even when that abuse results from their policies and directives. The June 19 ruling in Ziglar v. Abbasi grants immunity from lawsuits to the top-level officials behind the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 mass detention of Muslim men. It also promises to empower federal officials to carry out abuses, including the arbitrary and discriminatory use of solitary confinement, unchecked and shielded from accountability. The ruling could not come at a more critical moment, given the Trump Administration’s proven disregard for the human and civil rights of migrants, Muslims, and incarcerated people. The Court’s decision has in effect given the regime even more power than before to operate with impunity as it implements its hardline policies in the immigration, criminal justice, and national security arenas.”

How U.S. Immigration Laws and Rules Have Changed Through History, Fact Tank (Pew Research Center), Sept. 30, 2015
“The United States began regulating immigration soon after it won independence from Great Britain, and the laws since enacted have reflected the politics and migrant flows of the times. Early legislation tended to impose limits that favored Europeans, but a sweeping 1965 law opened doors to immigrants from other parts of the world. In more recent years, laws and presidential actions have been shaped by concerns about refugees, unauthorized immigration and terrorism.”

Hundreds of Lawyers Descend on Airports to Offer Free Help After Trump’s Executive Order, Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2017
“Hundreds of attorneys descended on U.S. airports all over the country this weekend to offer free legal help to the travelers and family members of loved ones detained under President Trump’s executive order.”

ICE Announces Courthouse Arrest Policy, Brennan Center Fair Courts E-Lert, Feb. 15, 2018
“Last week, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced their policy on courthouse arrests. Courthouse raids by ICE have recently drawn critique from judges in California and activists in New York, who argue courthouses should be sensitive locations like schools and hospitals, where deportation arrests are prohibited. Prosecutors and advocacy organizations have argued that courthouse raids have a chilling effect on undocumented immigrants and restricts their access to justice, as they fear that if they bring a matter to court or serve as a witness, they may be deported. The new policy states that ICE will enter courthouses to arrest “specific, targeted aliens,” who are either “aliens with criminal convictions, gang members, national security or public safety threats, aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States but have failed to depart, and aliens who have re-entered the country illegally after being removed.” The policy also leaves ICE agents the discretion to arrest family and friends of targets who interfere with ICE arrests. The Immigrant Defense Project told Reuters that the policy continues ICE’s practices over the last year that “trample the constitutional rights of immigrant communities.””

ICE Arrests Immigrant After She Speaks at Press Conference, ABA J., Mar. 2, 2017
“Immigration agents arrested an immigrant who had not yet renewed her status as a “dreamer” shortly after she spoke at a press conference about her fears of deportation. Daniela Vargas, 22, was arrested in Mississippi on Wednesday, report the Clarion-Ledger, the Huffington Post and the Washington Post. Her lawyer, Abby Peterson, said Vargas was detained while a friend drove her from the news conference.”

ICE Detainees May Proceed as a Class in Forced Labor Lawsuit, 10th Circuit Says, ABA J., Feb. 13, 2018
“The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld class certification for immigrants who say they were forced to clean their detention facility for free under threat of punishment. According to Law360 and the Denver Post, the court also upheld class certification for participants in the Voluntary Work Program, who were paid $1 a day for jobs like cooking, doing laundry and buffing floors. The detainees were held at an Aurora, Colorado immigrant detention facility run by private prison contractor the Geo Group. Their lawsuit alleges that the forced-labor class of about 62,000 was threatened with punishment, including solitary confinement, for refusing to clean the facility for free. That violates the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a law against human trafficking, they allege. The other class is about 2,000 people who say they were paid $1 a day for maintenance work, at a time when they had no freedom to leave the facility or find another job. Because the Geo Group would otherwise have had to pay someone at least the Colorado minimum wage to do those jobs, they say this amounted to unjust enrichment. The 10th Circuit agreed in its Feb. 9 ruling, saying all of the forced-labor class should try their claims together because each was subject to the same Geo Group sanitation policy. The people in the unjust-enrichment class were also subject to the same policy.”

ICE Detention of Immigrant Protected by Deferred-Deportation Program Violates Due Process, Suit Says, ABA J., Feb. 15, 2017

“A law-abiding immigrant protected by former President Obama’s deferred deportation program should be released from immigration custody, according to a petition for habeas corpus. Agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Daniel Ramirez Medina, 23, on Friday, even though he has not committed a crime and is authorized to work and live in the United States, according to the petition. Authorities reportedly encountered Medina when they went to Medina’s father’s home and arrested his father, although no details about his father’s arrest were available. The Los Angeles Times, the Guardian and Reuters have stories. Ramirez’s detention may be the first arrest of an immigrant covered by Obama’s program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, according to the immigrant’s lawyers. The program allows immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children to remain and work in the United States.”

ICE Faces No Consequences After Erroneously Holding U.S. Citizen in Immigration Detention for More than Three Years, Immigrant Justice Center Blog, July 31, 2017
“After U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) subjected a U.S. citizen to three and a half years in remote detention and threats of deportation, he brought a lawsuit seeking monetary damages from the government. Today, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled his claims were barred because he failed to file them within the first two years of his detention, while he was still fighting his deportation without an attorney. His case demonstrates the need for reforms of the detention and removal process and the need for appointed counsel for individuals subject to mandatory ICE detention.”

ICE Finalizes Plans for Courthouse Immigration Raids, Courthouse News, Jan. 31, 2018
“Federal immigration authorities formalized a policy Wednesday to send deportation agents to federal, state and local courthouses to make arrests, dismissing complaints from judges and advocacy groups that it instills fear among crime victims, witnesses and family members. The two-page directive from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it will enter courthouses only for specific targets, such as convicted criminals, gang members, public safety threats and immigrants who have been previously deported or ordered to leave. Family, friends and witnesses won’t be picked up for deportation but ICE leaves a caveat for “special circumstances.” The policy, signed by ICE acting director Thomas Homan, says immigration agents should generally avoid arrests in non-criminal areas of the court, like family court and small claims, unless it supervisor approves.”

ICE Is About to Start Tracking License Plates Across the U.S., The Verge, Jan. 26, 2018
“The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has officially gained agency-wide access to a nationwide license plate recognition database, according to a contract finalized earlier this month. The system gives the agency access to billions of license plate records and new powers of real-time location tracking, raising significant concerns from civil libertarians.”

ICE Is Making Its Massive Data Collection Effort Secret as It Labels More and More Immigrants ‘Gang Members’, Injustice Today, Oct. 3, 2017
“In a new rule proposal, the Department of Homeland Security has moved to exempt large swaths of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s massive data collection system from the Privacy Act, making the type, sources, and accuracy of information ICE is collecting almost completely secret. By doing so, it would further obscure a law enforcement agency that has used its data system to label at least hundreds of immigrants as “gang members” as part of its efforts to ramp up deportations under the Trump. The new rule focuses on ICE’s FALCON database, which, as the Intercept has reported, gathers information as far-ranging as local police reports, social media, criminal and civil asset forfeiture records, cell phone information and even data collected by the CIA and NSA. The Privacy Act had previously ensured that citizens and legal permanent residents had some access to information the government had been collecting about them, to ensure its accuracy, and to determine how the government had collected that information. Under the Bush and Obama administrations, that right was extended to undocumented immigrants as well. However, following an Executive Order by President Trump, that right was rescinded.”

ICE Keeps Challenging Federal Courts’ Authority — And Losing., ACLU Blog, Feb. 14, 2018
“Between Jan. 25 and Feb. 2, judges across the country temporarily blocked the deportations of the four latter cases. The Iraqis, whose case was the first to be filed in June 2017, have already received a nationwide stay. For varying reasons, all these communities previously enjoyed a reprieve from deportation, in some cases for decades. However, with the change in administration, a target was placed on their backs. As Thomas Homan, ICE’s acting director, declared at a December press conference, “The president has made it clear in his executive orders: There’s no population off the table.” However, in ruling after ruling, judges have taken issue with the government’s argument that these noncitizens — because of existing final orders of removal, some of which are decades old — have no meaningful opportunity to access the immigration court system to present their claims that they face grave harm if deported. Moreover, they have rejected the government’s assertion that federal courts lack jurisdiction to rule on such matters. While ICE argues that our clients should confine themselves to prevailing upon existing immigration channels, the federal judges recognized that, without their intervention, individuals would likely be deported before they have a chance to do so.”

ICE Releases Man Arrested at Courthouse After His DACA Status Expired, ABA J., Feb. 1, 2018
“Updated: A Chicago-area man was released Thursday from immigration detention after his family and a local attorney argued that he was arrested in violation of local law, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times have reported.”

ICE Suspends Reports Designed to Embarrass Sanctuary Cities, Governing.com, Apr. 12, 2017
“Immigration and Customs Enforcement is suspending a recently adopted practice of reporting cities that don’t cooperate with federal detention efforts after the first few reports were plagued by errors. The new policy, an attempt to pressure cities and counties that refuse to hold people in the country illegally for immigration agents, was a priority for President Donald Trump. Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions promised to push back against these “sanctuary cities,” possibly by denying them federal funds and using other methods of pressure.”

ICE Using Powerful Stingray Surveillance Devices in Deportation Searches, ACLU Blog, May 23, 2017
“Amid news that immigration arrests are rising sharply under the Trump Administration, the Detroit News reported last week that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents recently obtained permission to use a Stingray to track down an immigrant suspected of “unlawful reentry” into the country. In order to learn more about use of this invasive surveillance technology in immigration enforcement operations, the ACLU has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Stingrays, also known as cell site simulators, track and locate cell phones by mimicking a real cell tower and forcing phones in the area to communicate with the device. In the process, they ensnare not only a suspect’s cell phone, but bystanders’ phones as well, raising serious privacy concerns.”

Immigrant Detention Crowding May Worsen Under Trump, Crime Report, Feb. 21, 2017
“The federal immigrant detention network was bursting at the seams even before President Trump took office. The problem will likely grow worse now that the President has expanded the pool of immigrants subject to deportation.”

Immigrant Group in Va. Sues ICE Over ‘Collateral Arrests’ It Calls Unconstitutional, Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2017
“Advocates in Virginia filed a lawsuit Wednesday against four federal immigration agents over a practice known as “collateral arrests” that have helped boost the number of undocumented immigrants apprehended under President Trump’s administration. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, claims that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents violated the constitutional rights of two men who are accused of being in the country illegally, but have been otherwise law-abiding, by detaining them without reasonable suspicion.”

Immigrant Held for Feds Fights Deportation, Courthouse News, Apr. 5, 2017
“Grilling attorneys about an undocumented immigrant kept in state custody for U.S. authorities, the highest court in Massachusetts noted Tuesday the breadth of the precedent that this case will set. Justice Geraldine Hines was quick to curb the government’s emphasis on its power to deport “criminal aliens.” “We have the right to look at the whole,” Hines said. “If this issue is capable of repetitive and expanding review, we’re entitled to look at that. Whether Mr. Lunn is a criminal alien or whatever, that’s kind of beside the point.””

Immigrant Rights Group Wins Temporary Restraining Order Against DOJ in Dispute Over Ethics Rule, ABA J., May 19, 2017
“The Department of Justice has lost, at least temporarily, a bid to shut down legal services for immigrants that fall short of full representation, the Seattle Times reported Wednesday. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, a Seattle-based immigration legal services organization. It sued the Justice Department on May 8, as the Associated Press reported at the time, after the department ordered NWIRP to stop helping immigrants in a way that falls short of full representation. That kind of help, DOJ said in the letter, violates a 2008 rule forbidding immigration attorneys from representing clients without first filing the paperwork officially taking on the client.”

Immigrant Survivors of Violence Fear ICE Agents at Court, Crime Report, June 29, 2017
“Seventy percent of advocates working with immigrant violent crime victims in New York courts said they have had clients who are afraid to get help in court because of ICE’s increased presence there . . .”

Immigrant Who Got Bad Legal Advice Is Entitled to Vacate His Conviction, Supreme Court Rules, ABA J., June 23, 2017
“An immigrant whose lawyer wrongly told him he would not be deported as a result of a guilty plea is entitled to vacate his conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-2 decision. The court ruled for Jae Lee, who argued he would not have accepted the plea deal had he known of the consequences. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion (PDF).”

Immigrants Do Not Increase Crime, Research Shows, Scientific American, Feb. 7, 2017
“Research has shown virtually no support for the enduring assumption that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. Immigration-crime research over the past 20 years has widely corroborated the conclusions of a number of early 20th-century presidential commissions that found no backing for the immigration-crime connection. Although there are always individual exceptions, the literature demonstrates that immigrants commit fewer crimes, on average, than native-born Americans. Also, large cities with substantial immigrant populations have lower crime rates, on average, than those with minimal immigrant populations.”

Immigrants File Lawsuit Over Trump Administration’s Decision to End DACA, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 18, 2017
“Six immigrants filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] on Monday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end [press release] the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) [USCIS materials], arguing that the Trump administration did not follow proper administrative procedure. The case, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website], is the first brought by DACA recipients.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Sued for Detaining Immigrant Teens, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 7, 2018
“The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in federal court on Monday in Washington, DC, alleging that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [official website] consistently fails in following guidelines in federal statute by transferring immigrant teenagers into adult detention facilities upon turning 18.”

Immigration, Federal Authority, and City Hall, Harv. L. Rev. Blog, Oct. 19, 2017
“Cities are once again center stage in our national debate over immigration. A decade ago, the focus was on whether cities can participate in federal immigration enforcement. Now the fight is over whether they can refuse. Given the political vitriol over “sanctuary cities” — a loaded label that remains ill-defined — one might assume that the success of our nation’s immigration system turns entirely on policies enacted at the local level.”

Immigration Crackdown: Is Anywhere Safe?, Crime Report, Apr. 13, 2017
“The President’s announcement during his joint address to Congress in February that he was open to ‘compromise on immigration reform‘ may not be a deliberate distraction from ongoing developments in enforcement and detention, but it attracted significant media attention that might otherwise have been turned elsewhere. Among the substantive immigration enforcement developments that this and similar high-profile public announcements from the White House pushed out of the headlines were the increasingly aggressive actions of ICE agents themselves, who appear after the reversal of Obama-era discretion policies to be making symbolic arrests that sow fear among immigrant populations.”

Immigration Crackdown: When Pragmatism Trumps Ideology, Crime Report, Mar. 13, 2017
“Last month, President Donald Trump held a  “roundtable”‘ with county sheriffs, culled largely from the leadership of the National Sheriffs’ Association. As an early endorser of the Trump campaign, the association and its membership roll of elected sheriffs from largely rural counties across the nation have made highly visible efforts to align themselves with the new administration. This puts them in the company of rank-and-file police unions like the Fraternal Order of Police—and at odds (on several issues including immigration) with police leadership organizations like the Major Cities Chiefs Association and International Association of Chiefs of Police. None of the ten sheriffs named in the official transcript oversee jurisdictions with the so-called 287g agreements that allow state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) agency to enforce federal immigration laws.”

Immigration Detention Deaths Reach the Highest Total Since 2009, Houston Chronicle, Jan. 12, 2018
“Around the country, 12 immigrants died in detention in the 2017 fiscal year, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the most since fiscal year 2009. Ten immigration detainees perished in government custody the year before. Nationwide, more than 30,000 immigrants are held at any one time in ICE detention facilities. The number of deaths in 2017 has alarmed immigration activists, who have long accused immigration officials and detention center operators of providing delayed or substandard medical care and ignoring complaints of illness.”

Immigration Enforcement Under Trump: A Loose Cannon, Harv. L. Rev. Blog, Feb. 21, 2018
“The Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policy is a loose cannon, targeting noncitizens who have long been protected under prosecutorial discretion. The President has unleashed a policy that routinely targets anyone who is undocumented, not just “bad hombres.” This post examines the discretion used after a person has received a deportation (“removal”) order and how the landscape has changed under the Trump administration.”

Immigration Judges Have to Consider Ability to Pay in Setting Bond, 9th Circuit Rules, ABA J., Oct. 3, 2017
“A federal appeals court has upheld an injunction requiring immigration judges to consider financial ability to pay and alternative conditions of release when setting bond. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first to find that the government can’t set unreasonable bonds for detained immigrants, according to a press release by the American Civil Liberties Union. Before the ruling (PDF), immigration judges weren’t required to consider ability to pay.”

Immigration Policy That Ate the Justice Department, Marshall Project, Apr. 16, 2017
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions went to the border city of Nogales, Ariz., last week to announce new instructions to federal prosecutors: bring more—a lot more—criminal cases against illegal border crossers and immigrants in the country without papers. Summoning fiery rhetoric from his years in the Senate as a warrior for tough immigration enforcement, Sessions said he was ready to take the fight to “criminal aliens and the coyotes and the document-forgers” who he warned are seeking “to overthrow our system of lawful immigration.” Referring to the border nearby, he said: “It is here, on this sliver of land, where we first take our stand.” But the border region is not where Sessions’ marching orders are likely to have their greatest impact. His three-page memorandum went out to federal prosecutors in all 94 districts in the country, urging them to give higher priority to immigration crimes to achieve “consistent and vigorous enforcement.””

