We are concerned with Criminal Deportations: Meaning deportations of people that were triggered by a crime or deportation of people who have criminal record. As opposed to deportation simply for being illegal (although a number of people in the subject population were charged with the crime of being illegal, and therefore fit in the population).In the early 1990s, there were several events that stirred up anti-immigrant sentiment, politically and publicly. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994 (a strongly anti-immigrant piece of legislation designed to limit or deny illegal immigrants access to social services, health care, and public education, and which required all law enforcement agents to investigate the immigration status of arrestees suspected of breaking immigration law and report them to INS) and the 1995 Oklahoma city bombing (which was thought to be perpetrated by immigrants before it was discovered that it was carried out by domestic terrorists). So with public sentiment turning against immigrants and the political pressure to make a statement before the ‘96 midterm elections, two pieces of legislation were hastily passed in 1996.Political rhetoric behind the laws – this was about making it easier to deport criminal aliens. The concern is dangerous non-citizens. Examples of political rhetoric.Increase of Deportable Crimes: Between the 2 pieces of legislation, 21 new crimes were added to a category of Crime called Aggravated Felony, which under immigration law, has more serious consequences including permanent deportation and mandatory detention. Also, thresholds for triggering an aggregated felony, were lowered. For example, before the legislation, a theft offense required a criminal sentence of 5 years to qualify as an aggravated felony, after the IIRIRA, the criminal sentence threshold was lowered to one year.Decrease in Options to Defend Against Deportation: For LPRs that had been present for 7 years, they could uses 212C waivers to have a hearing in front of a judge who would hear testimony on community ties, circumstances of crime, family ties, employment history, military service, etc.. These were eliminated.With a small number of exceptions, anyone with an aggravated felony is summarily deported without any opportunity to challenge or have a hearing.
Expedited Removal – For anyone who is not an LPR and has been convicted of an Aggravated Felony, the laws created a process of expedited, or administrative, removal where a non-citizen can be processed for removal without ever being heard in front of an immigration judge. ICE officers issue removal order and the individual is denied the opportunity to apply for relief. Administrative removals now occur more frequently than court heard removal proceedings.Retroactive - Crimes committed before 1996, which did not trigger deportation at the time, could now render non-immigrants deportable, possibly long after they have served their sentence. Although there has been a supreme court decision that allows challenges under some circumstances. So often, a non-citizen may come into contact with the system through an administrative office visit or via travelling and an old crime will have flagged their file and the person unwillingly is put into deportation proceedings.Mandatory Detention – for all aggravated felony, most moral turpitude and several other crimes, ICE is required to detain non-citizens while removal hearings are pending and, after a hearing has resulted in a deportation order, the non-citizen remains in detention until removal. Whereas in the past a non-citizen awaiting a pending hearing would likely be released, with or without bond, mandatory detention laws require individuals that have committed one of a large list of crimes to remain in ICE detention, without any opportunity for release, for the duration of their hearings. This has proven to be a large strain on ICE resources as minor crimes and people that pose no threat to society or absconding are required to be detained. Also, concerns with ICE detention, including health care and poor management, have been repeatedly chronicled by immigration reform advocates. Mandatory Deportation – If convicted of Agg Felony, no matter your immigration status (even LPRs) ICE is required to deport, no matter what. Nothing that can prevent deportation for these individuals and no consideration is given to their personal characteristics (family, military service, circumstances of crime, community ties or immigration status).Permanent Deportation – Once deported it is nearly impossible for non-citizens to return, even temporarily, to the US. Any non-citizen who has been removed from the US is barred from re-entry for five to 10 years depending on the circumstances. For those with aggravated felony convictions, they are permanently barred from re-entryMinor Crimes - As congress debated the legislation, only the most serious crimes and criminals entered the discussion. However, many Minor Crimes were included as aggravated felonies. Often this is due to the lower thresholds for sentence length or dollar amount that trigger aggravated felony. So often you can have a crime that is tried as a misdemeanor in criminal court that, given a certain sentence, becomes an aggravated felony under immigration law, such as shoplifting. Very problematic, especially when attorney advice and criminal pleas do not take into account immigration consequences.Interpretive law – Immigration decisions are based on the record of the criminal conviction. So, immigration judges must analyze the elements of criminal statute to determine whether a conviction fits into an aggravated felony or moral turpitude category. Moral turpitude requires intent, negligence, or recklessness. Determinations of deportability change as case law changes and require interpretation. For instance, supreme court founddrug possession convictions that are felonies under state law but not under federal law are not aggravated felonies and crimes of violence are agg felonies, but courts disagree whether a DUI is a crime of violence. There doesn’t even need to be a conviction – a guilty or nolo contendre plea is sufficient if the judge orders some punishment. Also the 12 federal circuit courts all interpret immigration law differently. There is no standardization and much confusion – it is labyrinthine law.
