Feel like you missed out on some of the top news this Memorial Day Weekend? Here’s what trended last week:

Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Juan Manuel Montes was walking in Calexico, California, a small town on the Mexican border, on the night of February 17. A U.S. border patrol agent stopped Montes, a 23-year-old DREAMer, and asked him for identification. Montes told the agent he didn’t have his papers on him. The agent, according to Montes’ legal council, brought him to a patrol station, made him sign documents, denied him access to an immigration hearing, and “in the middle of the night, Montes was physically removed to Mexicali, Mexico.”

On Tuesday, Montes filed a federal complaint against the Trump Administration in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Montes, still in Mexicali, is represented by the National Immigration Law Center and three other law firms. In a press release, the NILC said Montes is the first DREAMer to be deported under the Trump Administration. Dozens of others have been deported, but only after their DREAMer status had been revoked because of gang affiliations or other criminal actions.

Montes was not stripped of his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status. According to Nora Preciado, an NILC lawyer, Montes, who was taken to the U.S. at nine years-old, was whisked across the border to Mexicali without cause or explanation.

“Juan Manuel was funneled across the border without so much as a piece of paper to explain why or how,” Preciado said. “The government shouldn’t treat anyone this way—much less someone who has DACA. No one should have to file a lawsuit to find out what happened to them.”

Enacted in 2012 by former President Barack Obama, DACA provides protection to an estimated 750,000 children, teenagers, and young adults who were brought to the country before they turned 16. Under Obama, 365 former DACA recipients were stripped of their protection–because of a “significant misdemeanor” conviction, felony, or three or more misdemeanors–and deported. President Donald Trump has deported 43 former DACA enrollees in his first few months in office. Montes had not been stripped of his DACA status, yet he was still deported.

“I was forced out because I was nervous and didn’t know what to do or say, but my home is there,” Montes said in a statement through the NILC. “I miss my job. I miss school. And I want to continue to work toward better opportunities. But most of all, I miss my family, and I have hope that I will be able to go back so I can be with them again.”

On March 15, Montes filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), seeking documents related to his deportation. CBP has yet to respond to the request. While he did not have any felonies on his record, Montes did have a collection of misdemeanors; three were for driving without a license, and one was for shoplifting. On Tuesday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tweeted a photo of him toasting the border patrol for deporting Montes:

First non-valedictorian DREAMer deported. Border Patrol, this one’s for you. https://t.co/56z1b8xrJ2 pic.twitter.com/iNjKd9FHtM

— Steve King (@SteveKingIA) April 18, 2017

Mónica Ramírez Almadani, an attorney with Covington & Burling LLP, one of the firms representing Montes in his lawsuit against the administration, is hopeful her client will find out why he was booted from Calexico that night in February. “We look forward to presenting our case to the court, because our client has the right to know why and how he was physically removed from the United States when he had permission to live and work here,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First DREAMer Deported by Trump Files Federal Complaint appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration courts have long struggled to handle the caseloads created by years of policies aimed at criminalizing undocumented immigrants. Formal deportation proceedings for apprehended immigrants were emphasized under President George W. Bush and would later define President Barack Obama’s deportation legacy.

The influx of asylum-seeking refugees–many from Central America–that began in 2014 compounded the problem by further increasing caseloads and diversifying the type of cases put before judges. While President Donald Trump has ordered new facilities and an expanded border patrol workforce, his policies will likely confuse an already-tangled system.

Shift to Formal Deportation

In the past, immigration agents “voluntarily returned” the vast majority of undocumented people they apprehended. Under this practice, undocumented immigrants, particularly those apprehended along the border, were deported from the U.S. but were not formally processed or subjected to legal consequences. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Clinton Administration deported a total of 12.3 million people (including “voluntarily returned” immigrants), but only formally deported about 900,000 people.

Critics demanding the government formally deport anyone found entering the U.S. without documentation referred to voluntary returns as “catch and release.” Soon there was a concerted government effort to implement policies that would essentially criminalize undocumented immigrants. These policies were meant to deter deported migrants from attempting to re-enter the country.

In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), which resulted in an increase in formal deportations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Bush Administration deported 10.3 million people (two million fewer than Clinton), and formally deported over 2 million people. This trend continued under Obama, who was either unwilling or unable to rollback formal deportations.

In his two terms, Obama formally deported 3.1 million people in spite of the fact that he deported far fewer people (5.3 million) overall than the Clinton and Bush Administrations. About 7.3 percent of undocumented immigrants were formally deported under Clinton, 19.4 percent under Bush, and 58.5 percent under Obama.

The decades-long commitment to criminalizing undocumented immigration has put enormous pressure on immigration courts. For years, immigration courts have lacked the resources necessary to undertake the hundreds of thousands of deportation hearings. While existing policy demands the criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the courts are struggling to keep pace in spite of controversial methods, such as Operation Streamline, designed to expedite hearing proceedings.

Refugees, Not Immigrants

In the summer of 2014, thousands of Central American refugees fled north in search of protection from violence in their home countries. In years prior, the vast majority of migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were Mexican citizens. Since the 2008 recession however, the number of Mexican migrants has dropped dramatically. In 2014, non-Mexicans outnumbered Mexican migrants for the first time on record.

Immigration officers found that far fewer people were attempting to cross the border undetected; instead, many more people were simply turning themselves in and requesting asylum. While approximately 90 percent of non-Mexican migrants crossing the southern border over the past few years have been from Central America, there is an increasing trend of non-Latin American migrants moving through Mexico in need of asylum.

Unwilling to provide asylum to the thousands seeking help and hoping to ease the strain placed on immigration infrastructure, the Obama Administration pressed the Mexican government to act. On July 7, 2014, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the Southern Border Plan, which he claimed would both protect the rights of migrants while ensuring security of the region.

Mexico deported nearly twice as many Central Americans in 2015 than in 2014, but the plan did little to discourage refugees from traveling through Mexico. While the number of migrants traveling on traditional thoroughfares north through Mexico decreased, they took lesser-known, more dangerous, routes to avoid detection. Central American refugees and refugees from around the world continue to arrive at the southern border demanding their cases be heard by U.S. authorities.