Immigration Representation to Expand, Backed by Report, NCCRC, Nov. 14, 2017
“The Vera Institute has released a report evaluating the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project and finding that the rate of success for immigrants jumped from 4% when pro se to 48% when represented by counsel, which is a 1,100% increase. The report’s release was covered by Vox. The report comes on the heels of the launch of Vera’s SAFE Cities Network, which aims to provide universal immigrant representation in 11 cities/counties across the country via a combination of public and private investment. The launch of the SAFE Cities Network has been covered extensively, including by NPRSacramento BeeAtlanta Journal-ConstitutionBaltimore SunTexas MonthlyNonprofit QuarterlyColorLines, and Above The Law.”

Indigent People Should Be Guaranteed Counsel for Deportation Proceedings, ABA House Resolution Says, ABA J., Aug. 14, 2017
“The ABA House of Delegates is urging that federal, state and local governments work to guarantee legal representation for indigent persons in deportation proceedings. On Monday, the delegates approved Resolution 115, which calls for counsel to be appointed for indigent persons in removal proceedings at the federal government’s expense. It also calls for state, local and tribal governments to pay for legal representation if the federal system does not and if no pro bono attorney is available. That counsel would represent the indigent person in proceedings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review and instruct them about their rights to appeal to the federal circuit courts of appeal. The ABA House of Delegates has previously called for legal representation to be provided for unaccompanied immigrant minors and also for people accused of immigration violations to be instructed of their rights and allowed to contact their attorneys.”

Inexplicably Narrow Definition of “Custody” in Immigration Removal, Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual Blog, Jan. 27, 2017
“The language of 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(d)(1) gives Immigration Judges authority to make custody re-determinations when a non-citizen is about to be released from immigration detention and beyond: “After an initial custody determination by the district director, including the setting of a bond, the respondent may, at any time before an order under 8 CFR 240 becomes final, request amelioration of the conditions under which he or she may be released.” “If the alien has been released from custody, an application for amelioration of the terms of release must be filed within 7 days of release.” In addition to the federal regulations, the term “custody” appears in section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as it pertains to the “Apprehension and Detention of Aliens.” Neither the INA nor the federal regulations define the term, and Congress has given the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), which enforces the immigration laws, no guidance on how to interpret it. However, DHS has construed custody to require physical confinement at a detention facility.”

Is It Unconstitutional for a State to Allow Judges to Increase Sentences Because a Felony Was Committed By Someone Illegally Present in the US Who Had Been Previously Deported?, Sentence Law and Policy Blog, May 16, 2017
“The question in the title of this post could be an issue before state (and federal?) judges in Tennessee shortly, because a new state sentencing provision to this effect is on the desk of the Governor of the Volunteer State. This local article, headlined “Bill gives TN judges more power in sentencing, experts say law is unconstitutional,” explains.”

It’s Legal for an Immigration Agent to Pretend to Be a Police Officer Outside Someone’s Door. But Should It Be?, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 21, 2017
“The exchange, captured on a video released publicly by ICE, seemed routine. But it has reignited long-simmering objections from immigrant rights attorneys and advocates, who say the scene illustrates unethical — and in some cases, illegal — ruses ICE agents have used for years, portraying themselves as officers from local police departments to ensnare people or fool them into revealing the whereabouts of family members. The use of the tactic, critics said, is particularly egregious in heavily immigrant cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, where police and elected officials have tried for decades to distinguish their cops from federal immigration agents, in an effort to convince immigrants living illegally in their cities that they can interact with local police without fear of deportation. The practice of using ruses predates the Trump administration. But the president’s announcement of his intent to dramatically increase the number of people ICE apprehends for deportation has increased concerns by immigrant advocates that the tactic will grow even more prevalent.”

Jerry Brown Pardons 5 Ex-Convicts Facing Deportation, Provoking Trump, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 2018
“Gov. Jerry Brown of California on Friday pardoned five ex-convicts facing possible deportation, drawing criticism from President Trump and heightening continued tensions between Washington and California.”

Judge Faults U.S. for Holding Immigrant Defendants Freed on Bail, NY Times, Jan. 7, 2018
“According to both Mr. Lett’s lawyer and the judge, Dora L. Irizarry, the government cannot decide to criminally prosecute immigrants and then keep them locked up on immigration detainers, if, as their cases proceed, they are granted bail. To do so, they said, was to take what amounted to a second bite of the apple, one that skirted the constitutional protections of the criminal-justice system by using the separate immigration process to obtain a result they failed to get the first time.”

Judge Fixates on Trump’s Racial Rhetoric at DACA Hearing, Courthouse News, Jan. 30, 2018
“A federal judge called out President Donald Trump’s “recurring, redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary” on Tuesday at a hearing on the immigration program his administration abruptly terminated. Noting that Trump’s remarks on the campaign trail and on Twitter could be “construed as having confirmed the bias of the leadership,” U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said the comments could come into play when he rules on the case.”

Judge Shoots Down Miami-Dade Deportation Policy to Follow Trump Immigration Order, WLRN, Mar. 3, 2017
“This week Miami-Dade County faced the first court challenge to its decision to help the feds detain undocumented immigrants. Friday morning a judge declared part of that policy unconstitutional – but his ruling is likely just the first of many rounds.” See James LaCroix v. Daniel Junior as director of the Miami-Dade County Department of Corrections, No. F17-376, F17-1770 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. Mar. 3, 2017).

Judges Are Victims Too in ‘Inhumane’ Deportations, 9th Circuit Concurrence Says, ABA J., May 31, 2017
“Immigrants aren’t the only ones who are victims when the government moves to deport them in cases that are neither fair nor just, according to a concurrence by a liberal appeals judge. Judges are victims too, according to the concurrence by Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Slate and the Associated Press are among the publications with coverage. The Marshall Project provides a link to the opinion (PDF).”

Judiciary Grabs Back on Trump’s Immigration Ban, Brennan Center for Justice News, Feb. 10, 2017
“Thursday’s decision by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a trial judge’s decision to temporarily stay President Trump’s travel ban, broke no new legal ground. And yet it may well be remembered as one of the most important rulings in modern American history.”

Justice Department Imposes Quotas on Immigration Judges, Provoking Independence Concerns, ABA J., Apr. 2, 2018
“The Justice Department on Friday announced that immigration judges’ job performance will be evaluated according to how quickly they close cases, the Wall Street Journal reported. The Journal says the quotas are intended to speed up cases, clearing the immigration court system’s lengthy case backlog. They were announced Friday in an email from the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the DOJ office that houses the immigration courts. Director James McHenry told judges the quotas would take effect Oct. 1, with the start of the federal government’s next fiscal year.”

Justice Tightens the Screws on Sanctuary Cities, Const. L. Prof. Blog, Jan. 24, 2018
“The Justice Department today sent letters to 23 sanctuary jurisdictions, requesting certain additional documents to show that they are not preventing their officers from sharing immigration information with the feds, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373. The letters say that Justice will subpoena the documents if a jurisdiction declines to share. The letter outlines other consequences, too: Should the Department determine your jurisdiction is out of compliance with section 1373, the Department may, as detailed in your award documents, seek return of your FY 2016 grant funds, require additional conditions for receipt of any FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding for which you have applied, and/or deem you ineligible for FY 2017 Byrne JAG funds.”

Lawsuit Challenges Searches of Electronic Devices at Borders, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 14, 2017
“A group of individuals represented by the American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts [official website] challenging the “searches and seizures of smartphones, laptops, and other electronic devices” at the borders. The complaint alleges that such searches “absent a warrant supported by probable cause and without particularly describing the information to be searched” are a violation of the First and Fourth [text, PDFs] Amendments to the US Constitution. The plaintiffs in the case were ordinary citizens or permanent residents whose electronic devices were seized and searched, and in some cases were retained by federal authorities for months before being returned. The defendants in the case include the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The crux of the complaint is that modern electronic devices hold massive amounts of personal information such as political or social opinions, and sensitive medical, legal and financial information. Additionally, electronic devices in this age carry a large number of intimate photographs and messages.”

Lawsuit Challenges Unlawful Detention of Asylum-Seekers at Buffalo Immigration Jail, ACLU Press Release, Sept. 26, 2017
“The New York Civil Liberties Union and the International Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center filed papers late last night asking a federal court to end the unlawful detention of asylum-seekers detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York. After the January inauguration of President Trump, the facility made a sudden and secret change to immigration practices. Even though federal policy states that parole should be granted to asylum-seekers who can establish their identity and are not a flight risk or danger, Batavia officials effectively stopped granting parole to asylum-seekers in late January, leaving dozens of people who fled violence and persecution to languish in jail.”

Lawsuit Filed After Immigration Raids Detain Dreamer; Immigrants With No Criminal Record Arrested, Salon, Feb. 15, 2017
“Two of the nation’s top lawyers filed a lawsuit Monday after the first large-scale raid conducted under the Trump administration swept up a 23-year-old Mexican immigrant who had come to the United States as a child and has no criminal record. . . . With the number of immigrant detainees already at historic levels, more than 680 additional undocumented immigrants have been arrested recently in several major U.S. cities — including some so-called sanctuary cities. Although the Trump administration has avoided calls to release a detailed breakdown of who has been detained in the raids, it verified that only about 75 percent of these individuals had been convicted of any criminal activity. But at least one Department of Homeland Security official told The Washington Post that anyone who entered the country illegally or overstayed a visa counted as a “criminal alien.””

Lawsuit: GEO Group Violated Anti-Slavery Laws by Forcing Imprisoned Immigrants to Work for $1 a Day, Democracy Now, Mar. 6, 2017
“A landmark class-action lawsuit is accusing the for-profit prison company GEO Group of violating federal anti-slavery laws by forcing up to tens of thousands of detained immigrants to work for free, or for as little as $1 a day. The lawsuit was first filed in 2014 and won class-action status last week. It accuses GEO Group of forcing people detained at the Denver Contract Detention Facility to work without pay to clean the facility—or face solitary confinement if they refuse. It also accuses GEO Group of breaking Colorado’s minimum wage laws by paying only $1 a day for other work carried out by prisoners inside the jail. GEO Group owns and operates the Denver detention center under a contract with ICE.”

Lawyers Trying to Get Their Clients Sent to Jail, Vice, July 4, 2017
“Public defenders in New York City are actually trying to get immigrant clients sent to Rikers to avoid the feds—and deportation.”

Leaked Trump Order Targets Legal Immigrants Who Use Government Benefits, Governing, Feb. 14, 2017
“A leaked executive order would drastically expand the number of public programs that are off-limits to legal immigrants who aren’t citizens, such as green-card holders. If found using them, they could face deportation and their sponsors — usually a family member or employer — would have to reimburse the federal government for unauthorized use of those benefits. Immigrants can currently be deported for using cash welfare or long-term institutionalized care. Under the draft order, they could be deported for using any federal benefit given “on the basis of income, resources or financial need.” That could include food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced school lunch, home heating assistance and college financial aid.”

Little Hope for Immigration Reform from Donald Trump, Newsday, Feb 17, 2017
“It seems clear that deportation priorities have shifted under Trump. Under Obama, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents focused primarily on deporting people here illegally who had committed serious offenses. (In 2015, more than 90 percent of those deported had criminal records.) Trump, too, is prioritizing removal of criminals, but with instructions to include immigration-law violators. Even a Seattle man protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and lacking a criminal record may face deportation. One case that has gotten a lot of attention is that of Guadalupe García de Rayos of Mesa, Arizona. The 35-year-old mother of two, brought here by her Mexican parents at 14, got a criminal record after she was arrested in a 2008 workplace raid and convicted of “criminal impersonation” for having a fake Social Security card. After that, she was deportable; however, after each annual check-in with the Phoenix immigration office, she was allowed to return to her family. (Her husband is also unauthorized; their American-born teen children are citizens.) Last week, despite protests, García de Rayos was sent back to Mexico.”

Lost in Court, Marshall Project, Jan. 19, 2018
“In all, from March through December more than 100 immigration judges were sent for one- or two-week details to at least eight detention facilities near the border, in what administration officials called “the surge.” Many judges volunteered, responding to the president’s call. In several courts, especially at the beginning, there were few cases, and the judges had little to do. In others judges were swamped. Problems of disorganization were widespread — but the court in Laredo stood out. The administration expected the judges would hasten deportations of illegal border crossers and also help reduce the huge backlogs in the immigration courts – at last count more than 650,000 cases nationwide. A year later it’s unclear whether the surge produced significant progress towards either goal.”

Maryland Federal Judge Blocks New Travel Ban, Paper Chase (Jurist), Oct. 18, 2017
“Judge Theodore Chuang of the US District Court for the District of Maryland [official website] on Tuesday blocked [opinion] President Donald Trump’s latest version [text, PDF] of the travel ban [JURIST news archive], finding that the president’s purpose was to implement a ban against Muslims. The proclamation, which was issued in September, bans travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela; six of which are majority-Muslim countries.”

Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules Immigrants Cannot Be Detained Without Charges, Paper Chase (Jurist), July 25, 2017
“The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] on Monday that immigrants cannot be detained solely at the request of federal law enforcement officials. The decision comes out of Lunn v. Commonwealth, a case concerning a Cambodian refugee who was arrested for unarmed robbery in Boston last October. When the charges were dismissed because the prosecution failed to present a case, federal authorities issued a civil detainer request to hold Lunn for 48 hours until officers could take him into custody and begin the removal process. The court held that the request constitutes as an arrest as the individual in custody would otherwise be released due to a lack of pending charges.”

Math Behind Trump’s Deportation Plan Makes No Sense, Wired, Feb. 24, 2017
“President Trump claims his administration’s new and expansive executive order on undocumented immigrants is “getting really bad dudes out of this country.” But aggressive enforcement of immigration laws is also sweeping up vulnerable, far-from-bad people seeking help and care. Still, even setting aside the humanitarian issue, Trump’s anti-immigrant plan suffers from a fundamental flaw: bad math. The new immigration guidelines released by Department of Homeland Security chief General John Kelly this week broaden the categories of people prioritized for deportation. Instead of focusing on violent criminals, the department will now go after anyone who’s ever committed fraud or misrepresented themselves to the US government—a description that essentially includes anyone who’s ever lived in the country illegally. The department claims its expanded plan will enhance public safety. But adding millions of new potential “criminals” to the list goes against prevailing trends in policing toward tech-driven, targeted enforcement. In other words, by making everyone a criminal, the administration will have a tougher time cracking down on real crime.”

Mentally Ill Immigrant, Not Warned of Deportation, May Get Guilty Plea Vacated, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 6, 2018
“Citing an increase in deportation in recent years, a divided state appeals court has ruled that an undocumented immigrant should be given a chance to undo his guilty plea for sexual abuse because he was never warned in court that the conviction could send him out of the country. The ruling, delivered by the majority of an Appellate Division, First Department, panel, comes even though the defendant, David Palmer, incorrectly told the Bronx Supreme Court at his plea hearing that he was a U.S. citizen.”

Michigan Federal Judge Blocks Immediate Deportation of More Than 1,400 Iraq Immigrants, Paper Chase (Jurist), June 28, 2017
“US District Judge Mark Goldsmith issued a nationwide temporary stay [order] on Monday to protect 1,444 Iraqi immigrants from deportation, extending an order issued last Thursday that applied only to immigrants in the Detroit metro area. Goldsmith’s order on Thursday temporarily blocked [JURIST report] the deportation of more than 100 Iraq nationals, arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [official website] agents, for approximately two weeks, during which time the court will decide whether it has jurisdiction in the matter. Goldsmith’s purpose for issuing the emergency order nationwide is to protect many Iraqi immigrants who would likely suffer persecution if sent back to Iraq, and to give them more time to seek legal action.”

Most Troubling Part of the DHS Memos on Immigration Enforcement, Brennan Center for Justice, Feb. 23, 2017
Memoranda on immigration enforcement released on Tuesday are raising concerns that the Trump administration intends to pursue a policy of mass deportation. The memos make clear that immigration agents are expected to apprehend and deport any undocumented alien with whom they come into contact—not just those who have committed serious crimes. They instruct the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to “expeditiously” hire 10,000 additional agents and officers, and they call for an expanded role by local police in immigration enforcement. One of the most interesting aspects of these documents, however, is what was left out of them. Last Friday, the Associated Press reported on a leaked draft of one of the memos. The draft directed the federal government to enter into agreements with 11 states authorizing National Guard troops to round up and detain undocumented immigrants living inside the United States.”

Myth of the Criminal Immigrant, Marshall Project, Mar. 30, 2018
“In a large-scale collaboration by four universities, led by Robert Adelman, a sociologist at the State University of New York at Buffalo, researchers compared immigration rates with crime rates for 200 metropolitan areas over the last several decades. The selected areas included huge urban hubs like New York and smaller manufacturing centers less than a hundredth that size, like Muncie, Ind., and were dispersed geographically across the country. According to data from the study, a large majority of the areas have many more immigrants today than they did in 1980 and fewer violent crimes. The Marshall Project extended the study’s data up to 2016, showing that crime fell more often than it rose even as immigrant populations grew almost across the board.”