Figures from annual ICE Yearbooks. The number of annual deportations more than quadrupled between 1996 and 2008. Nearly 3 million people were deported between these years. Since the Obama administration has come into office, annual numbers of deportations have continued to increase, and at an ever greater rate.
First, the implementation of the 1996 laws in April 1997 increased total deportations by 64 percent from the previous year. In the political environment that existed after 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security was established. Jurisdiction over immigration enforcement was transferred from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the Department of Justice (DOJ) to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within DHS in March 2003, deportations increased by over 28 percent from the year before.
The % of deportations that are of criminal non-citizens has actually decreased. Not shown here, the percentage was even higher prior to the 1996 laws.
Concerning reform advocates’ appeal that practice hasn’t been in agreement with policy, the largest concern is that with all of the focus on dangerous criminals in the policy priorities and rhetoric of ICE, in reality, minor criminals and non-criminals have been the main focus of enforcement actions.
The dialogue surrounding deportation, ICE policies and priorities, and human rights law has centered on testimony, qualitative evidence and the limited data that ICE has publicly published. The Right to Raise Defenses to Deportation: A government decision to deprive a person of their home and family requires at minimum, individual consideration of the impacts and potential rights violations. By creating an expedited deportation process and removing the review of cases by an immigration judge who can weigh the positive and negative components of individual cases, the US is failing to allow for the right of non-citizens to raise defenses to deportation. Many deportees have no opportunity to bring up issues of family ties, the circumstances of the crime, community ties, hardship or military service.Instruments - The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) the U.S. has ratified in 1992. Article 13 of the Covenant states: “An Alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present covenant may be expelled there from only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by the competent authority . Also The UN Human Rights Committeehas seconded the right for non-citizens to raise defenses.American Convention on Human Rights, which the US signed in 1977 established deportees have a right to a hearing.The Right to Protection from RefoulementThe returning of a refugee to a territory where their life or liberty is threatened is called refoulement. Instrument: the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which the US has been bound to since 1967, states that a refugee cannot be returned to countries where they could be persecuted unless they have been convicted of a “particularly serious crime”or“constitute a danger to the community”.1996 laws allow refugees to be returned if they have committed an aggravated felony. Many aggravated felonies do not constitute “particularly serious crimes”The Concept of Proportionality in Punishment – The concept of proportionality in sentencing for criminal convictions is explicitly inherent in United States domestic law. However, a citizen and a LPR who are equal under the law in almost all aspects and who commit identical crimes face vastly different consequences because of the potential for deportation under the 1996 laws.The Argument is that a non-citizen’s immigration status or criminality does not free the United States from providing just treatment and proportionality in sentencing. Instruments: The UN Human Rights Committee, the European Union and the International Court of Justice have all applied proportionality when examining states’ decisions including in matters of deportation. The Right to Family: The concept of family values has long been a component of U.S. immigration policy by the fact that the immediate family members of U.S. citizens, their spouses, children, and parents, do not face the same limitations to immigration that all other non-citizens do. However, when deciding over deportation of LPRs and other non-citizens, family values do not receive the same credence. This disregard of family ties may be in violation of internationally recognized human rights as the human right to family unity is articulated in both international human rights treaties and US domestic law.Instruments: The US Supreme Court has ruled on the “right to live together as a family” as deserving constitutional protection. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 500, 503, n.12 (1977) (plurality)The Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that the right of family is entitled to protection by society and the state. The ICCPR states that no one shall be "subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence"(Article 17) and that "[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state," and that all men and women have the right "to marry and to found a family" (Article 23). The UN Human Rights Committee has several times in the past ruled against states’ deportation of individuals on the basis of family unity. Children’s Rights The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the US has signed but not ratified, requires states to “ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child". The Committee on the Rights of the Child has often expressed the concern that states are not putting the interests of children in immigration proceedings.