Under both international and domestic law, the U.S. is required to review the case of anyone who arrives on U.S. soil claiming to be a refugee and requesting asylum. While the Obama Administration approved a fraction of the asylum requests, policy dictated that migrants requesting asylum were entitled to have their case formally reviewed.

Trump’s recent executive order accused refugees of abusing the asylum program by forcing asylum proceedings to delay deportation. Trump’s order upended the asylum process by affording border officers the power to review asylum claims. Reports suggest immigration agents are either reviewing cases in brief or simply refusing to accept asylum claims and turning people around. Critics argue that these practices are in violation of domestic and international laws.

The Courts Under Trump

Trump inherits a system that is plagued by backlogs that have been building for over a decade. Nonetheless, Trump’s persistent rhetoric, his numerous executive orders, and a spate of recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids suggest deportation cases will climb under his presidency.

While Trump ordered the expansion of the immigration enforcement workforce and construction of new facilities, the funds would require congressional approval. Furthermore, new appropriations would likely fail to fill existing cracks caused by a decade of aggressive deportation policies. Recent shifts in migration patterns have exacerbated immigration courts’ caseloads.

While Trump’s promises of secure borders and increased deportations won him the support of many, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to fulfill his promises. Trump’s immigration policies present a logistical nightmare for an already overworked system and will likely face numerous legal challenges both domestically and internationally. In attempting to ramp up immigration enforcement to unprecedented levels, Trump may force it to a grinding halt.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Policies Could Further Damage Ailing Immigration Courts appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Politics at the Oscars: No Surprise There

Last night was the Academy Awards and “La La Land” got a lot of the statuettes. But it didn’t get the most prestigious award–Best Picture–even though it was incorrectly announced as the winner at first. After an embarrassing mix-up, “Moonlight” took home the coveted prize.

This off-camera shot of the cast/crew of Moonlight winning Best Picture pic.twitter.com/uWfxehXRsJ

— Spencer Althouse (@SpencerAlthouse) February 27, 2017

The whole evening was a success for more diverse movies, following last year’s criticism of #OscarsSoWhite. “Moonlight,” which depicts the coming of age story of a young black gay man, was an important victory as debates centering on race, immigration, and LGBT rights are in full swing. “Moonlight” actor Mahershala Ali also became the first Muslim actor ever to win an Oscar. While there’s still a lot more work to be done to increase representation and diversity in Hollywood, the success of “Moonlight” was heartening.

But the politics didn’t stop there. The night saw plenty of jabs at the new president from host Jimmy Kimmel. “I mean, remember last year, when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Homeland Security issued two memos on Tuesday, establishing harsher immigration enforcement when deporting undocumented immigrants. Taken together, the rules amount to a stricter interpretation of existing laws, and the expansion of others. The new guidelines also call for hiring more federal immigration officials, and erecting new detention facilities.

With last month’s executive order on illegal immigration and Tuesday’s memos, President Donald Trump seems to be following through with one of his principal campaign promises: cracking down on undocumented immigrants.

“The faithful execution of our immigration laws is best achieved by using all these statutory authorities to the greatest extent practicable,” DHS Secretary John Kelly wrote in one of the memos. “Accordingly, department personnel shall make full use of these authorities.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday that the rules were designed to “take the shackles off” immigration officers, and that “the number one priority is that people who pose a threat to our country are immediately dealt with.”

While President Barack Obama narrowly focused on deporting gang members, repeat criminal offenders, and high-level criminals who were in the country illegally (some dubbed him the “deporter in chief”), the new order essentially widens the scope of those who could be targeted for deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

“ICE will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement,” said a fact sheet released by DHS on the order. “All of those present in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention, and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States.”

This effectively means that anyone found to have broken the federal immigration law–which is every undocumented immigrant living in the U.S.–is subject to being deported back to their home country. That does not mean this will happen, as there are roughly 11 million undocumented people living in the U.S., and there are not enough resources to deal with them all. But the new memos also call for more resources to help.

For one, the memos ask for an infusion of 10,000 new federal immigration officers. They also call for new detention facilities, and a new office within ICE to work with victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. But it is unclear how the hiring increases and new infrastructure would be funded. In addition, Kelly told lawmakers on Capitol Hill earlier this month that more officers are not necessarily needed to strengthen security.

“I’d rather have fewer and make sure that they’re high-quality people,” he said. “I will not skimp on the training and the standards.” Regardless of whether ICE is able to hire thousands of new officers, it is expanding an existing program, known as 287(g), that uses local law enforcement officers as proxy federal immigration agents. Currently, 32 agencies across 16 states comply with the program; the new memos seek to expand the number of complying agencies. Between 2006 and 2013, the program resulted in about 175,000 deportations.

Immigration activists and some lawmakers strongly oppose the new guidelines. On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), tweeted:

Instead of frightening 11 million undocumented people with deportation, we need comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 22, 2017

“When you tell state and local police that their job is to do immigration enforcement,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project told the New York Times, “it translates into the unwarranted and illegal targeting of people because of their race, because of their language, because of the color of their skin.”

One group that is seemingly safe from the heightened enforcement are undocumented children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents. Obama enacted a program, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which protects the undocumented children, or Dreamers. That program protected roughly 750,000 children. But under the new rules, their parents are at greater risk of being deported.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Homeland Security Broadens the Scope of Immigration Enforcement appeared first on Law Street.

The White House is pushing back against claims that President Trump is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants.

According to an 11-page draft memo obtained by The Associated Press, governors in 11 states, including some that are not along the U.S.-Mexico border, would have the choice to have their guards participate in the roundup. The deportation measure would act in conjunction with Trump’s executive order on immigration and border security signed on January 25.

The AP originally reported that the memo from U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, was addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vice published a copy of the memo obtained by the AP.

Trump weighs mobilizing National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants in 11 states. https://t.co/0lLvP59GZU pic.twitter.com/UJXfJslnqy

— AP Interactive (@AP_Interactive) February 17, 2017

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer categorically denied the AP report, calling it “100 percent not true” and “irresponsible.” He said, ”There is no effort at all to utilize the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants.”