Mythical Link Between Immigrants and High Crime Rates, Governing, Mar. 2, 2017
“A large body of research, however, finds no link between immigration and high crime rates, with some studies suggesting places with more immigrants actually enjoy slightly lower crime rates. Still, critics often contend that illegal immigration leads to more crime as research has generally failed to distinguish such individuals from the vast majority of legal immigrants who’ve been vetted by authorities. To shed light on this contention, Governing conducted an original analysis using recently released metro area population estimates from the Pew Research Center for “unauthorized immigrants” — people who crossed the border illegally or overstayed visas. The analysis not only found no link with violent crime, but indicated concentrations of unauthorized immigrants were associated with marginally lower violent crime rates. A statistically significant negative correlation was also shown for property crimes. For every 1 percentage-point increase in the unauthorized immigrant share of a metro area’s population, average property crime rates dropped by 94 incidents per 100,000 residents.”

NAACP Sues DHS Over the Racially Discriminatory Termination of TPS, Human Rights at Home Blog, Feb. 12, 2018
“On January 24, the NAACP and the NAACP Legal & Educational Defense Fund sued the Department of Homeland Security for terminating the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for nearly 60,000 Haitians, claiming the decision is racially discriminatory. The TPS determination should be based on a neutral evaluation of whether the conditions in the country have sufficiently improved to allow the safe return of migrants. Instead, the NAACP argues, the administration’s rationale is pretextual, and reflects the broader context of President Trump’s open hostility to non-white immigrants that began on the day he launched his campaign and have persisted since then. TPS has also been terminated for Nicaragua, El Salvador and Sudan.”

New Documents Show This TSA Program Blamed for Profiling Is Unscientific and Unreliable — But Still It Continues, ACLU National Security Project News, Feb. 8, 2017
“Yawning. Whistling. Being distracted. Arriving late for a flight. Are people who do these things at the airport showing signs of deception? The Transportation Security Administration apparently thinks so. Thousands of TSA officers use so-called “behavior detection” techniques to scrutinize travelers for these and scores of other behaviors that the TSA calls signs of deception or “mal-intent.” The officers then flag certain people for additional screening and questioning. But documents the ACLU has obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show that the TSA itself has plenty of material showing that such techniques are not grounded in valid science — and they create an unacceptable risk of racial and religious profiling. Indeed, TSA officers themselves have said that the program has been used to do just that. We got more than 13,000 pages of documents from the TSA, and today we’re releasing a report on what we found. In the past, government auditors, members of Congress from both parties, and independent experts have labeled the program wasteful and ineffective. Our study reinforces these conclusions, and more.”

New Trump Deportation Rules Allow Far More Expulsions, NY Times, Feb. 21, 2017
“The Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday released a set of documents translating President Trump’s executive orders on immigration and border security into policy, bringing a major shift in the way the agency enforces the nation’s immigration laws. Under the Obama administration, undocumented immigrants convicted of serious crimes were the priority for removal. Now, immigration agents, customs officers and border patrol agents have been directed to remove anyone convicted of any criminal offense. That includes people convicted of fraud in any official matter before a governmental agency and people who “have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits.””

New York Courtroom Gave Every Detained Immigrant a Lawyer. The Results Were Staggering., Vox, Nov. 9, 2017
“There’s no right to counsel in immigration court, which is part of the executive branch rather than the judiciary. Often, an immigrant’s only shot at legal assistance before they’re marched in front of a judge is the pro bono or legal aid clinic that happens to have attorneys at that courthouse. Those clinics have such limited resources that they try to select only the cases they think have the best shot of winning — which can be extremely difficult to ascertain in a 15-minute interview. But advocates and local governments are trying to make cases like Siagha’s the rule, not the exception. Soon, every eligible immigrant who gets detained in one of a dozen cities — including New York, Chicago, Oakland, California, and Atlanta — will have access to a lawyer to help fight their immigration court case.”

New York Immigrant Files Early Challenge to Trump Administration Decision to End DACA, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 6, 2017
“A 26-year-old Mexican immigrant in New York has amended his ongoing lawsuit [complaint, PDF] against the US government to challenge the Trump administration’s decision to end the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program [JURIST report]. Batalla Vidal, who initially brought the suit [materials] in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York [official website] in August 2016, has amended the lawsuit to include Attorney General Jeff Session’s announcement on Tuesday [press release] that the Trump administration would be ending the DACA program.”

New York State Becomes First in the Nation to Provide Lawyers for All Immigrants Detained and Facing Deportation, Vera Institute of Justice News, Apr. 7, 2017
“The Vera Institute of Justice and partner organizations today announced that detained New Yorkers in all upstate immigration courts will now be eligible to receive legal counsel during deportation proceedings. The 2018 New York State budget included a grant of $4 million to significantly expand the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP), a groundbreaking public defense program for immigrants facing deportation that was launched in New York City in 2013. New York has become the first state to ensure that no immigrant will be detained and permanently separated from his or her family solely because of the inability to afford a lawyer. Without counsel, a study shows, only 3% of detained, unrepresented immigrants avoid deportation, but providing public defenders can improve an immigrant’s chance of winning and remaining in the United States by as much as 1000%.”

New York’s Mayor Junks Due Process, Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2017
“I [Jonathan Lippman] applauded Mayor Bill de Blasio’s April announcement of $16 million in city funding to bolster NYIFUP [New York Immigrant Family Unity Project]. But since then he’s announced plans to deny a lawyer to those with a criminal conviction for any of 170 different offenses. This would create, for the first time in our legal system, a second-tier class of persons in cases where lives may be changed forever. It threatens due process.”

Next Big Immigration Legal Battle Will Likely Be Over Fast-Track Deportations, ABA J., Mar. 6, 2017
“Stand by for constitutional challenges to the Trump administration’s plan for expanding expedited removal of immigrants in the country illegally. The challenges will likely become the next major legal battle over immigration, the Los Angeles Times reports. The expansion could affect far more people than those impacted by President Trump’s temporary travel ban, “including potentially most of the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States,” the article reports.”

Ninth Circuit Declines En Banc Review in Washington v. Trump, Muslim Ban I . . . but with dissent, Const. L. Prof Blog, Mar. 15, 2017
Recall the proceedings in Washington v. Trump in which a panel opinion upheld an injunction against the January 27, 2017 Executive Order by the President, now popularly known as Muslim Ban I. Because the President withdrew the EO, replacing it with the March 6, 2017 Executive Order “Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” – – – enjoined today in Hawai’i v. Trump – – – proceedings in the Muslim Ban I became irrelevant and the United States dismissed the appeal. Nevertheless, upon the request of a Ninth Circuit judge, a poll was taken to determine whether the Ninth Circuit should hear the case en banc and vacate the panel opinion. Today, the order on this en banc request was rendered, and the “matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration.””

No Raids in Courthouses, California Chief Justice Warns ICE, Courthouse News, Mar. 16, 2017
“In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday, the chief justice of California’s Supreme Court asked federal immigration officials to stop pursuing undocumented immigrants at state courthouses. “Courthouses should not be used as bait in the necessary enforcement of our country’s immigration laws,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote, adding that she is concerned about “reports from some of our trial courts that immigration agents appear to be stalking undocumented immigrants in our courthouses to make arrests.” Cantil-Sakauye’s letter, also sent to Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, doesn’t mention any specific courts. But a Judicial Council spokesman said the chief justice has been hearing from judges and attorneys, including some self-help attorneys, about heightened fears and increased sightings of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents hanging around courthouses.”

Not So Fast on Deportations, Judges Tell Immigration Agency, NY Times, Feb. 18, 2018
“For a year, immigration agents have been trying to enforce the Trump administration’s orders to deport noncitizens at full speed with but one roadblock: the federal courts. . . . These federal judges are not deciding on the merits of the immigration cases, over which they have no jurisdiction, but rather giving people time to fight in the immigration courts. They are slowing deportations by insisting that unauthorized immigrants still have the right of due process, even if in many of these cases, the immigrants had known for years that they could be expelled.”

NY to Provide Counsel for All Detained Immigrants Facing Deportation, Nat’l Coalition for a Civ. Rt. to Cou., Aug. 1, 2017
“In a groundbreaking step, New York will be providing counsel to all detained immigrants facing removal. From the press release: The Vera Institute of Justice and partner organizations today announced that detained New Yorkers in all upstate immigration courts will now be eligible to receive legal counsel during deportation proceedings. The 2018 New York State budget included a grant of $4 million to significantly expand the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP), a groundbreaking public defense program for immigrants facing deportation that was launched in New York City in 2013.”

NY State Courts Seek to Block ICE Arrests in Court, Long Island Wins, June 30, 2017
“New York State’s Office of Court Administration (OCA) has become increasingly concerned about ICE arresting immigrants in courthouses around the country. The OCA has released its guidelines for dealing with ICE entering courts to arrest people. The policies date to April 27, 2017.”

NYC’s $16m Lawyer Fund Won’t Help All Undocumented Immigrants, Daily News, Apr. 28, 2017
“Mayor de Blasio’s pledge to spend $16 million on lawyers for undocumented immigrants comes with a big catch — and it’s got one legal service provider fuming. De Blasio said the city won’t fund lawyers for immigrants facing deportation if they’ve been convicted of certain crimes — the same 170 on which the city cooperates with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detainers that start the process of deportation. “If we believe as a matter of policy and law that’s appropriate, we’re not going to provide legal services to stop that (deportation),” de Blasio said on WNYC Friday. The Legal Aid Society — which just two days ago praised the mayor for announcing the expanded funding for legal services — blasted him for those comments Friday.”

NYCLU Demands Documents on Implementation of Trump’s Muslim and Refugee Ban, NYCLU News, Feb. 2, 2017
“The New York Civil Liberties Union, together with the ACLU of New Jersey, filed a Freedom of Information Act request today with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to expose Trump administration officials’ interpretation and execution of the president’s Muslim and refugee ban at area international airports. Today’s action is part of a coordinated effort by 50 ACLU affiliates, which filed 18 FOIA requests with Customs and Border Protection field offices and headquarters, spanning 55 international airports across the country.”

One Bit of Good News for Immigrants in Detention, Marshall Project, July 5, 2017
“In contrast to President Trump’s crackdown on immigration, one federal protection for immigrants has been quietly expanded in recent months. A growing number of courtrooms are providing free legal representation for detainees who have a serious mental illness or disability. As of March 2017, 21 immigration courts across the country were operating a federal program that provides lawyers to immigrants in deportation proceedings who were incapable of representing themselves, according to a spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Department of Justice office in charge of immigration courts. It’s an unusual program in a system that generally does not guarantee access to an attorney. Only 14 percent of immigrants in detention have a lawyer, and judges have asserted that even toddlers are capable of appearing in court alone. Research shows that having an attorney has a significant effect on whether someone is deported. So far, over 850 lawyers have been appointed to detainees through the program, according to EOIR.”

Opinion Analysis: Justices Continue to Apply Ordinary Modes of Statutory Interpretation to the U.S. Immigration Laws, SCOTUSBlog, May 30, 2017
“With the new Trump administration, immigration has been in the national news. President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have emphasized that the U.S. government will target “criminal aliens” in its removals. At various times, Trump has focused on crimes committed by Mexican immigrants. In the first of a number of immigration decisions from the 2016 term, the Supreme Court today decided its first crime-based removal decision in the new administration, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions. The case involved an immigrant from Mexico convicted of what could be viewed as a “sex crime.” The decision in favor of the lawful permanent resident – written by Justice Clarence Thomas for a unanimous court (minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who did not participate) — might be surprising to some observers.”

Opposite of Sanctuary, Marshall Project, Feb. 20, 2017
“President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration created a firestorm over his proposed border wall with Mexico. Less was said, however, about the other order he signed the same day, in which he signaled his plans to double down on enlistment of local police to find and process undocumented immigrants. The order specifically mentions the 287(g) program, named for its section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the program, local officers can alert the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they arrest someone without valid immigration status. ICE then chooses whether to assume custody of that person and begin proceedings for deportation. In some implementations of the program, police are authorized to approach people on the street to ask about immigration status. “The federal government was essentially deputizing jurisdictions to go out and do this, ‘Show me your papers’ style enforcement,” says Dan Stageman, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice who has studied the initiative.”

Plan Would Designate Sheriffs as Ice Contractors in Bid to Bypass Fourth Amendment Court Decisions, ABA J., Aug. 21, 2017
“President Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly discussing a plan with sheriffs across the country that is intended to address Fourth Amendment problems when local jails detain immigrants past their release date on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Several sheriffs told the New York Times about the legal maneuver in which sheriffs would become ICE contractors, and the jails would be paid a daily fee to hold immigrants believed to be in the country illegally until ICE takes custody.”

Police Chiefs’ Immigration Task Force Outlines Opposition to Trump Policy, Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2017
“A group of 63 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the country, who formed a Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force in 2015, has issued a letter saying they do not want their officers acting as federal immigration officers and they do not want to lose federal funding if their cities and counties are defined as immigrant “sanctuaries.” The letter is a response to President Trump’s executive order in January on “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which called for increased use of the “287 g” deputization of local law enforcement to perform immigration checks and threatened to withhold federal grant money from sanctuary cities and counties.”

Police Who Help ICE Detain Undocumented Immigrants Could Be ‘Violating Fourth Amendment,’ Experts Say, Newsweek, Feb. 20, 2018
“In fact, De Peña [Kristie De Peña, who serves as the Director of Immigration and Senior Counsel at the Niskanen Center] said law enforcement officers who do execute administrative warrants issued by ICE may be “violating the Fourth Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that ICE detainers be supported by probable cause.”

Pre-Trump, Schneiderman offers Advice on Dealing with Fed Immigration Officials, Albany Times-Union, Jan. 19, 2017
“He was going to expound on this during a press conference which has been postponed but [New York] Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is offering advice to municipalities, including counties, who may not be anxious to turn over undocumented or illegal aliens to federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE agents. Basically, Schneiderman is telling local officials including Sheriffs that they don’t need to turn over undocumented people who may be in their jails unless there is a judicial warrant, that is a signed judge’s order, or some other specific circumstances that would justify detaining someone unduly.”

President Gives Another Gift to Lawyers Challenging His Immigration Orders, Washington Post, Jan. 12, 2018
“For nearly a year now, a collection of lawyers challenging President Trump’s travel ban and other immigration policies have argued, with considerable success, that the administration’s actions are driven not by legitimate national security concerns but by bigotry. On Thursday, Trump once again made their arguments a little easier to prove. For these litigators, the president’s vulgarities are a gift, and they do indeed keep on giving. It’s almost as if Trump is throwing his own cases, albeit inadvertently.”

President Trump Cites Report on Immigration, NAS News, Mar. 1, 2017
“In President Trump’s address to Congress, he cited a National Academies report on the economic consequences of immigration. The report found that the long-term impact of immigration on the wages and employment of native-born workers overall is very small, and that any negative impacts are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born high school dropouts. First-generation immigrants are more costly to governments than are the native-born, but the second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. The report concludes that immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. Another National Academies report found that immigrants and their descendants integrate into American society over time, for example, in the areas of educational attainment, occupations, and health.”

President Trump Is Beginning to Build the Apparatus of Human Misery He Promised During the Campaign, ACLU Blog, Feb. 22, 2017
Two memos signed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on Monday are a grim blueprint for President Trump’s promised mass deportations. As implementation instructions for his January executive orders on interior and border immigration enforcement, they’re an operating manual for unprecedentedly vicious ICE and CBP crackdowns.”

Private Immigration Prison Accused of Forced Labor, Courthouse News Service, June 6, 2017
“A privately run immigration prison in San Diego forces its inmates to clean their own jail for a dollar a day or less, two prisoners say in a federal class action. Sylvester Owino and Jonathan Gomez sued CoreCivic, formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America, a Nashville-based corporation that is one of the biggest private prison companies in the country. In 2016, private prisons such as those run by CoreCivic held almost three-quarters of federal immigration detainees, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Nine of the country’s 10 largest immigration jails are operated by private companies.”

Prosecutors’ Dilemma: Will Conviction Lead to ‘Life Sentence of Deportation’?, NY Times, July 31, 2017
“Now that President Trump’s hard line has made deportation a keener threat, a growing number of district attorneys are coming to the same reckoning, concluding that prosecutors should consider potential repercussions for immigrants before closing a plea deal. At the same time, cities and states are reshaping how the criminal justice system treats immigrants, hoping to hopscotch around any unintended immigration pitfalls. These shifts may inaugurate yet another local-versus-federal conflict with the Trump administration, which is already tussling with many liberal cities over other protections for immigrants. For prosecutors, such policies are also stretching, if not bursting, the bounds of the profession. Justice is supposed to be blind to the identity of a defendant. But, the argument goes, the stakes might warrant a peek.”

Public Defenders Protest Outside of NYC Courthouse After ICE Arrest, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 9, 2018
“Dozens of attorneys with the Legal Aid Society and Bronx Defenders [official websites] on Thursday held a protest [Tweet] outside of the Bronx Criminal Court after one of their clients were arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents outside of the state courthouse.”