Given the lack of aggregate quantitative evidence regarding the concerns of human rights and immigration reform advocates, this research will develop quantitative estimates that will help to provide evidence and clarity to immigration policy debates.The first set of research questions will examine deportations of criminal non-citizens in relation to U.S. obligations to international human rights law. Specifically, this analysis will use data on both the characteristics of deportees and the processes of deportation in order to produce quantitative estimates of the scope of potential violations of several human rights laws including: the right to raise defenses to deportation, the right to proportionality of punishment, the right to family, children’s rights, and the right to protection from refoulement. The second set of research questions will examine the deportation of those in the dataset in light of ICE enforcement policies, priorities and rhetoric. I will produce quantitative estimates of the characteristics of deportees and the process through which they were deported in order to determine whether ICE enforcement actions were in agreement with ICE enforcement priorities. This section of analysis will also examine whether the communications and publications of ICE accurately reflect the reality of immigration enforcement actions.
1996 Legislation led to ICE internal policies and priorities. The deportation process itself, is set by both the 1996 legislation (in the form of mandates such as mandatory detention) and ICE policy.ICE communications (rhetoric) reinforces ICE policies and practices as well, by touting achievements to public and politicians.And the end result of policies and processes is deportation.At each step of the deportation process, and culminating in the final act of deportation, ICE enforcement practices may have been in violation of international human rights law. The research objective is to estimate the scope of potential human rights law violations that may have occurred as a result of these deportations and to explore the extent to which these deportations were in agreement with the ICE enforcement policy, priorities and rhetoric that are the driving force behind criminal deportations. The objective will be achieved by analyzing the FOIA dataset, representing all deportees, and applying rates from secondary data sources to the FOIA dataset, in order to better understand the personal characteristics of deportees and the processes through which they were deported. The secondary data sources will provide data on the deportation process, ICE polices (priorities) and ICE external communications (rhetoric).
This framework examines the factors that can potentially violate international human rights. There are five main human rights that will be examined in relation to deportation. Potential rights violations will vary for different groups of non-citizens based on immigration status and criminality. There are several processes where rights may be violated, ending with the ultimate act of deportation. Immigration legislation, ICE policies and rhetoric all result in deportation and can contribute to potential rights violations.
Each of the research questions can be answered with information on, and a better understanding of, the personal characteristics of deportees or through understanding the processes through which they were deported.The analysis is centered on a dataset of the full population of non-citizens deported for their crimes from 1997-2007. The dataset was gained through a Freedom of Information Act Request to the Department of Homeland Security. The FOIA Dataset will represent the reality of the decade of criminal deportations according to ICE. However, as the FOIA Dataset only contains five major variables, it alone cannot be used to answer the research questions. The research will focus on analyzing data from disparate data sources on personal characteristics of non-citizens, of deportees, of non-citizen criminals, on ICE enforcement and the processes of deportation.Rates of certain personal and process variables pulled from secondary sources will be applied to certain groups of deportees in the dataset.This will produceAggregate estimates of Deportees that held Specific Traits or Experienced Certain Process During Deportation. These estimates will provide quantitative evidence of the scope of potential rights violations as well as evidence of whether ICE enforcement actions have been in concordance with ICE policies, priorities and rhetoric.