However, conflicting reports are coming out of the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS spokesperson contends that the pre-decisional draft never made it to Secretary Kelly’s desk and was never seriously considered by the agency. But staffers from the department told the AP that they discussed the proposal as recently as last Friday.

As the document’s validity continues to be investigated, it’s important to consider the substantial impact it would have if implemented. Nearly one-half of the 11.1 million people residing in the U.S. illegally live in the 11 states–California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana–according to Pew Research Center estimates using 2014 Census data.

The leaked proposal comes as the Trump administration hurriedly attempts to save face after the swift demise of its unconstitutional and discriminatory immigration ban. Last week, ICE agents arrested 680 people in raids across the country, which Secretary Kelly later called “routine.” While National Guard personnel have helped with immigration enforcement on the border before, this action would increase their involvement significantly.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White House Denies Plans to Deploy National Guard for Immigration Roundups appeared first on Law Street.

The LAPD will not assist President-elect Donald Trump in any way if he decides to follow through with his deportation plans, said police chief Charlie Beck on Monday. Trump has pledged to deport millions of illegal immigrants, a promise that has caused anxiety for many of the undocumented, as well as fully legal, immigrants in the country. Los Angeles County is home to roughly one million out of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. But Beck said his police force will not do anything differently just because there is a new president:

We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody’s immigration status. We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job.

LAPD will not help deport immigrants under Trump, chief says https://t.co/zVnPuPLgXX pic.twitter.com/TWhejyi0j9

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) November 14, 2016

The LAPD has a long tradition of not complying with  federal guidelines on the issue of undocumented immigrants. Officers are not allowed to stop someone simply because of their immigration status, or to ask about it. Officers have additionally stopped handing over people arrested for small crimes to federal agents for deportation and also no longer hold inmates who might be deportable after they served their time.

California is a liberal state and is so unhappy about Trump’s election that many people there have recently been campaigning for Calexit—to make California independent from the rest of the U.S. Now that many worry about what will happen under Trump, officials in the Golden State have tried to comfort people. The LA Archbishop Jose H. Gomez held a special prayer service last Thursday, saying, “In the past couple days since the election… we have children in our schools who are scared. They think the government is going to come and deport their parents.” He said that the church will keep supporting immigrants that are here illegally.

pic.twitter.com/wAPa6ied6y
100,000 people rally against US Fascism and for #CalExit
We are an undeniable force

(yes, it is LA ~1500 Wilshire)

— #CalExit NaphiSoc (@NaphiSoc) November 15, 2016

LA Mayor Eric Garcetti called for a meeting at Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles and promised that he would stand up for his people. “If the first day, as president, we see something that is hostile to our people, hostile to our city, bad for our economy, bad for our security, we will speak up, speak out, act up and act out,” he said.

On Friday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill–Senate Bill 10–that would let undocumented immigrants buy health insurance through the state exchange. It passed the state senate on Monday but requires approval by the federal government. If that happens, it would make California the first state to let illegal immigrants who make too much money to qualify for low-income plans buy insurance from the state exchanges.

In times like these, it is reassuring that some people are determined to stay empathetic and show solidarity with others.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The LAPD Says it Will Not Assist Trump with Any Deportation Plans appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Adam Crapser, 41, who was born in South Korea but adopted by an American couple at age three, has brought a lot of attention to the issue of international adoptees who lack American citizenship. Adam Crapser’s adoptive parents never filled out the necessary paperwork and now he faces deportation to a country he hasn’t seen since he was three, where he has no family or friends, and knows neither the language nor the culture. According to a Korean-American advocacy group, about 35,000 adoptees in the country lack U.S. citizenship, many times because the parents don’t know they need to fill out certain paperwork.

They grew up as American citizens, then learned that they weren’t @PriscillaStoneS @adam_crapser @NYAdoptEquality https://t.co/o8A9E1u7Fb

— Frank Ligtvoet (@frank_ligtvoet) September 3, 2016

Adam Crapser, who until recently lived in Vancouver, Washington, with his two daughters and pregnant wife, was adopted with his sister and taken to the U.S. His only belongings when he arrived were a Korean bible, a pair of rubber shoes, and a stuffed dog. But seven years later the parents, who had been abusive the whole time and punished the siblings by locking them in a dark basement, changed their minds and abandoned the kids. At age ten, Adam Crapser was separated from his sister and passed through several different foster homes.

By the time he was 12, Thomas and Dolly Crapser adopted him, but that didn’t make life easier. The couple also had two other adopted kids and several foster children, and all of them were abused. The parents allegedly taped the children’s mouths shut with duct tape, slammed their heads into door frames, and hit them. According to the AP, the couple was arrested on charges of physical and sexual abuse and rape in 1991, but Thomas only got 90 days in jail and Dolly three years of probation.

.@repzoelofgren what can be done to help #adamcrapser? https://t.co/3w4Hcx4MLr Appalling abuse by ICE after a lifetime of abuse.

— Peter Delevett (@peterdelevett) October 27, 2016

Before the Crapsers were criminally charged, they had kicked Adam Crapser out of their home before he had any chance to collect his belongings. In an attempt to retrieve his Korean bible and rubber shoes from when he was little, he broke into their house, which led to charges of burglary. Later in life he got in trouble with the law for unlawful possession of a firearm, assault after a fight with his roommate, and for calling a son he had with an ex-girlfriend despite a protection order.

“I made a lot of mistakes in my life, and I’m not proud of it,” Adam Crapser told the New York Times magazine. “I’ve learned a lot of lessons the hard way.”

As a sister and mother of international adoptees, this story breaks my heart and infuriates me in all kinds of ways. https://t.co/GgVYKIzr4D

— Jeanne Ryan (@Jeanne_Ryan) October 28, 2016

In 2000, Congress passed a law that gives automatic citizenship to adoptees, but only future adoptees or children under 18. Adam Crapser wasn’t covered but had to apply by himself. At the beginning of the year he came onto the immigration authorities’ radar when he applied for a green card and his previous convictions showed up. Another law, that was made stricter after 9/11, made him deportable because of his previous crimes. Even though he is now a responsible father of three, soon to be four, he was taken away from his family and put in an immigration detention center for nine months. During a hearing on Monday, he waived an appeal since he desperately wants to get out of there and be with his family.