Raids Across the US Are Sweeping Up Undocumented Immigrants Who Have No Criminal Records, Quartz, Feb. 11, 2017
“US president Donald Trump has suggested the focus of his immigration policy will be getting rid of “the bad ones.” Based on recent law enforcement actions, it seems like that could mean anyone in the country illegally. A series of raids this week by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) targeted undocumented immigrants across the country, including in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Among the hundreds of people arrested were many with no criminal records, though ICE officials said the majority were criminals.”

Recent “Trujillo” Decisions and Resources, Fed. Def. NY Blog, Jan. 19, 2018
“Today Judge Vitaliano (EDNY) dismissed an indictment with prejudice after ruling that the government must choose between (1) complying with the Bail Reform Act or (2) continuing to hold the defendant in immigration detention notwithstanding that she had been released on bond. See United States v. Lopez, 17-cr-683 (1/19/18 electronic order). This decision is the most recent contribution to a string of “Trujillo” decisions, see United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2012). For practitioners’ convenience, this blog will maintain an updated list of all Trujillo decisions in the EDNY and SDNY. If you are aware of any decided cases that are not on this list, please contact our office.”

Ruling: Immigrants’ Bail Can’t Be Denied Based on Detainers, ABC News, Nov. 28, 2017
“A federal appeals court has ruled that judges cannot deny bail to immigrants in criminal cases solely because they are living in the country unlawfully and could be deported before trial. The little-noticed ruling by a three-judge appellate panel last week noted that it’s the first decision of its kind in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the legal standard for pretrial release of immigrants in criminal cases across a territory that includes Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. The 10th Circuit noted that the Bail Reform Act requires judges to decide the pretrial detention of deportable immigrants “on a case-by-case basis,” considering various factors to determine the risk a defendant might flee. While doing so, judges cannot consider the possibility of involuntary deportation, the panel said.”

Same-Sex Couples File Suits Claiming Their Children Were Unconstitutionally Denied Citizenship, ABA J., Jan. 24, 2018
“Two married same-sex couples have filed lawsuits against the State Department claiming that it has unconstitutionally classified their surrogate-carried children as “born out of wedlock” after each of the couples were informed that one of their children would not be eligible for a U.S. citizenship by right of blood.”

Sanctuary Cities vs. Trump: Who’s Really Breaking the Law?, Crime Report, Jan. 8, 2018
“As we start a new year, the status of “sanctuary cities” promises to be a continuing flashpoint in the immigration debate. The Trump Administration cites the “rule of law,” and immigrants’ supposed failure to follow it, to justify its crackdown on cities that fail to refer undocumented immigrants who are arrested to federal immigration authorities. But the president’s attempt to withhold funds from sanctuary jurisdictions doesn’t meet that rule-of-law standard.”

Sanctuary Debate: What Should Immigration Enforcement Look Like at Hospitals?, Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 3, 2017
“Federal immigration agencies have identified them as ‘sensitive locations’ – places to avoid making arrests. After a 10-year-old immigrant was detained at a Texas hospital, however, officials are wondering if formal legal defenses are needed. Rosa Maria Hernandez was released Friday evening.”

Sanctuary Jurisdictions Will Only Receive DOJ Criminal Justice Grant Funds If Cities and States Cooperate in Detaining Undocumented Immigrants, Law Librarian Blog, July 27, 2017
“On July 25, 2017, the DOJ announced that it will no longer award criminal justice grants to cities and states that refuse to cooperate with federal agents in detaining undocumented immigrants. Here’s the text of the press release.”

SCOTUS: Denial of Immigrants’ Due Process, Human Rights at Home Blog, Apr. 27, 2017
“The latest maneuver to deny immigrants access to the courts is to call their deportation process “expedited”. SCOTUS denied a petition to hear the case of Castro v US Department of Homeland Security. The petition was filed on behalf of women and children from Central America seeking asylum who have been held in detention for over one year.”

SCOTUS Strikes Down Citizenship Law Because of Different Treatment Based on Parent’s Gender, ABA J., June 12, 2017
“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a law that makes it easier, in some cases, for children born overseas to an unwed U.S. citizen mother to acquire citizenship at birth than children born to an unwed U.S. citizen father. The court ruled, in an opinion (PDF) by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that the law violates the equal protection clause. Ginsburg’s opinion was joined in full by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the opinion. The law concerns citizenship for children born abroad when one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other is not.”

Second Federal Judge Halts DACA Termination, ABA J., Feb. 13, 2018
“For a second time, a judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects immigrants in the United States brought illegally as children from deportation. U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York ruled that DACA cannot end in March as originally planned by the administration. “Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program,” the judge wrote in Tuesday’s opinion. However, the administration did not provide “legally adequate reasons for doing so.”” See also Second Federal Judge Blocks DACA Repeal, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 14, 2018.

Secretary of Commerce Announces 2020 Census Citizenship Question, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 27, 2018
“Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced [text, PDF] Monday that the 2020 census will include a question regarding citizenship status, a measure the Justice Department said will better aid enforcement of the Voting Rights Act [materials]. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has already filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] challenging the decision. Becerra argues the question would discourage non-citizens from participating in the census, which would disproportionately affect California over other states.”

Senators Introduce Bill to Protect Citizens’ Electronics from Border Search, Paper Chase (Jurist), Apr. 5, 2017
“A group of US Senators [official site] on Tuesday introduced [press release] a bipartisan bill [official summary, PDF] to require government agents to get a warrant when searching electronic devices of US citizens at the border. The Protecting Data at the Border Act [text, PDF] seeks to allow citizens to deny a request of border agents to search their electronic devices without being denied entry or exit at the border except for in emergency situations. The bill requires either a warrant or probable cause to search or seize a device.” See S.823 – Protecting Data at the Border Act.

Sessions Threatens to Cut Funding from ‘Sanctuary Cities’ That Refuse to Enforce Immigration Laws, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 28, 2017
“US Attorney General Jeff Sessions [official profile] said during Monday’s White House news briefing [transcript] that cities failing to enforce immigration laws may be cut off from Justice Department [official website] grants. Sessions’ statement was directed [Reuters report] towards so-called “sanctuary cities,” such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, which have implemented policies prohibiting officers from performing routine immigration checks and only detaining immigrants under investigation for the minimal amount of time required.”

Settlement Allows People Denied Entry Under Original Travel Ban to Reapply for Visas, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 1, 2017
“Individuals blocked from entering the US by President Donald Trump’s original travel ban order can reapply for visas, under the terms of a settlement [text, PDF] reached Thursday. Those who have a right to reapply are to be informed and notified of legal services that can aid them. The two main plaintiffs in this case [ACLU backgrounder], Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, had been detained [complaint, PDF] at JFK airport last January after the first travel ban was ordered.”

Sheriffs Still Looking for Clarity on Deportation, Stateline, Feb. 10, 2017
“Despite tough talk on sanctuary cities from the Trump administration, many sheriffs still fear that they lack the legal right to hold prisoners for possible deportation, even at the request of federal authorities. Sheriffs, who operate 85 percent of local jails, are still waiting for courts to clarify the legality of “detainers,” or federal requests to hold prisoners for possible deportation.”

Should a Jury Know a Person’s Immigration Status? Washington’s High Court Says No with Groundbreaking Rule, Seattle Times, Nov. 15, 2017
“A first-of-its kind evidence rule ordered by the Washington State Supreme Court will make information about immigration status “generally inadmissible” in both criminal and civil cases, with some exceptions.” See Wash. Evid. Rule 413: Immigration Status.

Should an Offender’s Citizenship Status Impact Prosecutorial Charging Decisions and How?, Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Apr. 30, 2017
“The question in the title of this post is prompted in part by a comment made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in this speech given on Friday and in part by this news article out of Baltimore brought to my attention by a commenter. Here is part of the speech from AG Sessions focusing on the how some prosecutors may now be concerning themselves with citizen status in charging.”

‘So What? Maybe It Is a Concentration Camp’, The Atlantic, Feb. 23, 2018
“The United States has built an archipelago of more than 200 immigration-detention centers, sprinkled throughout the country. ICE keeps immigrants in detention when the agency determines they are a flight risk or a threat to public safety. Most are held for days or weeks en route to deportation, but thousands are confined for years while they fight their removal. Detainees are not serving a criminal sentence, but the conditions in detention are often indistinguishable from those of a prison.”

Social Media at the Border: Can Agents Ask for Your Facebook Feed?, Fortune Magazine, Feb. 8, 2017
“As part of their mission to protect the country, border agents enjoy broad power to question and search anyone entering the U.S. But as more travelers show up with smartphones and social media accounts in hand, some are asking how far this power should extend in the digital age. The issue arose last year when a new travel form asked foreigners about their social media accounts, and it bubbled up again following Trump’s recent immigration order banning travel by citizens of seven countries. Most notably, an advocacy group filed a complaint with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, claiming agents are subjecting the phones and social media accounts of Muslim-Americans to extra scrutiny. This raises hard questions for travelers: What to do if a border agent asks to see your Facebook feed, or your handle for another social media account like Twitter? The issue, from a privacy perspective, is these accounts offer an enormous window into a person’s life: Friends, photos, and sexual orientation, not to mention political and religious views, are all on display.”

State Attorneys General Reject Citizenship Question on Census, Brennan Center News, Feb. 12, 2018
“A coalition of nineteen state attorneys general and the Governor of Colorado is urging Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to reject the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. In a letter to Secretary Ross, the coalition—which represents states from across the country—explains that adding a citizenship question would depress participation in the census, jeopardizing the accuracy of its headcount and triggering a string of other harms, from undermining the once-in-a-decade process of apportioning congressional seats to depriving states of funds necessary to meet their residents’ needs.”

States File Lawsuit Over Trump Administration Decision to Eliminate DACA, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 6, 2017
“A group of 15 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] Wednesday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end [press release] the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) [USCIS materials] program. DACA provides protection [Reuters report] from deportation to undocumented immigrants, often called “Dreamers,” who were brought to the US as children. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [official website] released a statement [official statement] on Tuesday vowing to sue the president to protect the young immigrants. Schneiderman proclaimed that “[the Dreamers] played by the rules. They pay their taxes. And they’ve earned the right to stay in the only home they have ever known.””

Supreme Court Allows Enforcement of Revised Travel Ban, Paper Chase (Jurist), Dec. 4, 2017
“The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed enforcement of the Trump administration’s revised travel ban [JURIST news archive] pending further court proceedings. Here is the order [text, PDF] staying the lower court decision in Trump v. Hawaii [docket], currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Here is the order [text, PDF] staying the lower court decision in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project [docket], currently pending before the Fourth Circuit.”

Supreme Court Decides for Immigrant Who Received Poor Advice From Counsel, Paper Chase (Jurist), June 23, 2017
“The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday for an immigrant who had received poor legal advice from his counsel. The petitioner in Lee v. United States [SCOTUSblog materials] came to the US from South Korea in 1982 and found success as a businessman. In 2009 he was charged with possession of ecstasy with an intent to distribute. Concerned for his residency status in the US, Lee took the advice of his lawyer who told him he would not be deported if he pleaded guilty. Lee’s attorney was incorrect and the conviction carried a mandatory deportation. In order to have his sentence vacated, Lee needed to show that he not only had ineffective legal counsel but that he was prejudiced because he took erroneous advice. The court recognized that “preserving the client’s right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence.””

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Asylum Appeal, Paper Chase (Jurist), Apr. 17, 2017
“The US Supreme Court [official website] declined to hear an appeal [order list] by a group of Central American asylum-seekers Monday who hoped the Court would overturn a lower court’s ruling preventing them from having their removal orders reviewed by a federal judge. The lead plaintiff in the case, Rosa Castro, fled [memo, PDF] El Salvador in 2015 with her young son, seeking asylum [Reuters report] from what she said was ongoing physical and emotional abuse by her husband. The lower court ruled that the status of the families, all of whom were apprehended in Texas, was akin to non-citizens and that they were therefore not entitled to a court hearing. The women and their children challenged in federal court the rejection of their asylum claims, alleging a violation of their constitutional right to due process [LII backgrounder]. The US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia [official website] denied [opinion, PDF] their constitutional argument, holding that due to their status as non-citizens, they are not provided with constitutional rights of review if denied entry.”

Supreme Court Declines to Hear DACA Case, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 26, 2018
“The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday declined [order list, PDF] to hear an expedited appeal [JURIST report] of a ruling that blocked the Department of Justice (DOJ) from cancelling [JURIST Report] the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.”

Supreme Court Dismisses Remaining Travel Ban Challenge, Paper Chase (Jurist), Oct. 25, 2017
“The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday ordered the dismissal [text, PDF] of Hawaii v. Trump [SCOTUSblog materials], the last remaining challenge of the now expired March 6 travel ban [JURIST news archive].”

Supreme Court Dismisses Travel Ban Challenge as Moot, Paper Chase (Jurist), Oct. 10, 2017
“In a brief order Tuesday evening, the US Supreme Court vacated the judgment [order, PDF] in one of two pending challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting entry to the US from certain countries. The court remanded Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project [SCOTUSblog materials] to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. The court did not act in the other pending travel ban case, Trump v. Hawaii [SCOTUSblog materials].”

Supreme Court Exempts Grandparents from Enforcement of Travel Ban, Paper Chase (Jurist), July 19, 2017
“The US Supreme Court [official website] on Wednesday affirmed in part [order, PDF] a ruling by the US District Court for the District of Hawaii [official website] concerning the scope of the Trump administration’s travel ban. The state of Hawaii filed a brief [PDF] on Tuesday in response to the government’s request that the US Supreme Court clarify who can enter the US while the order is in place. Earlier this month, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Hawaii expanded [JURIST report] the exemptions permitted under the temporary travel bar on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries. Although he refused to define the Supreme Court’s ruling, Judge Derrick Watson agreed to review the government’s interpretation and after doing so widened the definition of “close family members” to include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and brothers-and-sisters-in-law. Additionally, Watson stated that refugees with an assurance from a US resettlement agency meets the Supreme Court’s requirements because it is a formal, documented contract that places obligations upon a specific individual who has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security [official website].”

Supreme Court Holds Detained Immigrants Have No Right to Periodic Bond Hearings, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 27, 2018
“The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday held 5-3 [opinion, PDF] that Chapter 12 of Title 8 of the US Code [text, PDF] does not afford detained immigrants, including permanent residents, “the right to periodic bond hearings” and that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] misapplied the canon of constitutional avoidance [Cornell LII backgrounder] in imposing an implicit six-month time limit on an alien’s detention under chapter 12.” See also Is It Constitutional to Lock Up Immigrants Indefinitely?, Speak Freely (ACLU), Mar. 5, 2018

Supreme Court Lets Trump’s Latest Travel Ban Take Full Effect, ABA J., Dec. 4, 2017
“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump’s latest travel ban take effect, including a ban on travel by those with a bona fide relationship to a person or entity in the United States. . . . The 4th Circuit case is Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and the 9th Circuit case is Trump v. Hawaii.”

Supreme Court: Naturalized Citizens Cannot Lose Citizenship Based on Immaterial False Statements, Paper Chase (Jurist), June 23, 2017
“The US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] unanimously Thursday that naturalized citizens may not be stripped of their citizenship status based on false statements that were immaterial to becoming a citizen. The court held that in order to secure a conviction for violating 18 USC §1015(a) [text], the statute governing unlawful procurement of citizenship, the government must show that the alleged illegal act actually contributed to the obtaining of citizenship. In the case at hand, Diana Maslenjukan, an ethnic Serbian refugee from Bosnia, stated that her husband had evaded service in the Bosnian Serb Army when in fact he had served as an officer in the army in an application for entry into the US. Later when applying for citizenship, Maslenjukan stated that she had not given false information to authorities upon her entry into the US. In cases involving false statements, the court held that the government must prove that a defendant lied about facts that could warrant a denial of naturalization or lead to the discovery of facts that would lead to a denial of naturalization. In this case, the government found that the false statements would not have warranted such a denial. ”

Supreme Court Order Allows Enforcement of Travel Ban Against Refugees, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 11, 2017
“US Supreme Court [official website] Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an order [text, PDF] Monday staying a lower court ruling, allowing enforcement of the Trump administration travel ban against refugees. The Justice Department had filed an emergency application [text, PDF] to block a Ninth Circuit decision [opinion, PDF] that would have exempted refugees from the ban.”

Supreme Court Orders New Briefs After Trump Issues Travel Ban Proclamation, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 25, 2017
“The US Supreme Court on Monday removed the travel ban cases from its calendar and ordered both sides to file new briefs in light of President Donald Trump’s proclamation [text] Sunday that created new restrictions to enter the US for citizens from eight countries [JURIST report]. ”

Supreme Court Rules in Statutory Rape Deportation Case, Paper Chase (Jurist), May 30, 2017
“The US Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] Tuesday that in cases of statutory rape where sexual intercourse is criminalized based solely on the ages of the participants, the federal definition requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. In Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions [SCOTUSBlog materials] the court’s definition of what age constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor” was the deciding factor on whether the petitioner, a citizen of Mexico and a permanent resident of the US, would face removal proceedings. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) [materials, text] “makes removable ‘[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony, 8 U. S. C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), including ‘sexual abuse of a minor,’ §1101(a)(43)(A)” [text]. The court reasoned that because a different statute, 18 USC §2243 [text], was “amended to protect anyone under age 16 in the same omnibus law that added sexual abuse of a minor to the INA” that Congress intended the age of consent to be 16. Additionally, the INS listed sexual abuse of a minor as an “aggravated” felony alongside “murder” and “rape,” suggesting that it “encompasses only especially egregious felonies.””