Data provided by ICE in 12 excel files. Data comes from DACS database system (since replaced by a new system), ICE is aware had data quality issues proven through government audits. FOIA asked for people deported as criminal non-citizens – this is what ICE provided. However, there are a good number of individuals with missing crime data. So though there have been issues with data management, this is the best available data on deportations.Crime data: indicating up to five crimes that the individual was arrested for or convicted of, and which formed the basis for the deportation all crime data for the personLimitations: Cannot check for data entry errors. – Threat to internal validityMissing DataWhen deportee has data for multiple crimes, we cannot tell which was the charge for deportation. Rank crime data by most serious offense using NCIC code book.
Limitations: No variables for Immigration Status or Criminal History. However, this is the best available data to estimate personal level variables of those deported.
Analysis: Use proxy data to Determine personal variables for non-citizens – especially Legal Permanent Residents.Some variables will be used for all non-citizens. Others will only apply to Legal Permanent Residents.Determine rate of deportees that were likely parents. Develop estimates of family size, and # of children of certain ages. Will also use for personal characteristics that may have been used in court to challenge deportation.Family life: # of family members in HH, # of own children, # of own children under 5, child born within last year, marital status, year married, family relationshipsPersonal demography: birthplace, Age, years in USA, year immigrated to USA, gender, ancestry, language spoken, speaks English binary variable, race, Hispanic origin,Income/employment: employment status, occupation, various employment questions (hours worked, employed last year, etc.), total personal income, total family income, welfare income, poverty statusTime in Community: Migration one year ago (same house), state of residence 1 year ago, “MovedIn” (when occupant moved into residence)Military Service: Veteran status, “vetyrs” (years of active military service)
The BOP datasets will offer evidence for the lengths of criminal sentences that non-citizens receive for specific crimes. This evidence will be used in the discussion of the right to proportionality of punishment. The BOP datasets will also offer corroborating evidence in determining state of location, age, race and gender of those in the FOIA dataset. Although it is impossible to track what happened to the non-citizens in the federal prison database, their crimes and their immigration status render the vast majority, if not all, deportable.
These data files contained some 3,376,269 records on individuals detained by ICE over a decade. Will use analyzed, rather than raw, data.Data and rates from the TRAC/HRW dataset will be used to help establish estimates for characteristics including gender rates, nationality rates, transfer rates, facility data, location of facilities and other location data (DCO office and court circuit) of detainees.
There are 20Total Research Hypotheses.10 Hypotheses regarding potential human rights violations8 Regarding ICE policy and priorities.2 regarding ICE Rhetoric and communications.Methodology is similar for most hypothesis as the exemplar. Statistical tests will be used to compare groups, descriptive statistics are often sufficient to answer research questions and analysis often involves applying rates from secondary data sources to the primary dataset of complete population.
The right of children to be raised by their parents is a fundamental right according to several international human rights instruments to which the U.S. is a signatory, especially the convention on the rights of the child, which the US has signed but not ratified. The deportation of non-citizen parents denies children living in the U.S., most of whom are U.S. citizens, the right to family and the right to be raised by their parent. Article 24 of the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm & Article 9 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm .The hypothesis states that children were affected by deported parents. The null hypothesis would state that these deportations did not happen to parents of children left behind in the Us. I seek to provide descriptive evidence that children were affected by deportations. I will develop an estimate of the number of minor children that were affected by the deportations of the non-citizens in the FOIA dataset will be developed. Although the FOIA dataset on criminal deportations did not include data on family and children, proxy data from additional sources can be used to determine that many of the FOIA dataset deportees were indeed parents and to develop estimates on the scope of potential violations to children’s rights.Analysis: Determine that rate of deportees that are parents: not all of the FOIA deportees were parents and the percentage of the criminal non-citizen deportees that were parents is unknown. UsingOIG data, the rate of non-citizens in state and federal prisons that are parents of minor children will serve as a proxy and will be applied to the estimates in the FOIA dataset to determine an estimate of the total number of children whose rights were violated by the deportation of a parent. Of parents, estimate family level variables:Using ACS survey data, the average totals of “Children in household”, “Children under Five”, “Age of eldest child” and “Age of youngest child” will be developed by stratifying non-citizen respondents by nationality and year of survey. These rates will be applied to all deportees in the FOIA dataset of the same nationality and deported during the same year.