“He will be deported as soon as Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes the necessary arrangements,” his attorney Lori Walls said to the AP. “Adam, his family, and advocates are heartbroken at the outcome.”

That someone who was taken from his home country at such a young age will now be sent off to a place completely alien to him and forced to split up from his wife and children, simply because of neglectful adoptive parents, has caused an uproar on social media. Many are pleading for the White House to step in.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Korean-American Man Who Was Adopted When He Was Three to Be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

So what are DACA/DAPA?

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is an initiative launched in 2012 as an act of prosecutorial discretion by president Obama. The order allows undocumented immigrants who move to the United States before the age of 16 to seek temporary relief from deportation given they meet criteria for age, arrival time, criminal record, and schooling.

The expansion of DACA (or DACA+) was authorized by President Obama in 2014 that eliminates certain arrival timeline requirements, the age ceiling, and extends relief period from two years to three years.

DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) is also an initiative launched in 2014 that would allow parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to seek temporary relief from deportation and apply for work permits.

These executive actions were intended to allow deportation officials to focus on illegal immigrants who engage in criminal behavior and thus threaten public safety, while allowing other immigrants who do not have legal status but have vested interests in the United States (for example, if they spent their childhood here or  have a child who is a citizen) to stay for a temporary period.

How did the lawsuit begin?

The lawsuit came to fruition when 26 states sued the federal government claiming that DAPA/DACA+ violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not allowing a notice-and-comment period during rulemaking.

When the states took the case to district court in February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting further action on DAPA/DACA+ indefinitely. In November 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order to grant a preliminary injunction. The federal government filed a petition for certiorari later that month and the Supreme Court decided to take up the case in January. The Supreme Court also decided to consider whether DAPA/DACA+ violated the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution.

Check out this article to read more about the case’s background.

What does today’s tie mean?

The deadlocked ruling in United States v. Texas affirms Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to block the president’s executive actions. Today’s ruling amounted to just one sentence: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” As a result, as many as five million undocumented immigrants will no longer be protected from deportation

Because the court did not actually decide on the case but rather affirmed the affirmation of an indefinite suspension of a program, the future of DAPA/DACA+ is obviously ambiguous. Immigration advocates find it unfair that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit would be able to determine immigration policy for the whole country. Some also speculate that another group of states will sue in favor of the actions, which could create a split between appellate courts while the Supreme Court remains deadlocked in a tie.

If the decision remains through the 2016 election, the future of DAPA/DACA+ and immigration policy will be decided by the next president or it may require a ninth Supreme Court justice to break the tie.

You can read the (very brief) opinion here.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Split Blocks Obama’s Immigration Actions appeared first on Law Street.

Eight men have been arrested following the hundreds of robberies and assaults that occurred on New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany. Over 600 criminal reports were submitted regarding New Year’s Eve in Cologne, and over half of those reports involved sexual harassment or assault. A large number of the victims who reported their attacks described their assailants as Middle Eastern, which triggered fears of backlash against Germany’s refugee population. Angela Merkel has remained firm in her commitment to refugee acceptance and integration but the attacks in Cologne may provide a critical groundswell of support for anti-immigration groups. At this time, one 26-year-old Algerian asylum-seeker is in custody for groping a woman and stealing her phone but the refugee status of the other suspects in custody is mostly unknown. Read on for a closer look at the events of New Year’s Eve and what they may mean for Germany in the coming years.

The Attacks across the City

Over 1,000 drunken men gathered outside of Cologne’s central train station, adjacent to its famous cathedral, to ring in 2016. It was within that neighborhood that a large part of the attacks took place, as young women emerged from the train station and headed off into the night. Groups of men who were reported to be of “North African/Arab” origin surrounded young women, groping and assaulting them. Dozens of men would circle women, both those walking alone and those in groups, forcing them to “run a gauntlet” to escape. In addition to sexual attacks, hundreds of people reported theft of money, phones, and valuables.

The identities of the attackers were initially unclear but in the days following the attacks, a significant number of the victims described their attackers as young men of Middle Eastern origin. The majority of the women targeted were German nationals. One woman reported that her rapist told her “German women are just for sex.” Media reports of the incidents were initially only running in local newspapers but within a few days, the story of the horrific night had spread worldwide.

The police have stated that they have never dealt with this kind of situation before and had not created a plan of action to combat such wide-scale criminal activity occurring at once. The preceding year, police officers were deployed in the same volume and had no problems with crowd control. However, with the influx of people outside the station, there were so many attacks happening simultaneously around the central station that security forces were essentially powerless to stop them. The violence was not confined to Cologne, as hundreds of other sexual assault cases poured in from across Germany on New Year’s Eve. However, the collective nature of the attacks in Cologne and the authorities’ disturbingly lackluster response on the ground outside the station mark them as unique. In the wake of the New Year’s Eve attacks, several German cities cancelled other winter celebrations out of fear of similar widespread violence.

Unexpected Implications

Continued Anti-Immigration Sentiment

Right wing protesters, already against the influx of refugees, have doubled down on their positions. During a recent protest, they clashed with police in riot gear, screaming at police officers for not defending local women–although it was unclear if they meant defending them from assault or defending them from refugees. One supporter of the anti-immigration Pegida movement went so far as to refer to the attacks as “bad for the women, but good for us, because the people are being woken up.” Anti-immigration rallies were held across the country in the wake of the attacks, with hundreds of people carrying signs reading “Rapefugees Not Welcome.” Although few of the women who were assaulted have come forward with anti-immigrant positions, Pegida and other groups have taken it upon themselves to be their voices.

Unfortunately, many onlookers worry that the transparent racism and xenophobia of Pegida undermines the validity of the victim’s reports. One young woman named Selina publicly discussed her attack and her attackers (men of Middle Eastern descent who spoke Arabic and did not seem to understand German) and was accused of being racist by a variety of internet sources. Women seeking justice for the crimes committed against them should feel comfortable reporting physical descriptions of their attackers but in the case of  the Cologne attacks, where race and violence are inextricably linked, those who report their attack may become targets for the vitriol of those who assume they are prejudiced.