Supreme Court to Rule on Mandatory Detention of Noncitizens Released from Criminal Custody, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 19, 2018
“The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in Nielsen v. Preap [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to rule on the mandatory detention of noncitizens who are released from criminal custody. The question before the court is whether, “a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 USC § 1226(c) [materials] if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [official website] does not take him into immigration custody immediately.””

‘This Man Will Almost Certainly Die’, The Nation, Jan. 28, 2016
“Dozens of men have died in disturbing circumstances in privatized, immigrant-only prisons. The Bureau of Prisons itself says there’s a problem. And yet the privatization scheme continues.”

Treating Cancer with Ibuprofen, Marshall Project, May 8, 2017
“Even as the Trump administration prepares to loosen oversight over immigrant detention facilities, medical care already can be so substandard that cancer is treated with ibuprofen, schizophrenia with Benadryl and serious mental illness with solitary confinement, two new reports found. Human Rights Watch, along with the nonprofit Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement, asked outside medical experts to review 18 deaths in immigration facilities between May 2012 and June 2015 — and found alleged medical neglect contributed to the early deaths of seven detainees, according to their joint report released Monday. The nonprofit organizations also interviewed 90 current and former detainees for the report. Their findings come on the heels of a survey of 83 detainees about conditions in two for-profit detention centers in Georgia, released last week by a separate group of nonprofit organizations. The detainees claimed, among other grievances, that their requests for medical care were often ignored and even landed some in segregation.”

Trump Administration Moves to Expand Deportation Dragnet to Jails, NY Times, Aug. 21, 2017
“The Trump administration is working with like-minded sheriffs from around the country on a plan to channel undocumented immigrants from local jails into federal detention, according to several sheriffs involved in the discussions. If it succeeds, it could vastly expand the dragnet that has already begun to transform immigration enforcement in the United States. The plan is intended to circumvent court decisions that have thus far limited the role of local law enforcement in immigration. It involves a legal move regarding detainers, which are requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to local sheriffs or police departments to hold people who are suspected of being in the country illegally, even after they have posted bail, finished their jail sentence or otherwise resolved their criminal cases. A handful of sanctuary cities refuse to honor detainers on ideological grounds, but a larger number of sheriffs who otherwise support the Trump administration have also turned down detainers because courts have found that they violate the Fourth Amendment.”

Trump Administration Releases Immigration Enforcement Measures, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 22, 2017
“US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary John Kelly [official websites] officially issued [press release] on Monday two memoranda to the department directing its workforce to implement two executive orders on the enforcement of immigration laws. The first memorandum [text, PDF] implements President Donald Trump’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvement Policies [executive order]. Kelly directed US Customs and Border Protection [official website] to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents. This memo orders the immediate identification and allocation of sources of available funding for the construction of a wall along the Mexican border. A standardized method will also be developed for public reporting of data regarding aliens apprehended near the border for violations of immigration law.

Trump Administration Releases Guidelines for Travel Ban Implementation, Paper Chase (Jurist), June 29, 2017
“The US Department of State [official website] on Wednesday issued guidelines for the modified travel ban allowed [JURIST report] by the US Supreme Court [official website] earlier this week. The order permits denying visas to travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries unless the visitor has a “bona fide relationship” with a business or close family member but the court did not define what constitutes as such. According to the State Department, business and professional relationships must be formal and documented. Those who have legitimate offers for employment and education are exempt providing the invitations are not for the purposes of evading the ban. The Trump administration has interpreted [NPR report] “close family ties” as parents, including a parent-in-laws; adolescent and adult children; son-in-laws and daughter-in-laws; spouses; and siblings, including half and step siblings. Not included are grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws, fiancées and other extended family. Those who have already been granted visas will be permitted to enter the US. The new rules will go into effect June 29 at 8:00 PM and will remain in place until the Supreme Court hears arguments for the cases against Trump’s travel ban.”

Trump Administration Can’t Deport 1,400 Iraqi Nationals Who Fear Persecution, Torture, or Death … For Now, ACLU Blog, July 25, 2017
“A federal judge in Michigan last night extended a lifeline to more than 1,400 Iraqi nationals across the United States, stopping their immediate removal to Iraq, where they fear near-certain persecution, torture, or death. Judge Mark Goldsmith granted the American Civil Liberties Union’s request to block the imminent deportation of any Iraqi national in the United States with a final removal order. In doing so, the judge weighed the irreparable harm faced by the detainees versus the government’s desire to deport them as quickly as possible.

Trump Administration Files Lawsuit Against California Over Sanctuary City Laws, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 7, 2018
“The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] Tuesday against California in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California [official site] seeking declaratory judgment and injustice relief against three California immigration laws. The three laws at issue were enacted last year and extend protection for immigrants living in the US illegally. The White House and DOJ view them as a direct response, and obstruction, of federal immigration law that the Trump administration has put into effect, thereby violating the Supremacy Clause [materials] of the US Constitution.”

Trump Administration to Eliminate DACA Program, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 5, 2017
“US Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday announced [prepared remarks] the Trump administration’s plans to dismantle the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) [official website] program, which gives undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, known as Dreamers, protection from deportation. According to a White House press release [text], “The Trump Administration is taking responsible action to wind down DACA in an orderly and minimally disruptive manner.” No new undocumented immigrants may register under DACA, and the immigrants whose DACA documents are about to expire must renew by October 5, 2017. The administration said, “Under the change announced today, current DACA recipients generally will not be impacted until after March 5, 2018, six months from now. That period of time gives Congress the opportunity to consider appropriate legislative solutions.” Civil rights organizations have criticized Trump’s plan. The American Civil Liberties Union [advocacy website] director of immigration policy, Lorella Praeli, said [press release], “Today is a cruel day for Dreamers, our families, and all Americans.””

Trump Era Tests the True Power of Sanctuary Cities, New Yorker, Apr. 18, 2017
“Ever since Donald Trump became President, mayors and city council members in “sanctuary cities”—places where local law-enforcement officials limit their coöperation with immigration agents—have promised to resist the federal government’s crackdown on immigrants. The new Administration has responded with threats (to cut sanctuary cities’ funding), reprisals (like launching more raids in specific jurisdictions), and accusations (that these cities are making the country less safe). City leaders have, in turn, criticized immigration raids, and raised money to pay for the legal bills of residents who’ve been arrested. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) answers to the federal government, not to local officeholders, and as it continues to expand the scope and reach of its activity, the limits of city power are becoming increasingly clear.”

Trump Immigration Policies Draw Rapid Legal-Tech Response, ABA J., Feb. 17, 2017
“The legal tech community has been quick to respond to Trump’s order. During the ABA’s Midyear Meeting in early February, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the American Immigration Council, the ABA’s Law Practice Division’s Futures Initiative and the ABA Center for Innovation dropped what they were doing to create ImmigrationJustice.us, an online portal and resource page for lawyers and volunteers.”

Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on Census, Alarming Experts, Pro Publica, Dec. 29, 2017
“The Justice Department is pushing for a question on citizenship to be added to the 2020 census, a move that observers say could depress participation by immigrants who fear that the government could use the information against them. That, in turn, could have potentially large ripple effects for everything the once-a-decade census determines — from how congressional seats are distributed around the country to where hundreds of billions of federal dollars are spent. The DOJ made the request in a previously unreported letter, dated Dec. 12 and obtained by ProPublica, from DOJ official Arthur Gary to the top official at the Census Bureau, which is part of the Commerce Department. The letter argues that the DOJ needs better citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act “and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting.””

Trump Significantly Limits Entry into US from Eight Nations, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 24, 2017
“In [JURIST] a Proclamation [text] issued late Sunday, US President Donald Trump [official profile] identified eight countries that have failed to cooperate in information sharing activities to the extent the administration deems necessary to protect US security interests.”

Trump Signs Executive Order Resuming Refugee Admission With Heightened Vetting Procedures, Paper Chase (Jurist), Oct. 25, 2017
“US President Donald Trump signed an executive order [text] Tuesday resuming the admissions of refugees into the US but introducing heightened vetting procedures.”

Trump Signs New Immigration Executive Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 6, 2017
“US President Donald Trump signed a new immigration executive order Monday, which contains several departures from the original January executive order [text]. Notably, Iraqi citizens are no longer ineligible to receive new visas. The order also sets out classes of people eligible to apply for case-by-case waivers to the order, including those who were previously admitted to the US for “a continuous period of work, study, or other long-term activity,” those with “significant business or professional obligations” and those seeking to visit or live with family. However, the six Muslim-majority countries listed on the original ban will continue to be blocked from obtaining new visas. Furthermore, the refugee program will be suspended for 120 days and will accept no more than 50,000 refugees a year, down from the 110,000 set by the Obama administration. The order will take effect on March 16.”

Trump Takes ‘Shackles’ Off Ice, Which Is Slapping Them on Immigrants Who Thought They Were Safe, Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2018
“A week after he won the election, President Trump promised that his administration would round up millions of immigrant gang members and drug dealers. And after he took office, arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers surged 40 percent. Officials at the agency commonly known as ICE praise Trump for putting teeth back into immigration enforcement, and they say their agency continues to prioritize national security threats and violent criminals, much as the Obama administration did. But as ICE officers get wider latitude to determine whom they detain, the biggest jump in arrests has been of immigrants with no criminal convictions. The agency made 37,734 “noncriminal” arrests in the government’s 2017 fiscal year, more than twice the number in the previous year. The category includes suspects facing possible charges as well as those without criminal records.”

Trump’s Anti-Immigration Machine Is Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment, Huffington Post, Feb. 27, 2018
“Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump described a nation under siege from undocumented immigrants responsible for violence against countless Americans — a grim vision that helped catapult him to the GOP nomination and into the White House. Now as president with the power to direct actions by the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees our nation’s border and immigration policies, he is exploiting that same anti-immigrant fervor to chip away at our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Trump administration is broadening the authority of Customs and Border Patrol agents to an alarming extent, leading them to operate aggressively on private property or detain U.S. citizens for refusing to respond questions regarding immigration status.”

UN Chief: Populism and Extremism Causing Disregard of Basic Human Rights, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 27, 2017
“UN Secretary-General António Guterres [official website] urged [UN News Centre report] member states of the UN Human Rights Council [official website] to defend human rights in response to the global rise in populism and extremism on Monday. Guterres stated that “[d]isregard for human rights is a disease, and it is a disease that is spreading.” Guterres insisted on the vigilance of member states in defending the rights of their citizens as the recent rise in populism, he claims [UN report], has increased “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred and other forms of intolerance.” Guterres referenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [text, PDF] and urged the Council to address all instances of systemic violations of the Declaration and other international humanitarian laws. Guterres also addressed the treatment of and global sentiment towards refugees, stating that member states must do the “utmost to re-establish the integrity of the international refugee protection regime.” Most of Guterres’ remarks were echoed by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein [official profile], who also stated that the Council would not stand idle in the face of rising human rights concerns.”

UN Experts Urge US to Respect Human Rights Defenders Amid Migrant Activist Deportation Case, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 14, 2018
“A group of UN experts urged [press release] the US government Wednesday to respect the rights of human defenders after concerns involving Maru Mora Villalpando, a Mexican immigrant activist who campaigns to protect migrants’ rights. Villalpando, co-founder of a group which highlights human rights concerns about the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, is facing deportation after leading a campaign against human rights standards in the privatized facility. According to the press release, her deportation proceedings, “received without warning, appear to be related to her advocacy work on behalf of migrant detainees.””

UN Group: Detention for Asylum Seekers Should Be Last Resort, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 27, 2018
“The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention [official website] said [statement] Monday that detaining migrants and asylum-seekers violated international law unless it is done as a last resort.”

UN Rights Expert: States Must Protect Migrants’ Rights Defenders, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 1, 2018
“A UN rights expert told [press release] the Human Rights Council that states are obligated to protect human rights defenders who assist hundreds of thousands of people who are on the move each year.”

UN Rights Expert Urges Safeguards for Minority Rights, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 16, 2017
“The UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues Rita Izsák-Ndiaye [official profile] called [press release] release for action to preserve the progress made in the protection of minority rights. Speaking in her final address before the Human Rights Council [official website], Izsák-Ndiaye stated that the world needs “unequivocal political will” as well as “strengthened legislative and institutional frameworks” in order to maintain unity in diversity. Izsák-Ndiaye specifically drew attention to efforts needed to integrate migrants into the social fabric of a given nation, saying concerted bridge-building efforts were needed. Commenting on her entire six-year tenure, Izsák-Ndiaye said that she was “often struck by the general lack of knowledge and understanding by the public about the daily struggles of disadvantaged minorities which was often compounded by denial or negligence on the part of officials.””

UN Rights Experts: US Immigration Order Violates International Human Rights Obligations, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 1, 2017
“A group of UN human rights experts on Wednesday said the executive order on immigration signed by US President Donald Trump [official website] breaches international human rights obligations [press release]. The order [text], signed last Friday, bars all nationals from the Muslim-majority countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering the US for the next 90 days. The UN experts said the order violates the principles of non-refoulement [UNHCR opinion], the practice of not forcing refugees or asylum seekers to return to a country in which they face persecution, and non-discrimination based on race, nationality or religion.

UN SG Criticizes New US Immigration Policies, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 2, 2017
“UN Secretary-General António Guterres [official profile] said Wednesday that the new US order [text] on Syrian refugees “should be removed sooner rather than later.” Drawing a comparison [transcript] to the US history on the “forefront of refugee protection,” Guterres said that the policy violates “our basic principles,” echoing [JURIST report] the thoughts of human rights experts from the UN. However, the secretary-general focused primarily on the ineffectiveness of the strategy, saying: “We are dealing with very sophisticated global terrorist organizations. If a global terrorist organization [tried] to attack a country like the United States, they will probably not come with people with passports from those countries that are hotspots of conflict today.” While Guterres acknowledged the problem of global terrorism, he was resolute in stating that President Donald Trump’s executive order was not the way to address the problem.”

Unreasonable Seizures of Shadow Deportations, SSRN (2017)
“President Trump, during his campaign, promised a “deportation task force” to swiftly deport the eleven million undocumented noncitizens in the United States. Within his first week in office, he issued two Executive Orders calling for stricter immigration enforcement and a stronger border. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Memos implementing his interior and border enforcement executive orders indicate that DHS will use every tool to enforce the immigration laws, expanding the use of procedural tools that bypass immigration courts and ensuring that noncitizens remain detained during these “shadow” deportations. Two of these procedural tools, administrative removal and expedited removal, allow an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officer or Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officer – the immigration police – to sign off on arrest and detention with no involvement of an immigration judge. Such a seizure without a probable cause finding by a neutral, detached magistrate, if occurring within the criminal justice system, would clearly violate the Fourth Amendment.”

U.S. Citizen Detained by Mistake Sues Miami-Dade Over Immigration Enforcement, NY Times, July 5, 2017
“Immigration lawyers in Miami-Dade County are challenging its practice of jailing people on behalf of federal immigration authorities, in a case that could test the Trump administration’s attempts to pressure so-called sanctuary cities and counties. In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Federal District Court in Miami, lawyers representing a local resident, Garland Creedle, argued that the county had violated his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful seizure. The practice at issue is one in which federal immigration authorities send requests, known as detainers, to local police departments or jails asking them to hold people they are about to release so that immigration authorities can go arrest them. During his first week in office, President Trump signed an executive order threatening to withhold billions of federal dollars from cities and counties that ignored detainers, saying that such places, sometimes known as sanctuary cities, were helping to harbor dangerous criminals.”

U.S. Citizen Loses Award for 3-Year Immigration Lockup, Courthouse News, July 31, 2017
“In a scathing ruling last year, Senior U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein said the government owed an apology to Watson, whom he found was only legally entitled to “relatively negligible damages” of $82,500 for four weeks of his much longer detention under existing precedent. “There is a clear, unmet need for counsel in immigration cases,” Weinstein declared on Feb. 25, 2016. “Had an attorney been available to him at the outset, plaintiff probably promptly would have been declared a citizen and released almost immediately after he was arrested, if he were arrested at all,” last year’s 50-page ruling continued. On Monday, the Second Circuit showed sympathy for Watson, but took away his only relief. “It is arresting and disturbing that an American citizen was detained for years in immigration proceedings while facing deportation, but Watson’s claims for damages are foreclosed by precedent,” U.S. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote in a 19-page opinion. Joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston, the majority found that Watson failed to file his false imprisonment claims before the statute of limitations expired.”