The Right to Proportionality in Punishment:Hypothesis: Context: The concept of proportionality in sentencing for criminal convictions is explicitly inherent in United States domestic law. However, a citizen and a long-term permanent resident who are equal under the law in almost all aspects and who commit identical crimes face vastly different consequences because of the potential for deportation under current immigration law. The UN Human Rights Committee, the European Union and the International Court of Justice have all applied proportionality when examining states’ decisions including in matters of deportation. A non-citizen’s immigration status or criminality does not free the United States from providing just treatment and proportionality in sentencing. However, U.S. law does not consider the immigration consequences of crime, including deportation, to be punishment for the crime. Nevertheless, for the majority of permanent residents and refugees, deportation away from their homes and families, and potentially to persecution, can be considered disproportionate punishment. All U.S. citizens and legally-present non-citizens receive the same, or very similar, criminal sentences for specific crimes. However, after finishing their criminal sentences, legally-present non-citizens in the FOIA dataset also faced immigration consequences: While the ultimate immigration consequence for all legally present non-citizens in the FOIA database was deportation, some deportees may also have experienced other consequences for their crimes such as limits to challenging deportation due to the crime being charged as an aggravated felony, mandatory immigration detention, and long-term immigration detention. Analysis: A variable, “Average Criminal Sentence Length”, will be created and a value will be applied to each crime in the FOIA dataset. This variable will be developed by generalizing, or averaging, crime-specific criminal sentence length from several sources: federal sentencing guidelines, state sentencing guidelines (from several highly populated states), and Bureau of Prison data on actual criminal sentences given to non-citizens serving sentences in federal penitentiaries. The legally-present non-citizens in the FOIA dataset most likely received this typical criminal sentence for their crimes before also receiving the consequence of deportation. Binary grouping variables based on crime data, INA code and the NCIC codebook will be applied to legally present non-citizens in the dataset to determine whether they experienced additional punishment other than their criminal conviction and deportation. These binary grouping variables will include: “Likely Aggravated Felony”, “Likely Mandatory Detention”, and “Likely Long-term Detention”. Evidence of potential violations of the right to proportionality in punishment will be shown through descriptive statistics of the likely criminal sentences that legally-present non-citizens in the FOIA completed and the immigration consequences they also likely faced in addition to these criminal sentences. Cross-tabs will be created for criminality, “Criminal Sentence Length” and the immigration consequence grouping variables. Disproportion of punishment will be most apparent for those in the FOIA dataset who likely faced additional immigration consequences after completing their criminal sentence (in addition to deportation) yet were convicted of crimes that typically receive minor criminal sentences.Aggravated Felons:Context: If a legally present non-citizen is convicted of an aggravated felony, he/she may receive mandatory detention and in almost all cases will be deported without any opportunity for re-admission. Although there are some cases where a non-citizen can receive a Withholding of Removal, the vast majority of non-citizens that commit aggravated felonies are summarily deported for life. The crimes that are considered aggravated felonies under immigration law are vast. Many of these crimes receive comparatively minor criminal sentences.Analysis: The guidelines regarding aggravated felonies do not delineate specific crimes and the application of an aggravated felony label to a specific crime is applied through court arguments. Therefore, it is impossible to know for sure if criminal non-citizens in the FOIA database were charged with an aggravated felony. However, using U.S. Code, a binary variable for “Likely Aggravated Felony” will be created and each non-citizen’s most serious crime will be labeled (yes or no) to determine an estimate of those that were likely deported as aggravated felons.Mandatory Detention Context: There are a number of crimes, including aggravated felonies, which result in mandatory immigration detention. Whether the non-citizen enters ICE custody after apprehension from the general public or after finishing a criminal sentence, the non-citizen is mandatorily detained until deportation. For many detainees, this detention could be long-term. While many crimes that result in mandatory detention are very serious, there are others that typically receive