An Attack on Women

Two weeks after the attack, The Irish Times published an editorial on the violence in Cologne which stated that

Perpetrators of sexual assault against women do have one thing in common, and it’s not religion or ethnicity, it’s gender…Perpetrators of sexual assault are typified by their diversity. But the common denominator is men. Until we are honest with ourselves about that, and until prevention focuses on stopping men from assaulting women – not blaming one demographic of men, or outlining ways in which women can avoid potential assault – we are kidding ourselves. What happened in Cologne, that mass act, was primarily unusual in its collective nature. But all over the world, in every village, town and city, mass acts of misogyny are fragmented daily, manifesting as individual assaults. We ignore them, because they are not as newsworthy. Victims of sexual assault are just as diverse. Being raped transcends all demographics.

A majority of news outlets have chosen to classify the attacks in Cologne as an issue of sexual assault and violence rather than an issue of race. Evidence from police data shows that refugees have, in fact, committed less crime than native Germans since arriving in the country, therefore outside of the right wing rallies, few news outlets have traced the crimes to be associated with race. While the German government has prioritized deporting refugees who are found guilty of sexual and physical assault, women’s advocacy groups argue that this is not about immigration policy–it is about protection for women. The events of Cologne are being attributed to a massive spike in the number of young men in Germany, which changes the demographics of security.

Regardless of race or socioeconomic status, men are more likely to commit violent acts than women. Considering that the majority of sexual assault cases involve the assault of women by men, the shifting gender dynamics of Germany may affect the country’s future. Cologne has been labeled a potential watershed moment for legal reform and creating protections for all women against all forms of sexual harassment and abuse. As Germany adapts to its new population, the legal processes and security of the nation will have to change in tandem. The brutality of New Year’s Eve in Cologne may inspire German officials to create comprehensive legal protection for women who are sexually harassed and assaulted.

Conclusion

The attacks in Cologne will be remembered as an unprecedented night of terror but the implications of the attacks go beyond criminal activity. Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome over a million refugees (and potentially more in the coming year) into Germany was controversial and she will likely have to keep defending it for years to come. Asylum seekers engaging in criminal activity only fuels the fears of Germans who were already opposed to the influx of refugees. The entire refugee population should not be held accountable for the actions of a few, but as security services are sorting through hundreds of potential suspects who often match the description of Middle Eastern refugees, right-wing xenophobes are gaining public support. The German police presence will need to adapt and expand to deal with its swelling population if they want to avoid a repeat of Cologne in the coming years but that will require not only a new style of training, but an increase in the number of staff they have available for deployment at any given time. Cologne will not only be an important marker for the history of women’s rights and violent crime, it may serve as the trigger for an new era of policing in Germany.

Resources

CNN: Eight in Pretrial Custody in Cologne New Year’s Eve Mass Robberies, Sex Assaults

CNN: Cologne, Germany: Hundreds of Sexual Assault Charges from New Year’s Eve

BBC: First Suspect Held Over Sex Assault Claims

The New York Times: As Germany Welcomes Migrants, Sexual Attacks in Cologne Point to a New Reality

Huffington Post: Here’s What We Know So Far About The Sexual Assaults At Cologne’s Train Station

Daily Mail: Migrant Sexually Assaulted 25-year-old Victim after Telling her ‘German Women are Just There for Sex’

NBC News: Cologne Sex Attacks ‘Good for Us,’ Anti-Refugee Protesters Say

Breitbart: Cologne Sexual Assault Victim called a Racist and Harassed after Identifying Her Attackers

The Irish Times: Cologne Assaults a Mass Act of Misogyny

The Local: Police: Refugees Commit Less Crime than Germans

TIME: Reaction to Cologne Attacks Should Focus on Women’s Rights

Psychology Today: Male Aggression: Why are Men More Violent?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Impacts of Widespread Sexual Assault in Cologne appeared first on Law Street.

Hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants and Dominicans of Haitian descent currently face the risk of deportation from the Dominican Republic. Even though this process is meant to weed out only illegal immigrants, the practice has come under particular scrutiny. The Dominican Republic government has generated a lot of controversy in regards to this sudden deportation effort because many feel it is unjust.

For example, on Monday, Yayine Mesilus was snatched off the streets of her small village in the Dominican Republic and taken back to Haiti. She had migrated there eight years ago with her little brother, Clever, to look for work. She stated:

I was thrown back here because I was not carrying my document to prove I was already trying to register. They didn’t even give me the chance to explain what was happening,

Migrant workers were supposed to be given until the night of Wednesday, June 17, to register with Dominican authorities before being deported. If they had not completed the process, but began registration, they were supposed to be given a 45-day grace period. The government promised to open a path to naturalization for those who registered, after claiming to want to get a grip on its migrant work force.

The forthcoming deportation stems from a law passed last year that requires all foreign-born workers to register with the government within a year or face deportation. But this law followed a 2013 court ruling to strip the citizenship of children born in the Dominican Republic to foreign parents. For human rights advocates, this court ruling was viewed as discrimination against Dominicans with darker skin and Haitian migrant workers.

An international outcry resulted in the government later softening its stance. It promised citizenship to children whose births were in the nation’s civil registry, and a chance to nationalize those not formally registered. But with anything less then full citizenship, these people are left stateless, belonging to neither their birthplace nor their family’s homeland.

Nearly 240,000 migrant workers born outside of the Dominican Republic have started the registration process. But there are an estimated 524,000 foreign-born migrant workers in the country, about ninety percent of whom are Haitian. This leaves a huge population of migrant workers at risk for deportation.

Dominican Republic officials claim that providing illegal immigrants a path to naturalization is more generous than the policies of other countries, including the United States. But their mass deportations involve purging a racial group with which there has been a long history of tension.