U.S. Citizens ICE Wants to Deport, WNYC, Mar. 26, 2018
“ICE is deporting and detaining more immigrants under the Trump administration, but for years it has mistakenly deported actual U.S. Citizens. Gregory Copeland, Staff Attorney in the Immigration Law Unit at The Legal Aid Society, talks about how this shocking practice played out with his client James Busse, a U.S. Citizen who was detained and set for deportation. They’ll discuss ICE, deportation practices and what these policies have meant for Busse.”

U.S. Security Advisors Recommend Moving Away from Private Prisons for Immigration Detainees, Jurist: Paper Chase (Jurist), Dec. 3, 2016
“The Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) on Thursday suggested to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson [official websites] that the government should move away from housing immigration detainees in private prisons. At the behest of Johnson, an HSAC subcommittee reviewed such use of prisons and developed a report [text] concluding that private prisons are the only realistic way to temporarily house those arrested on immigration-related charges. When the report was presented to the greater HSAC body, however, the group voted to dissent from the subcommittee’s finding, voting instead to encourage the gradual move away from private prisons. As moving away from private prisons is expected to be a slow process, Johnson is expected to use the report and dissent while working with the Trump administration on reform.”

Virginia District Judge Enjoins Trump’s EO “Muslim Ban”, Const. L. Prof Blog, Feb. 13, 2017
“The federal district judge in Aziz v. Trump, having previously granted the Motion of the State of Virginia to intervene, has granted a Preliminary Injunction against section 3(c) of the President’s Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, commonly known as the “Muslim Ban” or “Travel Ban.” The judge’s order is supported by a 22 page Memorandum Opinion. Recall that the Ninth Circuit has also recently ruled on the matter (refusing to stay a district judge’s injunction); our general explainer of the issues is here.

What Could Happen If You Refuse to Unlock Your Phone at the US Border?, Ars Technica, Feb. 15, 2017
“Now, let’s imagine that you arrive at the United States border, and a customs official asks you to unlock your digital device and inspect it. You, being a privacy-conscious person, decide to refuse to hand over your password, unlike Bikkannavar. What are the ramifications of telling a Customs and Border Protection agent to go pound sand? What would happen to your device? And, how long could CBP hold you for refusing to comply? Ars spoke with several legal experts, and contacted CBP itself (which did not provide anything beyond previously-published policies). The short answer is: your device probably will be seized (or “detained” in CBP parlance), and you might be kept in physical detention—although no one seems to be sure exactly for how long.”

When Deportation Is a Death Sentence, New Yorker, Jan. 15, 2018
“Hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the U.S. may face violence and murder in their home countries. What happens when they are forced to return?”

When ICE Tries to Deport Americans, Who Defends Them?, New Yorker, Mar. 21, 2018
“The obvious solution to avoid mistakenly deporting citizens would be to provide lawyers conversant with immigration law to represent people in detention and at deportation proceedings, when they lack resources to find their own lawyers. Copeland was able to rescue Busse because the New York City Council several years ago funded a program that pays public-interest lawyers to represent immigrants in the city who are facing deportation proceedings if they have incomes at two hundred percent of the federal poverty line or below. Other cities have enacted similar programs. Yet the Supreme Court has not recognized that people facing immigration detention and deportation have a universal, constitutional right to a lawyer.”

When the U.S. Deports You — And Keeps All Your Stuff, Marshall Project, Aug. 8, 2017
“When migrants are deported from the United States to Mexico, they are typically separated from their personal belongings in the process. Under a 2016 agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, officials are supposed to take steps to reunite migrants with their possessions on the other side of the border. But in many cases, that’s not happening. An estimated 120,000 people are deported to Mexico from the U.S. each year without at least some of their most vital belongings, including cash, identification, and cell phones, according to the Migration Policy Institute. And advocates say it’s putting migrants at grave risk. Without basic necessities or the ability to contact their families, the newly deported face greater risk of harassment, extortion, kidnapping and sexual assault by organized crime, advocates say. The Marshall Project’s John Carlos Frey traveled to Nogales, Mexico, to report on this little-known threat facing migrants.”

White House: Immigration Order Does Not Restrict Green Card Holders, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 2, 2017
White House [official website] Press Secretary Sean Spicer [GOP profile] on Wednesday clarified in a press briefing [transcript] that Donald Trump’s executive order limiting immigration does not apply to individuals admitted for permanent residence. Trump issued the controversial executive order [JURIST report] last week, and it was initially interpreted to include green card holders in its immigration restrictions on seven Muslim nations. The order also suspends all refugee immigration for 120 days and bars all Syrian refugees indefinitely. With Spicer’s clarification, it is now clear that the order does not apply to any US citizens, whether natural-born or nationalized.”

Will Trump Assert Executive Privilege in Travel Ban Trials? Seattle Judge Lets Case Proceed, ABA J., Feb. 14, 2017
“The decision by U.S. District Judge James Robart sets the stage for a new conflict between the branches of government. Robart would have to decide whether to require administration officials to testify in depositions and what type of evidence should be disclosed to the two states that are suing, the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports.”

Wisconsin Federal Judge Blocks Application of Revised Trump Immigration Order, Paper Chase (Jurist), March 11, 2017
“A federal judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin [official website] granted [PDF] a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump’s revised immigration ban on Friday to a Syrian asylum seeker and his family. The order is limited to the one man and his family, and will remain in effect only until the asylum request for his wife and child can be resolved. The judge found that returning to Aleppo while waiting for the outcome of the asylum request would pose, “significant risk of irreparable harm” for the man and his family. The man has been in the US since 2014 and was granted asylum in 2016.”

Without a Lawyer, Immigrants Lost in a System Stacked Against Them, Nat’l Catholic Rptr, Dec. 15, 2017
” Hundreds of thousands of people trapped in our broken immigration system don’t need amnesty to reconcile their status in the U.S., say immigration experts — they simply need justice as defined by the nation’s laws. Immigration experts say that perhaps more than a million people don’t know they are eligible for legal residency. Others are wrongfully detained or deported because they don’t know their rights or can’t access legal aid that could help them. Without the right to a provided attorney, the immigration system is often stacked against them.”

Woman in Courthouse to Obtain Protective Order Is Arrested by ICE Agents, ABA J., Feb. 16, 2017
“The county attorney in El Paso, Texas, is criticizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for its arrest of a woman who was at the courthouse to obtain a protective order. County Attorney Jo Anne Bernal speculates that ICE agents were at the courthouse because of a tip from the woman’s alleged abuser, report the Washington Post and the El Paso Times.”

Word May Be Toxic, but Amnesty Is Everywhere, NY Times, Oct. 11, 2017
“The biggest taboo in the immigration debate is the idea of an “amnesty.” Immigration opponents routinely paint amnesties for undocumented immigrants in the United States as catastrophic blows to the rule of law. The implication is that the only proper thing to do is enforce laws uniformly, all the time, without exceptions — and that an immigration amnesty would thus be a threat to truth, justice and the American way. But there’s a problem with that theory: Amnesties, though not always labeled as such, are central to how the nation’s legal system functions. The ways that laws are not enforced, legal experts say, can be as vital to the legal system’s effectiveness as enforcing them.”

Yates Letter Points to Evidence Showing EO Unconstitutional, Brennan Center for Justice Blog, Feb. 1, 2017
“As Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates dropped a bombshell late Monday, telling Justice Department employees that the DOJ would not defend Trump’s executive order on “immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries.” She was not convinced that the order was “lawful” or consistent with the DOJ’s “solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.” Within hours, President Trump went shopping for another Acting Attorney General, and fired Yates. One thing that lives on is the now-famous Yates Letter. In it, the Acting A.G. noted that the Office of the Legal Counsel – which had reviewed and cleared the controversial order – was charged with the narrow task of ensuring that the order “lawful on its face and properly drafted.” OLC had not, however, taken “account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose.””

You’re Safer in a ‘Sanctuary City,’ Says New Study, Crime Report, Dec. 13, 2017
“In a rebuttal to government claims that “sanctuary” cities are breeding grounds for crime driven by undocumented immigrants, a new study says that residents of areas where authorities limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities are safer from violent death. The study by the San Francisco-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) compared 2015 crime figures in 33 large central metropolitan counties where some form of sanctuary policies are in effect (including 12 who do not cooperate at all with federal immigration authorities)—representing over 50 million Americans—with 35 counties with no sanctuary policies, with some 40 million Americans. It found that white residents in particular were 26 percent less likely to die from illicit drug overdoses; 33 percent were less likely to die from all violent causes. Moreover, some 53 percent of white residents of those counties were less likely to be victims of homicide, and 62 percent less likely to die from gun violence than their white counterparts elsewhere.”

Zip Code a Strong Indicator of Deportation Chances, Crime Report, May 9, 2017
“For undocumented immigrants living in the Trump era, their zip code may be a stronger indicator of the deportation threat level they face than the length of their criminal record or when they first arrived in the U.S., The Intercept reports. Routine traffic stops are beginning to prove how broad President Trump’s definition of an “illegal criminal” is, and how that definition is being applied to the undocumented immigrants local police encounter in their day-to-day work. For regions with a history of racial tensions and hostility toward immigrants, local leaders now effectively have carte blanche to turn any interaction with police into the first step toward deportation. Gwinnett County, one of the most diverse regions in Georgia, has seen an uptick in the number of immigrants caught in removal proceedings by what started as a minor infraction. Local police there flagged nearly 500 people to federal officials for potential immigration violations between February and April. Only a small fraction of those were linked to charges of serious crime. Of all pending charges that accompanied the referrals, 70 percent were the result of traffic-related violations, most for driving without a license.”

LEGAL SERVICES

 

Immigrant Defense Project (IDP)
“The Immigrant Defense Project works to secure fairness and justice for immigrants in the United States. We aim to abolish a racially biased criminal legal system that violates basic human rights and an immigration system that every year tears hundreds of thousands of immigrants with convictions from their homes, their families, and their communities. We fight to end the current era of unprecedented mass deportation via interconnected strategies that attack the two systems at multiple points — strengthening immigrant defense through training and expert advice; challenging unfair laws through impact litigation; shaping just policies through advocacy; and empowering communities and advocates through alliance building and education, and changing negative perceptions about immigrants through communications and messaging. We help lay the groundwork for a day when the criminal and immigration laws of the United States respect and uphold the human rights of everyone.”

List of Pro Bono Legal Services Providers (EOIR)
“The List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers or the “List” (formerly known as the “List of Free Legal Services Providers”) is provided to individuals in immigration proceedings. The List contains information on non-profit organizations and attorneys who have committed to providing at least 50 hours per year of pro bono legal services before the immigration court location where they appear on the List. The List also contains information on pro bono referral services that refer individuals in immigration court proceedings to pro bono counsel. For a copy of the full List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers, please click here. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), Office of the Director, Office of Legal Access Programs (OLAP) administers the List. The List is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October). The List is central to EOIR’s efforts to improve the amount and quality of representation before its adjudicators, and it is an essential tool to inform individuals in proceedings before EOIR of available pro bono legal services. The rules for qualifying organizations, pro bono referral services, and attorneys to be placed on the List can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.61 et seq. (80 Fed. Reg. 59503).”

National Immigration Legal Services Directory (Immigration Advocates Network)
“Welcome to the National Immigration Legal Services Directory. Use the options below to search for immigration legal services providers by state, county, or detention facility. Only nonprofit organizations that provide free or low-cost immigration legal services are included in this directory.”

New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (Bronx Defenders)
“Under current law, low-income people in immigration detention do not have a right to an attorney if they can’t afford one. Studies have found that 97% of detained immigrants without legal representation are unsuccessful in challenging their deportation. Access to counsel, on the other hand, can improve the chance of winning a deportation case by as much as 1000%. Funded by the New York City Council, the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) provides free, high-quality legal representation to every low-income immigrant facing deportation in the City of New York, as well as to detained New Yorkers facing deportation in the nearby immigration courts in New Jersey. The project first piloted in 2013 and was granted full funding in 2014.NYIFUP is implemented jointly by three public-defender organizations: The Bronx Defenders, The Legal Aid Society, and Brooklyn Defender Services. Through NYIFUP, these three providers ensure universal immigration representation regardless of income, criminal history, or relief eligibility. If relief is not possible, our immigration attorneys remain by a client’s side to ensure due process, safeguard rights for future attempts at admission, and help facilitate voluntary departure. If relief against removal is available to a client, NYIFUP staff files all necessary applications, seeks release from detention on bond, and litigates the cases to trial and, when necessary, before the Board of Immigration Appeals.”

Universal Representation for Detained Immigrants (Vera Institute of Justice)
“The New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) and the California Coalition for Universal Representation (CCUR) seek to ensure that no detained immigrant will face deportation without legal representation. To keep families together and communities strong, state and local jurisdictions are, and should be, funding counsel for detained immigrants facing deportation who cannot afford a lawyer.” 

RESOURCES

 

American Immigration Council (AIC)
“The American Immigration Council (“Council”), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is a powerful voice in promoting laws, policies, and attitudes that honor our proud history as a nation of immigrants. Through research and policy analysis, litigation and communications, and international exchange, the Council seeks to shape a twenty-first century vision of the American immigrant experience.”

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
“The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is the national association of more than 15,000 attorneys and law professors who practice and teach immigration law. AILA member attorneys represent U.S. families seeking permanent residence for close family members, as well as U.S. businesses seeking talent from the global marketplace. AILA members also represent foreign students, entertainers, athletes, and asylum seekers, often on a pro bono basis. Founded in 1946, AILA is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that provides continuing legal education, information, professional services, and expertise through its 39 chapters and over 50 national committees.”

Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Refugee/Visa Order (Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse)
“This page collects challenges to the refugee/visitor Executive Order. (For cases challenging the other two immigration enforcement orders, go to this other page.) Dozens of cases have been filed so far. It will take us a couple of days to incorporate all of these into the Clearinghouse fully, but in the meantime, we’ve posted a spreadsheet, here. Please note: The information in the list is pulled from the federal court’s electronic docket system, PACER–it is preliminary and partial, and may have errors. In addition, nearly 20 of the cases were very quickly withdrawn–voluntarily dismissed, in technical language–because their plaintiffs were admitted into the country on the basis of court orders in the other cases. This group is in the spreadsheet, at the bottom, but we won’t be collecting documents elsewhere for them.”

crImmigration: The Intersection of Criminal Law and Immigration Law (Blog)
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández is a tenured associate professor of law at the University of Denver. He has been publishing crimmigration.com since 2009. César’s academic interests center on crimmigration law, including teaching a seminar on the topic and having published articles about the right to counsel for immigrants in the criminal justice system, immigration imprisonment, and race-based immigration policing in the California Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Boston University Law Review, BYU Law Review, Maryland Law Review, and Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, among others. His book, Crimmigration Law, was published by the American Bar Association in 2015. In addition to teaching a crimmigration seminar, he teaches Immigration Law, Criminal Procedure, and Torts.”

Detention Watch Network (DWN)
“Detention Watch Network (DWN) is a national coalition of organizations and individuals working to expose and challenge the injustices of the United States’ immigration detention and deportation system and advocate for profound change that promotes the rights and dignity of all persons.”

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Immigration Order Nationwide, beSpacific, Feb. 5, 2017
Collection of news articles, judges’ orders, and commentary about the Executive Travel Order as well as commentary and advisories about its impact.

Frequently Asked DACA and DAPA Program Questions, Law Librarian Blog, Sept. 6, 2017
Collection of reports, official statements and news reports concerning developments related to DACA.

Homeland Security Department (NY Times)
“News about Homeland Security Department, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times.”

ICE Extreme Vetting Initiative: A Resource Page (Brennan Center for Justice)
“This resource page is intended to provide journalists, policy-makers, and the public information about the ICE Extreme Vetting Initiative.”

Immigrants’ Rights and Detention (ACLU)
“Our immigration detention system locks up hundreds of thousands of immigrants unnecessarily every year, exposing detainees to brutal and inhumane conditions of confinement at massive costs to American taxpayers. Recently, mothers and children, who are mainly asylum seekers fleeing violence in Central America, have been detained in family detention centers. The “lock ’em up” approach to detention is contrary to common sense and our fundamental values. In America, liberty should be the norm for everyone—and detention the last resort.”

Immigration Litigation (MyGideon)[46]

This is a collection of Executive Orders and responsive guides, advisories and trainers.

International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP)
“The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) organizes law students and lawyers to develop and enforce a set of legal and human rights for refugees and displaced persons. Mobilizing direct legal aid and systemic policy advocacy, IRAP serves the world’s most persecuted individuals and empowers the next generation of human rights leaders.”

Journalist’s Resource: Immigration (Harvard Kennedy School)
“Based at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Journalist’s Resource examines news topics through a research lens. We curate scholarship relevant to media practitioners, bloggers, educators, students and general readers. Our philosophy is that peer-reviewed research studies can, at the very least, help anchor journalists as they navigate difficult terrain and competing claims.”

Litigation Documents & Resources Related to Trump Executive Order on Immigration (Lawfare)
“President Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry into the United States by immigrants and refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen is facing legal challenges in a number of federal jurisdictions. Below is a roundup of the documents in ongoing litigation related to the executive order. We will update this post as further information comes in.”