relatively minor criminal sentences.Analysis: Using detainees’ crime data and U.S. Immigration Code, a binary variable “Likely Mandatory Detention” will be created. The number of deportees who were likely held in mandatory detention for crimes that typically received minor (1-year or less) criminal sentences will be estimated.Long-term DetentionContext: There are several countries that are more likely than others to block or inhibit repatriation. Thus non-citizens of these nationalities are more likely to experience long-term detention prior to final deportation. Non-citizens that were more likely to experience long-term detention may have committed relatively minor crimes, thus experiencing disproportion in punishment.Analysis: Using Office of Inspector General reports, a list of countries that routinely block or prohibit repatriation will be compiled as well as a list of nationalities that regularly experience long-term detention. A binary variable will be created for deported non-citizens from these nationalities titled “Likely Long-Term Detention”. The criminality of deported non-citizens from these nations will be examined for the seriousness of crimes committed in order to determine those who committed minor crimes yet who were more likely than the general non-citizen population to be held in long-term detention.
One of the goals of the 1996 legislation was to increase deportations of criminal non-citizens in order to decrease future crime by deporting recidivist criminals. The increased focus and use of deportation on criminal aliens should in theory help to decrease crime by non-citizens. Thus, as more and more criminal aliens are deported, the number of non-citizens in federal and state correctional facilities should decrease. Analysis: The FOIA database will provide totals for the number of criminal non-citizens deported annually. Statistics from the Department of Justice will provide the annual number of non-citizens in federal and state correctional facilities. Statistics on the annual number of non-citizens (stratified by immigration status) sentenced by federal courts will serve as a proxy for immigrant criminal activity. Population data from American Community Surveys will be used to create a per capita rate for non-citizen criminals. Pearson’s correlation tests will be run to determine whether increased criminal deportations have been negatively correlated with immigrant crime and the non-citizen prison population.
Null hypothesis: ICE consistently deports available criminal non-citizens and any increases in total deportations must come from non-criminal population.ICE has established policies that place priorities on its enforcement efforts. ICE’s first priority for deportation is on aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety.After this group, criminal aliens are separated into several levels of descending priority levels based on the type of crime committed. After criminal aliens, ICE’s enforcement priorities then fall to recent illegal entrants, fugitive aliens and finally non-criminal, non-fugitive immigration violators. However, according to deportation statistics and a descriptive analysis of the FOIA set, the majority of ICE deportations were non-criminal immigrants and the majority of criminal non-citizens that were deported were not violent or dangerous criminals. Did ICE fail to focus its resources on dangerous criminal non-citizens due to enforcement practices, or was it due to a low number of dangerous criminal non-citizens (a low supply of dangerous criminal non-citizens) and in fact, the agency did deport all available criminal aliens before deporting other non-criminal immigrants? Methodology: In order to answer, it must be determined that there were criminal aliens that were not deported and that resources were used to deport other non-citizens (non-criminal illegal immigrants, legal immigrants with minor crimes, etc.) while criminal non-citizens remained in the U.S.Analysis: Descriptive analysis of the FOIA dataset and official ICE statistics will determine the criminality of all those deported during the time period. BOP federal prison data will act as a proxy for non-citizen criminals. The annual numbers of non-citizens entering, leaving and in federal prisons at year-end, along with their crime data, will provide a baseline for criminality of non-citizens over the years. If criminality of non-citizens is consistent, yet the deportation of criminal non-citizens adjusts annually, this is evidence that there have been criminal non-citizens that ICE failed to deport. Data from specific ICE programs that identify criminal non-citizens while in prison will be used to discuss ICE effectiveness in apprehending criminal non-citizens. Analysis will center on the criminality of the non-citizens that ICE did deport and on how deportation reflected, or failed to reflect, enforcement policy and priorities over time. Can also descriptively use a ratio of criminal deportees per criminal non-citizen leaving federal facility – to look at rate of deportation over time.