Haitian workers have been crossing the border for generations to cut sugar cane, clean homes, and care for children. However, there has been racial tension since the massacre of tens of thousands of Haitian laborers ordered by Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo in 1937. More recently, the Dominican Republic claims to be tired of bearing the brunt of Haiti’s economic troubles, both before and after the 2010 earthquake that sent Haitians fleeing across the border. The 2013 court ruling on citizenship further solidified the tense situation.

The Dominican Republic economy will most likely experience a large change when the migrants are deported. For generations, Haitians have assumed the jobs that many Dominicans do not want, filling a vital part of the labor market often below market rates. If a large portion of their labor force is removed, production costs could rise.

Moreover, this deportation policy illustrates the lack of empathy the Dominican Republic has for its Haitian born people and migrant workers. The government claims to be doing them a favor by providing them with options that have guidelines, but these options are not necessarily adequate. If the Dominican Republic wants to provide Haitians with a clear path to naturalization, it should do so–the current deportation situation illustrates that this simply isn’t the case.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dominican Republic’s Deportation Policy: Is it Broken? appeared first on Law Street.

The millions of undocumented people living in the United States waiting for the “green light” to apply for the deportation protection program presented by President Obama may never get their chance, thanks to a Federal Appeals court decision Tuesday.

The appeals court for the Fifth Circuit opted to deny the Obama Administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration. This court’s decision is a Republican victory for Texas and the 25 other states who collectively filed the lawsuit to prevent the president’s proposed path to citizenship from reaching fruition.

In November, President Obama first announced the executive orders to implement the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Personal Residents (DAPA). The program was designed to be a kind of “legal reprieve” by granting citizenship to undocumented parents of children born in the U.S. and illegal immigrants who have lived in the country permanently for at least five years.

The president also announced expansion plans for the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that permits teenagers and young adults who were born outside of the United States, but raised in the country, to apply for protection from deportation and for employment authorizations. However, both orders were immediately met with Republican resistance questioning the legality of such an action.

In a statement issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and quoted by CNN, Paxton praised the ruling calling it a “victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America.” Paxton said,

Telling illegal aliens that they are now lawfully present in this country, and awarding them valuable government benefits, is a drastic change in immigration policy. The President’s attempt to do this by himself, without a law passed by Congress and without any input from the states, is a remarkable violation of the U.S Constitution and laws.

The White House issued its own response to these allegations via spokesperson Brandi Hoffine who called the decision a “misrepresentation of the facts and the law.” Hoffine as quoted by USA Today said,

As the powerful dissent from Judge [Stephen] Higginson recognizes, President Obama’s immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law. The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe.

…

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, business leaders, local law enforcement and elected officials, educators, faith leaders, legal scholars, and others have all asked the courts to allow these actions to move forward, given the important economic and public safety benefits.

With bids for the 2016 presidential election already well under way, these programs were meant to be a lasting part of Obama’s presidential legacy, but it’s unclear where their fate may now lay. The White House and Justice Department lawyers are reportedly evaluating the court’s ruling while considering possible next steps. Regardless of which side of the immigration aisle you lean, it’s obvious that this decision does little to fix the nation’s broken system.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Immigration Plan: Does it Have Any Hope of Moving Forward? appeared first on Law Street.

A history of inadequate immigration policies paired with the notion of the “American Dream” creates an interesting paradox for the role of immigrants in American society. Growing pressure from immigrants’ rights advocates and the overall changes in immigration policies initiated by the Obama Administration have prompted a debate on how to deal with growing numbers of undocumented immigrants. Are current deportation policies a part of the solution or are they the problem themselves? Read on to learn more about deportation practices in the United States.

What is deportation?

Deportation can be broadly defined as an order to leave a country. Deportation in the United States is carried out in two ways: removals and returns.

A removal is an official judicial or administrative order to leave the country, and is a formal legal process. If a person is removed from the country, he is barred from legally entering the country for a certain or indefinite period of time. Appearance in front of an immigration judge or an officer is often a part of the removal procedure. An order of removal becomes a part of the individual’s permanent record. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the agency responsible for removal proceedings.

On the contrary, return is a more informal mechanism of deportation. It’s essentially a turn around at the border without any paperwork or formal procedure. In this way, being “returned” doesn’t result in any legal consequences and these individuals are not necessarily barred from re-entering the country in the future. U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehends people at the border, and can carry out either removal or return proceedings.

While removals can be carried out anywhere in the country or at the border, returns are only applicable to individuals trying to cross the border or people who were caught in close proximity to it.

What laws govern deportation practices in the U.S.?

Even though the United States emerged as an immigrant country, regulating immigration has been a long-standing policy of the U.S. government. Race and ethnicity have long played a crucial role in policy decisions concerning immigration. Virtually all ethnic groups have suffered the consequences of racially motivated policies of exclusion. For example, Chinese immigrants were marginalized and constantly targeted for deportation throughout the early history of the United States.

More recent policies and practices pertaining to deportation focus on so-called “smart enforcement,” which emphasizes deportations of those with criminal convictions or ties to terrorist organizations. This strategy is rooted in close cooperation between immigration and border patrol forces, the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies.

In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Not only did it expand penalties for unauthorized re-entry after deportation, but for myriads of other immigration-related crimes.

In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was signed into law. It authorized mandatory deportations for undocumented immigrants who had criminal convictions, even non-violent ones. The definition of “aggravated felony” in immigration law was expanded to include tax evasion, failure to appear in court, and even receipt of stolen property. In addition, this law created special procedures for those accused of terrorist charges, including limiting their habeas corpus protections.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 further limited the rights of undocumented immigrants by expanding avenues for deportations without judicial review. According to both 1996 reforms, all undocumented immigrants with aggravated felony convictions were due for deportation, even if offense was committed years before the laws were enacted. In addition, the laws could be applied to all non-citizens, including legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants alike.

Section 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was also enacted back in 1996. It allowed law-enforcement agencies to perform the functions of federal immigration agents by deputizing local police officers. In recent years, the implementation of the 287 (g) initiative was widely criticized for its lack of federal oversight, racial profiling practices, and draining of valuable resources that could have been used instead to investigate crimes.