Marshall Project: Immigration
“The Marshall Project is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization that seeks to create and sustain a sense of national urgency about the U.S. criminal justice system. We achieve this through award-winning journalism, partnerships with other news outlets and public forums. In all of our work we strive to educate and enlarge the audience of people who care about the state of criminal justice.”

National Immigration Justice Center (NIJC)
“Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) is dedicated to ensuring human rights protections and access to justice for all immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. With offices in Chicago, Indiana, and Washington, D.C., NIJC provides direct legal services to and advocates for these populations through policy reform, impact litigation, and public education. Since its founding three decades ago, NIJC has been unique in blending individual client advocacy with broad-based systemic change.”

National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
“For more than 45 years, the National Immigration Project has persistently promoted justice and equality of treatment in all areas of immigration law, the criminal justice system, and social policies related to immigration. We provide technical assistance and support to legal practitioners, immigrant communities, community-based organizations, and all advocates seeking to advance the rights of noncitizens. Since its founding, the National Immigration Project has served as a progressive source for cutting-edge, advocacy-oriented legal support on issues critical to immigrant rights.”

Paper Chase (Jurist)
“Jurist (http://jurist.org) is a web-based legal news and real-time legal research service powered by a mostly-volunteer team of over 60 part-time law student reporters, editors and Web developers led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. JURIST is produced as a public service for the continuing legal education of its readers and law student staffers, and uses the latest Internet technology to track important legal news stories and materials and present them rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in a widely-accessible format.”

Resources on Medical Neglect in Immigrant Detention (Human Rights at Home Blog)
“A growing body of data indicates that health care at immigration detention centers falls far below human rights standards. In January 2017, the Health Justice program of the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest released Detained and Denied, a report chronicling the neglectful and dangerous treatment meted out to detained immigrants in the New York City area. The NYLPI report was followed in May with a nationally-focused study issued by Human Rights Watch titled Systemic Indifference: Dangerous and Substandard Medical Care in US Immigration Detention.  HRW found that “unreasonable delays in care and unqualified medical staff [] are likely to expose a record number of people to dangerous conditions under President Donald Trump’s ramped-up deportation and detention plans.” A third report, Fatal Neglect, prepared by the ACLU Detention Watch and others, focuses on deaths in immigrant detention. While immigration detention deaths and medical neglect also occurred under prior administrations, the concern is that these numbers will increase as detentions rise. Indeed, the New York Times reported in April that the Administration’s new contracts for jail space to house immigrant detainees will relax or eliminate requirements that immigrants’ medical needs be addressed in a reasonable time.”

TRAC Immigration (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse)
“Your source for comprehensive, independent and nonpartisan information about U.S. federal immigration enforcement. TRAC’s Immigration Project is a unique new multi-year effort to systematically go after very detailed information from the government, check it for accuracy and completeness and then make it available in an understandable way to the American people, Congress, immigration groups and others.” See also TRAC Challenges ICE’s Abrupt Change in Disclosure Practices, TRAC News, May 9, 2017.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (NY Times)
“News about U.S. Customs and Border Protection, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (NY Times)
“News about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times.”

[1] We are ever burdened by the graceless idioms of history that have taken up residence in our language. See Library of Congress to Cancel the Subject Heading “Illegal Aliens” (Lib. Cong. Mar. 22, 2016) (“[A] heading referring to the act of residing in a place without authorization should be used rather than a heading that describes the people as illegal or unauthorized.”); Paul Colford, ‘Illegal Immigrant’ No More, Assoc. Press Blog, Apr. 2, 2013 (“”The [AP] Stylebook no longer sanctions the term [illegal immigrant] or the use of [illegal] to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that [illegal] should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.””); See generally Kari E. Hong, The Ten Parts of ‘Illegal’ in ‘Illegal Immigration’ That I Do Not Understand, 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. Online 43 (2017). Cf. Douglas E. Abrams, Respectful Identifiers, 72 J. Mo. B. 14, Jul.-Aug. 2016, at 214; Tom Jackman, Justice Dept. Agency to Alter Its Terminology for Released Convicts, to Ease Reentry, Wash. Post, May 4, 2016; Blair Hickman, Inmate. Prisoner. Other. Discussed., Marshall Project, Apr. 3, 2015; Bill Keller, Inmate. Parolee. Felon. Discuss., Marshall Project, Apr. 1, 2015.

[2] See, e.g., All About Arctic Climatology and Meteorology (Nat’l Snow & Ice Data Ctr.) (“Residents of the Arctic include a number of indigenous groups as well as more recent arrivals from more southern latitudes. In total, only about 4 million people live in the Arctic worldwide, and in most countries indigenous people make up a minority of the Arctic population. Archaeologists and anthropologists now believe that people have lived in the Arctic for as much as twenty thousand years. The Inuit in Canada and Greenland, and the Yu’pik, Iñupiat, and Athabascan in Alaska, are just a few of the groups that are native to the Arctic.”); Traci Watson, Ancient Bones Reveal Girl’s Tough Life in Early Americas , Scientific American, Apr. 3, 2017 (“For more than 12,000 years, the adolescent girl’s bones lay deep in a Mexican cave. Now analysis of her skeleton is revealing details of her harsh existence in the early Americas—which probably included pregnancy and childbirth before death at a young age. The bones show that the girl, whom researchers nicknamed Naia, is likely to have travelled long distances on foot, but didn’t carry much on her journeys. The skeleton also reveals that Naia experienced severe and repeated nutritional stress that scarred her bones and teeth, according to results presented on March 30 at the meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Vancouver, Canada.”).

[3] See Immigrants, Emigrants, or Migrants (Dictionary.com) (“Immigrants are people who come into a new country to settle permanently. Emigrants leave one country to settle in a new one. Both of them are considered migrants.” (emphasis added)).

[4] See Amanda Ottaway, Judge Fixates on Trump’s Racial Rhetoric at DACA Hearing, Courthouse News, Jan. 30, 2018 (“A federal judge called out President Donald Trump’s “recurring, redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary” on Tuesday at a hearing on the immigration program his administration abruptly terminated. Noting that Trump’s remarks on the campaign trail and on Twitter could be “construed as having confirmed the bias of the leadership,” U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said the comments could come into play when he rules on the case.”); Lauren Carasik, NAACP Sues DHS Over the Racially Discriminatory Termination of TPS, Human Rights at Home Blog, Feb. 12, 2018; Jeremy Raff, ‘Double Punishment’ for Black Undocumented Immigrants, Atlantic, Dec. 30, 2017; Teresa Wiltz, For Some Black Immigrants, Life in Limbo, Stateline, Sept. 27, 2017. See generally Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (New Press 2012).

[5] See Nick Miroff and Maria Sacchetti, Trump Takes ‘Shackles’ Off Ice, Which Is Slapping Them on Immigrants Who Thought They Were Safe, Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2018 (“But as ICE officers get wider latitude to determine whom they detain, the biggest jump in arrests has been of immigrants with no criminal convictions. The agency made 37,734 “noncriminal” arrests in the government’s 2017 fiscal year, more than twice the number in the previous year. The category includes suspects facing possible charges as well as those without criminal records.”); Trump Continues to Paint Immigrants as Criminals, CBS News, Feb. 7, 2018

[6] See Justin Elliott, Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on Census, Alarming Experts, Pro Publica, Dec. 29, 2017; J.B. Wogan, Leaked Trump Order Targets Legal Immigrants Who Use Government Benefits, Governing, Feb. 14, 2017. But see Bianca Bruno, Study Quantifies Immigrant Contributions to San Diego Economy, Courthouse News, Feb. 3, 2018.

[7] See Brennan Center, Protect Democracy, and Lawfare Request Corrections to DOJ-DHS Section 11 Report on Terrorism Data (Brennan Center 2018); César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, Abolishing Immigration Prisons, 97 B.U. L. Rev. 245, 248 (2017).

[8] See Statement of Hilarie Bass, ABA President Re: Harsh Treatment of Undocumented Immigrants (ABA Feb. 14, 2018) (“The American Bar Association objects to the increasing number of instances of harsh treatment of undocumented immigrants by federal immigration officers in the United States. While the country needs to protect its borders, enforce laws and ensure the safety of citizens, such callous treatment of individuals, whose only transgressions are immigration violations, undermines the nation’s values.”).

[9] See Overview of the Federal Government’s Power to Exclude Aliens (CRS 2017); How U.S. Immigration Laws and Rules Have Changed Through History, Fact Tank (Pew Research Center), Sept. 30, 2015.

[10] See Elliot Spagat, ICE Finalizes Plans for Courthouse Immigration Raids, Courthouse News, Jan. 31, 2018; Henry Gass, Sanctuary Debate: What Should Immigration Enforcement Look Like at Hospitals?, Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 3, 2017; Lee Rawles, Courthouses Should Not Be Used for Routine Immigration Arrests, House Says in Resolution, ABA J., Aug. 15, 2017; Lawrenz Fares, California Chief Justice Asks ICE Agents to Stop Following Undocumented Immigrants to Courthouses, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 17, 2017. See generally Christopher N. Lasch, Common-Law Privilege to Protect State and Local Courts During the Crimmigration Crisis, 127 Yale L.J. F. 410 (2017).

[11] See, e.g., Federal Appeals Court Upholds Texas Law Banning Sanctuary Cities, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 15, 2018. See generally Promise of Sanctuary Cities and the Need for Criminal Justice Reforms in an Era of Mass Deportation (Fair Punishment Project 2017); Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief (CRS 2017); Christopher N. Lasch et al., Understanding ‘Sanctuary Cities’, SSRN (2017); 33 Prominent Prosecutors and Police Sound Alarm on Justice Department’s Anti-Sanctuary Cities Stance Endangering Public Safety, Fair and Just Prosecution Press Release, Jan. 29, 2018; Tim Henderson, As Sanctuary State, California Takes Deportation Fight to New Level, Stateline, Oct. 23, 2017.

[12] See Lorelei Laird, ICE Detainees May Proceed as a Class in Forced Labor Lawsuit, 10th Circuit Says, ABA J., Feb. 13, 2018; DHS Inspector General Finds Egregious Rights Violations at Immigration Prisons, Nat’l Immigrant Justice Center News, Dec. 14, 2017; Fernanda Santos, Photos Offer Glimpse Inside Arizona Border Detention Centers, NY Times, Aug. 18, 2016.

[13] See Cesar Cuauhtemoc and Garcia Hernandez, Crimmigration Law (ABA 2015); Jeremy Kittredge, Costs of Crimmigration: Exploring the Intersection Between Criminal Justice and Immigration (Justice Policy Institute 2017); Yolanda Vázquez, Crimmigration: The Missing Piece of Criminal Justice Reform, 51 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1093 (2016-2017). But see Liz Robbins, Not So Fast on Deportations, Judges Tell Immigration Agency, NY Times, Feb. 18, 2018.

[14] See Evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (Vera Institute of Justice 2017); Ingrid V. Eagly and Steven Shafer, National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2015-2016) (“Moreover, we find that immigrants with attorneys fared far better: among similarly situated removal respondents, the odds were fifteen times greater that immigrants with representation, as compared to those without, sought relief, and five-and-a-half times greater that they obtained relief from removal. In addition, we show that involvement of counsel was associated with certain gains in court efficiency: represented respondents brought fewer unmeritorious claims, were more likely to be released from custody, and, once released, were more likely to appear at their future deportation hearings.” Id. at 2); Maria Benevento, Without a Lawyer, Immigrants Lost in a System Stacked Against Them, Nat’l Catholic Rptr, Dec. 15, 2017; Dara Lind, New York Courtroom Gave Every Detained Immigrant a Lawyer. The Results Were Staggering., Vox, Nov. 9, 2017. See also ICE Faces No Consequences After Erroneously Holding U.S. Citizen in Immigration Detention for More than Three Years, Immigrant Justice Center Blog, July 31, 2017.

[15] See Alexis Warren, ICE Keeps Challenging Federal Courts’ Authority — And Losing., ACLU Blog, Feb. 14, 2018 (“Our clients live across the United States, but all have been swept up in ICE’s aggressive new campaign to target communities previously considered low-priority for immigration enforcement, with ICE attempting to deport them as quickly as possible. Since July 2017, we have challenged this bully tactic in federal district courts across the country, filing cases on behalf of communities of Iraqis in Michigan, Indonesians in New Hampshire, Somalis in Florida, Cambodians in Southern California, and Indonesians in New Jersey.”); Math Behind Trump’s Deportation Plan Makes No Sense, Wired, Feb. 24, 2017 (“The new immigration guidelines released by Department of Homeland Security chief General John Kelly this week broaden the categories of people prioritized for deportation. Instead of focusing on violent criminals, the department will now go after anyone who’s ever committed fraud or misrepresented themselves to the U.S. government—a description that essentially includes anyone who’s ever lived in the country illegally. The department claims its expanded plan will enhance public safety. But adding millions of new potential “criminals” to the list goes against prevailing trends in policing toward tech-driven, targeted enforcement. In other words, by making everyone a criminal, the administration will have a tougher time cracking down on real crime.”).

[16] See Debra Cassens Weiss, 9th Circuit Finds Juvenile Facing Deportation Has No Right to Free Lawyer, ABA J., Jan. 29, 2018; Autumn Callan, Federal Appeals Court Rules Immigrants Have No Right to Lawyer in Expedited Cases, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 8, 2017. But see New Legislation Would Guarantee a Public Defender for Undocumented Workers in VT, News 10 (ABC), Jan. 25, 2018 (“Vermont lawmakers are considering legislation [VT S0237 2017-2018] that would guarantee immigrants the right to a public defender, whether or not they are documented. Senator Debbie Ingram of Williston is the lead sponsor.”); Watson v United States, 179 F. Supp. 3d 251 (EDNY 2016), aff’d in part and rev’d in part by, app. dism. by, in part, as moot, Watson v. United States, 865 F.3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2017) (Weinstein, J., “There is a clear, unmet need for counsel in immigration cases. Had an attorney been available to him at the outset, plaintiff probably promptly would have been declared a citizen and released almost immediately after he was arrested, if he were arrested at all.” Id. at 257). See generally Lee Rawles, Indigent People Should Be Guaranteed Counsel for Deportation Proceedings, ABA House Resolution Says, ABA J., Aug. 14, 2017; New York State Becomes First in the Nation to Provide Lawyers for All Immigrants Detained and Facing Deportation, Vera Institute of Justice News, Apr. 7, 2017; Right to Counsel for Detained Migrants (LOC 2017) (“The United Kingdom appears to be the only country where legal counsel is provided by the government’s legal aid agency free of charge to all migrants in detention.” Id. at 1. See also VII. United Kingdom, at 8-9.).

[17] See Who Is Represented in Immigration Court? (TRAC Report 2017); Christie Thompson, One Bit of Good News for Immigrants in Detention, Marshall Project, July 5, 2017; Lorelei Laird, Immigrant Rights Group Wins Temporary Restraining Order Against DOJ in Dispute Over Ethics Rule, ABA J., May 19, 2017. See generally National Immigration Legal Services Directory (Immigration Advocates Network); List of Pro Bono Legal Services Providers (EOIR).

[18] See Ingrid V. Eagly and Steven Shafer, National Study of Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, 164 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2015-2016). See also Jillian Jorgensen, NYC’s $16m Lawyer Fund Won’t Help All Undocumented Immigrants, Daily News, Apr. 28, 2017.

[19] See Lorelei Laird, Legal Logjam in Immigration Court Grows to More Than 540,000 Cases, ABA J., Apr. 1, 2017. See also Lorelei Laird, Justice Department Imposes Quotas on Immigration Judges, Provoking Independence Concerns, ABA J., Apr. 2, 2018.

[20] See “What Kind of Miracle …” – The Systematic Violation of Immigrants’ Right to Counsel at the Cibola County Correctional Center (National Immigration Justice Center 2017); Where You Live Impacts Ability to Obtain Representation in Immigration Court (TRAC Report 2017). See also Miracle Jones, Federal Judge Blocks Order Limiting Legal Aid to Immigrants, Paper Chase (Jurist), May 18, 2017.

[21] See, e.g., Kyle Kim, Immigrants Held in Remote Ice Facilities Struggle to Find Legal Aid Before They’re Deported, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 28, 2017 (“About 30% of detained immigrants are held in facilities more than 100 miles from the nearest government-listed legal aid resource, according to a Times analysis of 70 ICE detention centers. Of these, the median distance between the facilities and the nearest government-listed legal aid was 56 miles.”).