If criminality of non-citizens is consistent, yet the deportation of criminal non-citizens adjusts annually, this is evidence that there have been criminal non-citizens that ICE failed to deport.
Context: ICE budgeting and staff, both for ICE overall and for specific departments such as the Office of Detention and Removal and the Fugitive Operations Teams, have increased annually since the 1996 legislation took effect. Increases in budgeting and staff often have the express purpose of increasing the numbers of deportations with a focus on criminal deportations. Analysis: With the FOIA dataset representing all criminal aliens deported during the time period, annual deportation rates will be examined in relation to annual budgets and staffing to see how changes in funding effect the rate of deportation. The criminality of deported non-citizens will determine whether increased budgets result in an increase in the number of deportations of violent criminal non-citizens. Office of Detention and Removal and Fugitive Operations Team budgets will be also be examined to determine the impact of additional funding on the number of criminal deportations.
Criminal Deportation: those deported because of their criminal behavior with criminal conviction.Purpose to provide quantitative evidence and estimates of scope of human rights violations and whether enforcement actions have been in agreement with ICE policies, priorities and rhetoric.The general methodology will be to generate estimates and evidence by the application of rates of personal characteristics and process variables to certain groups of deportees. The research questions will be answered by estimating which deportees held certain personal characteristics or were deported via certain processes.
Prospectus presentation b_root
U.S. Immigration Policy, Practice and Human Rights: A Descriptive Study of the Deportation of Non-Citizens for Crimes, 1997-2007<br />Brian Root, M.S., Ph.D. Candidate<br />Prospectus Defense, December 14, 2010<br />
Ph.D. Committee<br />Chair: Dr. Janet Rice<br />Dr. Eamon M. Kelly<br />Dr. William E. Bertrand<br />Professor AdenoAddis<br />
Presentation Agenda<br />Introduction to the Subject and Background<br />Research Objectives<br />Conceptual Frameworks<br />Methodology<br />Sample Hypotheses<br />Review<br />
Introduction to the Subject<br />Subject: The Deportation of Non-Citizens for Criminal Behavior<br />Origins: 1996 Legislation -AEDPA & IIRIRA<br />Results:<br />Increase in Crimes that Result in Deportation<br />Decrease in Options to Defend Against Deportation<br />
Additional Issues for Aggravated Felons and Crimes of Moral Turpitude<br />Expedited Removal<br />Retroactive<br />Mandatory Detention<br />Mandatory Deportation<br />Permanent Deportation<br />Inclusion of Minor Crimes<br />Interpretive Law<br />
Children’s Rights</li></li></ul><li>Research Objectives<br />To estimate the scope of potential human rights law violations that may have occurred through criminal deportations.<br />To estimate the extent to which the deportations were in concordance with ICE enforcement policy, priorities and rhetoric. <br />
Methodology<br />Complete Deportee Population<br />Secondary Data on Non-citizens and Deportation Processes<br />Quantitative Estimates<br />
Primary Dataset<br />Received from DHS via FOIA<br />Complete Population: All 897,099 non-citizens deported for criminal behavior, or with a criminal conviction, between 4/1/1997 and 9/1/2007.<br />Five Variables:<br />Immigration Status<br />Nationality<br />Country Deported to<br />Date of Deportation<br />Crime Data<br />
Secondary Data Sources<br />American Community Surveys: Personal Characteristic Variables for Non-citizens.<br />Nationally Representative Annual Survey ~170K Non-citizen Respondents.<br />For 1997-1999, will use 2000 Survey.<br />Will Stratify by Year of survey/Deportation and by Nationality to increase accuracy.<br />Limitations: No variables for Immigration Status or Criminal History.<br />
American Community Surveys: <br /><ul><li>Provide data for personal characteristic variables.