After 2001, criminal enforcement and national security practices were further tied to immigration policies. In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was created to oversee both counterterrorism and immigration enforcement. All in all, the post-9/11 era can be somewhat characterized by the large number of initiatives and programs that pertain to immigration and deportation enforcement. Some major deportation-related programs include the following:

• The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was initiated in 2002 and required those who were from “suspect” nations, to register and interview with immigration authorities and to be fingerprinted. The program was criticized for its inherent religious and ethnic profiling as well as its broad overreach. More than 13,000 Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants were deported, devastating families and communities. The program was suspended in 2011 due to extensive lobbying by Muslim Americans.
• The Consequence Delivery System took off in 2005, targeting those who were trying to enter the country unlawfully, especially through the U.S.-Mexico border. The focuses of the initiative were on formal removals and criminal charges. The Consequence Delivery System not only discourages voluntary returns, but encourages formal removals that are closely entangled with criminal proceedings.
• Operation Streamline was introduced during the same year in order to speed up immigration proceedings by providing courts with the freedom to initiate so-called “group trials,” which provide few legal rights to immigrants. From 2009 to 2012, 208,939 undocumented immigrants went through such court proceedings and were expelled from the country.
• The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) was created in 2006 and encompasses different components to identify and remove undocumented immigrants and sometimes permanent residents within local, state, and federal correction facilities. Identified individuals can be removed even if they were not convicted of a crime and still have pending charges. As of 2009, 57 percent of those deported through CAP were not convicted of any crime.
• Secure Communities Program (SCP) is an ongoing information-sharing program that was created in 2008. The main goal of the initiative is to identify undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions through the screening of biometrical data when people are booked into jails. As of now, Secure Communities has helped to remove 283,000 of such undocumented immigrants, 93 percent of whom were Latino. Critiques of this program include concerns about it is racial profiling in communities of color and that the program has collateral damages, as many undocumented immigrants identified and removed through the SCP are non-violent offenders or traffic violators.

During the past several administrations, deportation policies have shifted toward a focus on border security and apprehension of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. In this way, immigration policies have become more closely associated with criminal enforcement.

How many people are being deported?

Overall, the number of undocumented immigrants who are deported has grown over time. There were only 70,000 people deported in 1995-96, the next year this number rose to 114,000. By 2012 deportations reached 419,384 and climbed to 438,421 in 2013. However, in 2014 the numbers dropped to 315,943, with two-thirds of people who were deported being apprehended at the border or within 100 miles of it.

By some estimations, since President Obama took office more than two million people were deported, prompting discontent from immigrant advocate groups. However, even though deportation numbers went up during Obama’s presidency, most of the increase in official figures stems from shifting policies.

How do we count deportations?

During the second term of George W. Bush’s administration, more people were formally removed than simply turned around at the border through the previously discussed Consequence Delivery System. When Obama became  president, he continued to follow the already-in-place practices of treating many returns as removals, resulting in the overall increased numbers of deportees. Before, immigrants who were caught at the border were simply sent back to where they came from, without legal consequences. Now, they are more likely to be apprehended, prosecuted, and issued a deportation order. As a result, deportations that would previously be classified as returns are now officially counted as removals.

Return recordkeeping tended to be more informal. In most instances, people who were simply turned around at the border would not be counted in the official statistics. As a result, the total number of those deported seems higher now, but in the reality it’s hard to say how many people were returned and not counted in the official statistics before Bush started this trend. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of returns and removals were roughly the same, 1.6 million each; however, in 2013, 64 percent of removals were carried out at the border, signifying a 28 percent increase from 2008. Simultaneously, the number of people apprehended in the interior of the country dropped to 36 percent in 2013.

It’s clear that arrests at the border constitute a significant proportion of the overall deportations, while undocumented immigrants who have already been living in the United States are given less priority.

How are deportations are carried out?

Formal deportations are usually carried out only after a person appears before an immigration judge. However, during the last couple of years judicial proceedings were outpaced by expedited removals and other similar practices. In 2013, 83 percent of deportations were executed without judicial review. Moreover, 44 percent were fast-track removals and 40 percent were reinstatements of orders that were not previously carried out. During the same year, only 17 percent of deportations were carried out through judicial order, compared with 36 percent in 2011.

The video below looks at the life of one undocumented immigrant who was deported through reinstatement of previous order of removal after living in the United States for more than 20 years. He left behind a wife and five American children.

Who is being deported?

Criminals

The Obama Administration reiterated that it would target immigrants who committed crimes for deportation. Consequently, from 2009 to 2013 the numbers of deported immigrants with criminal convictions went up 54.6 percent. In 2013, 85 percent of deportees had been previously convicted of felonies or at least three misdemeanors.

However, in 2013, 60 percent of those who had a criminal record and were removed from the country, had only minor non-violent convictions, punishable by less than a year in prison. Since President Obama took office, only 20 percent of all deportees were convicted of serious crimes, including drug-related offenses. In 2012, less then one percent of those deported were charged and convicted with homicide.

Parents of U.S.-Born Children

Many of those who are deported have American-born children. It is estimated that in 2013, 72,000 parents with U.S.-born children were deported. In total, there are around 3.5 million undocumented immigrants who have a U.S. citizen child.

As a consequence, many U.S.-born children whose parents are being detained or deported enter the foster care system. Watch the video below to learn more about the growing share of such children in foster care.

Ethnic Composition

In 2013, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were the top countries of origin for deportees. During the same year, 72 percent of all deportees were from Mexico, with many apprehended at the border.

Meanwhile, immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia are more often expelled from the country after being suspected of having ties with terrorist groups outside the United States. From 2003 to 2012, 60,000 from Muslim countries in the above regions were deported from the United States.

What are the issues with current deportation policies?

First and foremost, deportations of undocumented immigrants affect families and communities. There are many undocumented immigrants who have been living in the United States for years. One quarter of deported immigrants are separated from U.S.-born children, and even more are separated from other family members.

Undocumented immigrants also face a lack of legal assistance, and are not provided with the same rights as American citizens, including due process. Deportees are not provided with an attorney, and most of them don’t have a court hearing before they are expelled from the country.