[22] See Alexia Fernández Campbell, Why Border Patrol Agents Can Board a Bus or Train and Ask If You’re a Citizen, Vox, Feb. 9, 2018; Carrie DeCell, “Dehumanized” at the Border, Travelers Push Back, Just Security, Feb. 2, 2018; Lee Rawles, Traveling Lawyers Get New Protections in Device Searches at Border, ABA J., Jan. 25, 2018 (discussing new directive Border Search of Electronic Devices, CDP Directive No. 3340-049A (U.S. Customs and Border Protection Jan. 4, 2018)); Ram Eachambadi, Lawsuit Challenges Searches of Electronic Devices at Borders, Paper Chase (Jurist), Sept. 14, 2017; Esha Bhandari et al., Can Border Agents Search Your Electronic Devices? It’s Complicated., ACLU Blog, Mar. 14, 2017; Cyrus Farivar, What Could Happen If You Refuse to Unlock Your Phone at the US Border?, Ars Technica, Feb. 15, 2017; Orin Kerr, Can Federal Agents Detain Citizens at Border Checkpoints Until They Disclose Their Smartphone Passcodes?, Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2017; Hugh Handeyside, New Documents Show This TSA Program Blamed for Profiling Is Unscientific and Unreliable — But Still It Continues, ACLU National Security Project News, Feb. 8, 2017; Jeff John Roberts, Social Media at the Border: Can Agents Ask for Your Facebook Feed?, Fortune Magazine, Feb. 8, 2017.

[23] See Ron Nixon, Border Agents Test Facial Scans to Track Those Overstaying Visas, NY Times, Aug. 1, 2017; Nathan Freed Wessler, ICE Using Powerful Stingray Surveillance Devices in Deportation Searches, ACLU Blog, May 23, 2017.

[24] See Debra Cassens Weiss, Immigrant Who Got Bad Legal Advice Is Entitled to Vacate His Conviction, Supreme Court Rules, ABA J., June 23, 2017; Autumn Callan, Supreme Court Decides for Immigrant Who Received Poor Advice from Counsel, Paper Chase (Jurist), June 23, 2017. See also Jason Grant, Mentally Ill Immigrant, Not Warned of Deportation, May Get Guilty Plea Vacated, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 6, 2018. See generally Ken Strutin, Artificial Intelligence and Post-Conviction Lawyering, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 23, 2018, at 5 (“[S]tate post-conviction fact-finding implicates federal review. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398-1399 (2011). Where the meaningfulness of representation, apropos of procedural default, is igniting Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. See Giovanna Shay, The New State Postconviction, 46 Akron L. Rev. 473 (2013) (discussing Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (abandonment) and Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (ineffective assistance)). So, the Supreme Court has created a procedural gateway incentivizing a right to effective assistance of post-conviction counsel that nurtures a right to counsel. See generally Amicus Brief in Martinez v. Ryan, at 26-29 (collateral proceedings).”).

[25] The Supreme Court has already balanced the weight of deportation against a prison sentence. See Lee v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1958 (2017) (“There is no reason to doubt the paramount importance Lee placed on avoiding deportation. Deportation is always “a particularly severe penalty,” Padilla, 559 U.S., at 365, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (. . .), and we have “recognized that `preserving the client’s right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence,'” id., at 368, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (quoting St. Cyr, 533 U.S., at 322, 121 S.Ct. 2271; . . .); see also Padilla, 559 U.S., at 364, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (“[D]eportation is an integral part — indeed, sometimes the most important part — of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes.” (footnote omitted)). ” Id. at 1968).

[26] See George A. Rutherglen, Rights of Aliens Under the United States Constitution: At the Border and Beyond, SSRN (2017); Jacey Fortin, Governor Pardons Prisoner in ICE Custody as Lengthy Battle Continues, NY Times, May 19, 2017. See also Khalil A. Cumberbatch, The Day ICE Knocked on My Door, Marshall Project, Feb. 1, 2018 (“When I think back on my time in immigration detention, I think of how much heartache incarcerating someone temporarily but indefinitely, and with so little clarity, can cause them and their family. I was very fortunate to have a tremendous amount of legal and community support that ultimately gave me the opportunity to be released. And in 2014, Gov. Andrew Cuomo granted me an executive pardon to prevent my deportation, which is exceedingly rare in these kinds of cases. But I am devastated by the fact that there were other people out there, people just like me — and just like you — who won’t get the same outcome.”).

[27] See Kenneth Hall, Supreme Court to Rule on Mandatory Detention of Noncitizens Released from Criminal Custody, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 19, 2018; Gonzalez v. ICE: Case Development (ACLU of So. Cal. Feb. 8, 2018) (“Gonzalez v. ICE is a class action lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for placing immigration detainers (or “ICE holds”) on people in jail and extending the length of their detention in jail in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This case was consolidated with Roy v. County of Los Angeles. The court ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) unlawfully detained thousands of suspected immigrants on the basis of unconstitutional requests from ICE known as immigration detainers. This decision entitles class members to injunctive relief and monetary damages. Read the order.“). See also Anthony O’Rourke, Recent “Trujillo” Decisions and Resources, Fed. Def. NY Blog, Jan. 19, 2018; Stephanie Francis Ward, Judge Says U.S. Cannot Proceed on Dual Criminal Prosecution and Deportation Track with Immigrants, ABA J., Jan. 8, 2018; Alan Feuer, Judge Faults U.S. for Holding Immigrant Defendants Freed on Bail, NY Times, Jan. 7, 2018; Anthony O’Rourke, EDNY Requires Government to Choose Between Complying with Bail Reform Act and Detaining for Immigration Removal, Fed. Def. NY Blog, Dec. 29, 2017; Anthony O’Rourke, EDNY Holds That ICE Can’t Detain a Defendant for Criminal Prosecution, Fed. Def. NY Blog, Nov. 14, 2017; Peggy Cross-Goldenberg, Bail Reform Act Controls Whether Defendant Released Pretrial; ICE Cannot Detain a Defendant Held for Prosecution, Fed. Def. NY Blog, July 31, 2017. See generally Will Dobbie et al., The Effects of Pretrial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges, 108(2) Am. Econ. Rev. 201 (2018).

[28] See Steven Wildberger, Federal Judge Requires Bail Hearing for Immigration Detainee, Paper Chase (Jurist), Feb. 18, 2017; Debra Cassens Weiss, Immigration Judges Have to Consider Ability to Pay in Setting Bond, 9th Circuit Rules, ABA J., Oct. 3, 2017; Antonio Olivo, Immigrant Group in Va. Sues ICE Over ‘Collateral Arrests’ It Calls Unconstitutional, Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2017; Ruthann Robson, Florida State Judge Grants Writ of Habeas Corpus to Immigration Detainee on Tenth Amendment Grounds, Const. L. Prof Blog, Mar. 4, 2017. Accord Autumn Callan, Massachusetts Supreme Court Rules Immigrants Cannot Be Detained Without Charges, Paper Chase (Jurist), July 25, 2017. See generally Zip Code a Strong Indicator of Deportation Chances, Crime Report, May 9, 2017.

[29] See Ruling: Immigrants’ Bail Can’t Be Denied Based on Detainers, ABC News, Nov. 28, 2017; Evan Bush, Should a Jury Know a Person’s Immigration Status? Washington’s High Court Says No with Groundbreaking Rule, Seattle Times, Nov. 15, 2017; Vivian Yee, Prosecutors’ Dilemma: Will Conviction Lead to ‘Life Sentence of Deportation’?, NY Times, July 31, 2017; Douglas A. Berman, Should an Offender’s Citizenship Status Impact Prosecutorial Charging Decisions and How?, Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, Apr. 30, 2017.

[30] See Statement of Hilarie Bass, ABA President Re: Harsh Treatment of Undocumented Immigrants (ABA Feb. 14, 2018). See also Mark Dow, Sex Abuse and Homeland Security, Crime Report, May 12, 2017.

[31] See Robert Adelman et al., Urban Crime Rates and the Changing Face of Immigration: Evidence Across Four Decades, 15 J. Ethnicity Crim. Just. 52 (2017); Anna Flagg, The Myth of the Criminal Immigrant, Marshall Project, Mar. 30, 2018; Chiraag Bains, How Immigrants Make Communities Safer, Marshall Project, Feb. 28, 2017; Charis Kubrin et al., Immigrants Do Not Increase Crime, Research Shows, Scientific American, Feb. 7, 2017; Mike Maciag, Mythical Link Between Immigrants and High Crime Rates, Governing, Mar. 2, 2017; Andrew Lindsay, What the Data Tells Us About Immigration and Terrorism, Brennan Center for Justice Blog, Feb. 17, 2017; You’re Safer in a ‘Sanctuary City,’ Says New Study, Crime Report, Dec. 13, 2017.

[32] See Mike Maciag, Analysis: Undocumented Immigrants Not Linked with Higher Crime Rates, Governing, Mar. 2, 2017; Michelangelo Landgrave and Alex Nowrasteh, Criminal Immigrants: Their Numbers, Demographics, and Countries of Origin (Immigration Research and Policy Brief No. 12017); Mike Males, Refuting Fear: Immigration, Youth, and California’s Stunning Declines in Crime and Violence (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2017).

[33] See Christina Caron, Jerry Brown Pardons 5 Ex-Convicts Facing Deportation, Provoking Trump, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 2018 (“That argument — that immigrants bring crime to America — has influenced many of the Trump administration’s policies on immigration. Studies have shown, however, that immigration does not drive crime. According to one recent analysis, a large-scale collaboration by four universities, the areas with the largest increases in immigrants all had lower levels of crime in 2016 than in 1980. “The data is crystal clear that immigrants do not lead to an increase in crime,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. “I think opponents to immigration like to cherry-pick egregious cases where the individual does not belong in the U.S. and therefore marginalize an entire community.””).

[34] See Detained and Denied: Healthcare Access in Immigration Detention (NYLPI 2017); Systemic Indifference: Dangerous & Substandard Medical Care in Immigration Detention (Human Rights Watch 2017). See also Steven Wildberger, Federal Judge Allows Immigrants’ Lawsuit Against Private Prison to Go Forward, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 2, 2017; Christie Thompson, Treating Cancer with Ibuprofen, Marshall Project, May 8, 2017. See generally Resources on Medical Neglect in Immigrant Detention (Human Rights at Home Blog).

[35] See Jeanne Kuang, Immigration Detention Deaths Reach the Highest Total Since 2009, Houston Chronicle, Jan. 12, 2018 (“Around the country, 12 immigrants died in detention in the 2017 fiscal year, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the most since fiscal year 2009. Ten immigration detainees perished in government custody the year before. Nationwide, more than 30,000 immigrants are held at any one time in ICE detention facilities. The number of deaths in 2017 has alarmed immigration activists, who have long accused immigration officials and detention center operators of providing delayed or substandard medical care and ignoring complaints of illness.”); Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention (ACLU 2016); Seth Freed Wessler, ‘This Man Will Almost Certainly Die’, The Nation, Jan. 28, 2016.

[36] See Concerns About ICE Detainee Treatment and Care at Detention Facilities (OIG 2017); Lawsuit: GEO Group Violated Anti-Slavery Laws by Forcing Imprisoned Immigrants to Work for $1 a Day, Democracy Now, Mar. 6, 2017.

[37] See generally César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, Abolishing Immigration Prisons, 97 B.U. L. Rev. 245 (2017) (“The slave, the death row inmate, the incarcerated criminal, the immigration prisoner: all people denied essential ingredients of citizenship, all framed as dangerous to the political community, all exploited for labor, all marked by race.” Id. at 291 (footnote omitted). “Across eras and generations, a person’s ability to claim the title of United States citizen is tied more closely to one’s race, gender, or class than to the moral righteousness of one’s conduct. As if illustrating citizenship’s troubling underbelly, in the aftermath of independence, citizenship conveyed upon birth in the United States was commonly qualified by other indicia of suitability for citizenship. Women, blacks, and Native Americans were excluded, while white men were included.” Id. at 294-295 (footnote omitted)).

[38] See Katie Benner, A DACA Question: Should Judges Use Local Cases to Halt National Orders?, NY Times, Jan. 14, 2018. See generally Samuel L. Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417 (2017); Amanda Frost, Academic Highlight: The Debate Over Nationwide Injunctions, SCOTUSblog, Feb. 1, 2018 (“First, the term “nationwide injunction” is misleading. As professor Howard Wasserman suggests, a better name might be “universal injunction,” because the debate is about whether injunctions can require the federal government to cease enforcing a law against nonparties, not whether the injunctions should apply nationwide.”).

[39] Cf. Hiroshi Motomura, The Rights of Others: Legal Claims and Immigration Outside the Law, 59 Duke L.J. 1723 (2009-2010) (discussing remedies based on sub-constitutional rights)

[40] See Emily Goodin, Census Staff Warned of Immigrant Fears Long Before Citizenship Question, ABC News, Apr. 3, 2018 (“The Census Bureau warned last fall, that based on focus groups and pre-testing for the 2020 Census, its staff members were reporting increased fear among immigrants that the information they volunteered would be used against them and their families.”); Adam Klasfeld, AGs Take Census Bureau to Court on Citizenship Question, Courthouse News, Apr. 3, 2018; Lindsay Offutt, Secretary of Commerce Announces 2020 Census Citizenship Question, Paper Chase (Jurist), Mar. 27, 2018. Cf. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) (“The civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crime. It is true that several countries prescribe expatriation in the event that their nationals engage in conduct in derogation of native allegiance. Even statutes of this sort are generally applicable primarily to naturalized citizens. But use of denationalization as punishment for crime is an entirely different matter. The United Nations’ survey of the nationality laws of 84 nations of the world reveals that only two countries, the Philippines and Turkey, impose denationalization as a penalty for desertion. In this country the Eighth Amendment forbids this to be done.” Id. at 102-103 (footnotes omitted)).

[41] See Jason A. Cade and Meghan L. Flanagan, Five Steps to a Better U: Improving the Crime-Fighting Visa, SSRN (2018); Matthew Hamilton, Bill Would Make It a Felony to Intimidate Immigrant Crime Victims, Witnesses, Albany Times Union, Feb. 27, 2017 (A06447 (NY Legis. 2017-2018)); Emily Bazar, Fearing Deportation, Some Immigrants Forego Health Care, Governing, Feb. 23, 2017. Cf. Ken Strutin, Caged Humanity: Conditions of Confinement and Death in Custody, LLRX, Jan. 25, 2018 (“Prisoners, stripped of moral autonomy, are denied the benefit of every doubt, the simple dignity of being believed, and the capacity for suffering. Hence, prison is where myths and stereotypes hold sway, fed by social biases and prejudices, demolishing the notion that the punished can also be victims. Punishment, more so than conviction, petrifies the character of inmates, divorcing them from even the possibility of being mistreated.” (footnotes omitted)).

[42] See generally Galen Stocking et al., Sources Shared on Twitter: A Case Study on Immigration (Pew Research Center 2018) (“While the study does not directly address the broader question of “fake news” entities’ influence on the public, or examine who is sharing what types of sites, it does shed light on the degree to which consumers are exposed to different types of information providers on a policy issue debated in the news.”).

[43] Indeed, humanity is revealed in the treatment of the stranger. See Tanya Somanader, “We Were Strangers Once, Too”: The President Announces New Steps on Immigration, White House (Obama) Blog, Nov. 20, 2014 (President Obama: “Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too.” Paraphrasing Exodus 22:21.). Cf. Ken Strutin, Mass Incarceration and the Next Generation, N.Y.L.J., Oct. 19, 2012, at 5 (“Over a million years ago, a young boy started life’s journey in the Turkana Basin of modern day Kenya. Sadly, it promised to be a short trip; he suffered from “bone disease and a deformed spine.” But miraculously, this Turkana native endured in that predator-filled world. The anthropologist Richard Leakey, who discovered Turkana Boy, suggested that the secret to his survival was the deep-seeded trait of compassion. In the fifteen hundred generations since the dawn of consciousness, behaviorally modern humans have retained the atavistic trait of empathy. And the fact that empathy has not been filtered out by natural selection says something about us. Indeed, compassion is antiquity’s gift to the ennoblement of posterity.” Id. (footnote omitted)).

[44] See Gregory Korte, White House Posts Wrong Versions of Trump’s Orders on Its Website, USA Today, Feb. 14, 2017 (“A USA TODAY review of presidential documents found at least five cases where the version posted on the White House website doesn’t match the official version sent to the Federal Register. The differences include minor grammatical changes, missing words and paragraph renumbering — but also two cases where the original text referred to inaccurate or non-existent provisions of law. By law, the Federal Register version is the legally controlling language. But it can often take several days for the order to be published, meaning that the public must often rely on what the White House puts out — and that’s sometimes inaccurate.”). See generally Lisa DeLuca, Presidential Research Resources: A Guide to Online Information, 79(2) C&RL News 93 (Feb. 2018); Gregory Korte, The Executive Action Toolbox: How Presidents Use Proclamations, Executive Orders and Memoranda, USA Today, Oct. 12, 2017. Cf. Katherine Shaw, Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts, 96 Tex. L. Rev. 71 (2017-2018).

[45] See United States of America, Id. at 384-389 (“Executive orders to suspend travel to the USA from several Muslim-majority countries sparked legal challenges, which continued through the year. There were major attacks on the rights of women and girls. Eighteen detainees were transferred from the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; 41 detainees remained at the base and pretrial military commission proceedings continued. Gun violence remained high. Death sentences were handed down and executions were carried out.” Id. at 384).

[46] Access limited to members only.

Posted in: Civil Liberties, Court Resources, Criminal Law, Government Resources, Legal Education, Legal Research, United States Law
CLOSE
CLOSE