Personal Demography: Age, Language Spoken, Years in US, etc.
Income, employment.</li></li></ul><li>Secondary Data Sources<br />BOP Prison Data: Personal and Crime Characteristic Variables for Non-citizens in Federal Prison<br />Includes all non-citizens in Federal prison at year-end ~ 45,000 individuals.<br />Will stratify by year nationality and crime.<br />Limitations: only Federal facilities, cannot determine whether BOP non-citizens were deported.<br />
Human Rights Watch/Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) Data on Detainee Transfers: Personal Characteristics and Process Variables for all non-citizens in ICE detention.<br />Data from ~ 200 ICE detention facilities.<br />Limits: Includes non-criminal detainees, must use analyzed data.<br />Secondary Data Sources<br />
Secondary Data Sources<br />Data released in Government Reports:<br />Congressional Research Service<br />U.S. Department of Homeland Security<br />U.S. Department of Justice<br />Office of Inspector General<br />Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse<br />
Exemplar Hypothesis – Human Rights<br />Hypothesis: Children’s rights to family were violated by the deportation of non-citizens for criminal behavior. <br />Methodology: Provide quantitative evidence of the scope of criminal deportations that may have affected children left behind in the US.<br /><ul><li>Analysis: Use proxy data. Determine rate of deportees that were likely parents. Develop estimates of family size, and # of children of certain ages.</li></li></ul><li>Exemplar Hypothesis – Human Rights<br />Hypothesis: Deported legally-present non-citizens that did not commit serious crimes may have had the right to proportionality in punishment violated.<br />Methodology: Provide descriptive evidence of the typical criminal punishment that is meted out to both citizens and non-citizens for specific crimes and then estimate the additional potential immigration consequences.<br />Analysis: Apply “Average Criminal Sentence” variable to each crime. Create categorical grouping variables based on crime data for additional punishment. Provide descriptive evidence in cross-tabulation.<br />
Exemplar Hypothesis - Policy<br />Hypothesis: The frequency of criminal deportations is negatively correlated with non-citizens incarcerated in federal facilities and with non-citizen crime.<br />Methodology: Provide descriptive statistics and correlation tests on deportation data and DOJ data on non-citizens in federal and state facilities.<br />Analysis: Create annual, per-capita rate of criminality for non-citizens. Run Pearson’s correlation tests comparing deportation rates with per-capita criminal rate and non-citizen prison population.<br />
Exemplar Hypothesis - Policy<br />Hypothesis: Deportations of criminal non-citizens were not reflective of ICE enforcement priorities (tiered levels of deportation priorities based on criminality and immigration status).<br />Methodology: Determine whether ICE deported low-priority non-citizens despite presence of higher priority criminal non-citizens.<br />Analysis: Annual per-capita rates of non-citizens entering/leaving prison will be used to determine whether trends of non-citizen criminality. Descriptive statistics will describe the criminality of those deported and determine whether criminal deportations vary annually while non-citizen criminality remains consistent.<br />
Exemplar Hypothesis - Policy<br />Hypothesis: Changes in budgeting and staff resulted in changes in the frequency of deportation of non-citizens for criminal behavior.<br />Methodology: Descriptive statistics examining expenditures per criminal deportee deported.<br /><ul><li>Analysis: Annual budget and staffing statistics will be examined in relation to crime data of deportees to determine whether increased budgets and staff result in an increase in deportations by crime level. </li></li></ul><li>Review<br /><ul><li>Subject: Concerned with criminal deportation.
Purpose: To provide aggregate quantitative evidence.
Methodology: Estimates generated by applying rates to population of deportees</li>