The costs of immigration enforcement and deportation proceedings are enormous. In 2010, $600 million was allocated to add border patrol agents and new surveillance technology. In 1993 the annual budget of Customs and Border Protections (CBP) was only $363 million, while in 2013 it reached $11.9 billion. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) costs taxpayers $5.9 billion as of 2013, while Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) expenses amounted to $2.9 billion in 2012.

In addition, treating returns as removals is not only costly but results in serious legal consequences for undocumented immigrants. Those immigrants may never again have the chance to re-enter the country, even if it’s years later.

 What is being done about deportation?

The current administration passed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which allowed undocumented immigrants who entered the country before they turned 16 years old and before June 2007 to apply for a renewable two-year work permit and avoid deportation. Since 2012, 580,946 undocumented immigrants have benefited from DACA.

In 2013, the  Obama Administration pushed for another law, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). Among other things, the bill would allow undocumented immigrants–if they meet eligibility requirements–to apply for registered provisional immigration programs (RPI). RPIs are six-year programs that allow all those eligible to avoid deportation and receive work permits. In ten years, immigrants with RPI status would be able to apply for permanent residency. Eventually they could become citizens of the United States. While this bill did not pass, it’s another example of the changes that some are hoping to see to America’s immigration policies.

But not everybody is happy with the “path to citizenship” approach to undocumented immigrants. Many GOP members believe that all undocumented immigrants should simply be deported. Watch the video below to learn more about pro-deportation point of view.

Conclusion

By the lowest estimations, there are around ten million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Deportations cannot be the only meaningful solution as the numbers are too high and the issue is too complex for such a simple approach as mass removals. The current administration has already taken the first steps to reduce deportations and provide permanent solutions for millions of undocumented immigrants. However, the criminal justice approach to immigration should be re-evaluated as it has been long proven that there is no relationship between immigration and crime. What will be done to fix the problem of the many undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is yet to be seen.

  Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

U.S. Congress: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Secure Communities

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FY 2014 ICE Immigration Removals

Department of Justice: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: Immigration Enforcement in Prisons and Jails

Immigration Policy Center: The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Immigration Policy Center: The Growth of the U.S.Deportation Machine

LA Times: High Deportation Figures Are Misleading

LA Times: Number of Immigrants Deported From U.S. Dropped Sharply in Last Year

New Republic: Who’s the Real Deporter-In-Chief: Bush or Obama?

Pew Research Center: U.S. Deportations of Immigrants Reach Record High in 2013

Tampa Bay Times: Lou Dobbs: Obama Administration ‘Manipulated Deportation Data’

Nation: Why Has President Obama Deported More Immigrants Than Any President in U.S. History?

The New York Times: Deportation Up in 2013; Border Sites Were Focus

The New York Times: More Deportations Follow Minor Crimes, Records Show

Washington Post: Your Complete Guide to Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

Washington Post: Is President Obama’s Claim To Have Increased Criminal Deportations Accurate?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Deportation Policy: Successes and Failures appeared first on Law Street.

Deporting immigrants with criminal records, in theory, seems like it makes sense. Often, those up for deportation have been convicted of an “aggravated felony.”

But there’s an issue inherent in what can be classified as an aggravated felony. It sounds bad, right? Aggravation + Felony, those are two words that sound incredibly dangerous. But an aggravated felony probably isn’t what you think it is.

Let’s start with some history: when the term was first used in 1988, an aggravated felony could only be murder, or certain types of federal drug or arms trafficking. But the definition has since expanded—in 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty ACT (AEDPA) was passed. Since then, many more crimes, a list of over thirty, can be classified as aggravated felonies. According to the Immigration Policy Center, aggravated felony includes “more than thirty types of offenses, including simple battery, theft, filing a false tax return, and failing to appear in court. Even offenses that sound serious, such as ‘sexual abuse of a minor,’ can encompass conduct that some states classify as misdemeanors or do not criminalize at all, such as consensual intercourse between a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old.”

Now, according to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), the United States is allowed to instantly deport any immigrant who is facing a one-year prison sentence or more. After an immigrant is convicted of an aggravated felony they are detained by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers. They can then be automatically deported without any sort of hearing or appeals process. They are ineligible to plead any sort of asylum, and they’re usually prohibited from ever coming back to the United States.

The legal parameters by which these “aggravated felons” are convicted are also at issue. Often due process, as required by the 14^th amendment and guaranteed to anyone on US territory, is not followed. Defendants in an immigration court don’t have a constitutional right to a lawyer, as most people who stand trial in the United States do. An organization called the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse or (TRAC) has stated that the enumerated policy of the ICE to “remove aliens who pose danger to national security or risk public safety.” But as TRAC has pointed out, “deportation is no longer a mere administrative matter; it is being used as a punitive measure for the sorts of crimes that are usually accompanied by due process.”

This troubling intersection of law and immigration leads to stories like Lundy Khoy, a woman who made news last year because of her unfair deportation. A Thai-born Cambodian immigrant who had come over with her family as part of a long quest to escape Pol Pot’s oppressive regime, Khoy attended George Mason University in 2000. At 19, she was pulled over by a bicycle cop, reported having a few tabs of ecstasy she intended to sell, and then pled guilty when charged. She served three months out of a five-year sentence and then turned her life around. She completed four years of drug-tested probation. But in 2004, she was jailed again, which was possible because of her status as a permanent resident rather than a citizen. If she had been a citizen, she would have been able to fight these actions taken against her. She did not receive a trial, and US officials attempted again and again to deport her to Cambodia, despite the fact that she has never been there. She came to the United States at 12, and barely even remembers her upbringing in a Thai refugee camp. She considers herself American to the core.

Khoy absolutely made a mistake, and she deserves to pay for it, but the thing is that she does not deserve to pay any more than an American born 19-year-old young woman who intended to sell a few tabs of ecstasy.

Obviously, not everyone who is being deported for aggravated assault has a story like Khoy. But it is safe to say that many of these immigrants are getting deported without the due process they deserve, and that’s simply not the American way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aggravated Felonies Lead to Deportations appeared first on Law Street.