Abstract
This chapter is part of a larger research project. It examines the proenforcement tilt of crimmigration with reference to sovereign bias. Sovereign bias alludes to how the nation-state wields extraordinary power over noncitizens at territorial borders and within boundaries. It favors politics over law, and the state over immigrants. It occurs where political actors have final say over legal matters, and governmental authority is nearly unconstrained by constitutional norms. As much as plenary powers have tempered in recent years, sovereign bias continues to drive an exceptional path for immigration at the intersection of law and crime. Following a brief examination of crimmigration enforcement and detention, the chapter documents sovereign bias in ICE’s risk classification assessment for detention, where secret computer algorithms are responsible for recommending the mass detention of hundreds of thousands of noncitizens without due process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
An “aggravated felony” could encompass marijuana possession, a bar fight, or shoplifting, while a “crime involving moral turpitude” could encompass subway turnstile jumping or a disorderly persons offense. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a), (c).
- 2.
Consider multiplying three parts to this offense by 50 state criminal codes.
- 3.
Under INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), a noncitizen committed a crime involving moral turpitude if he is “convicted of, or [] admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of … a crime involving moral turpitude… or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime.”
References
Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Benson L (1997) Back to the future: congress attacks the right to judicial review of immigration proceedings. Conn Law Rev 12(1411):1412
Department of Homeland Security (2012) Immigration enforcement actions. DHS, Washington, DC
Department of Homeland Security (2013) Immigration Enforcement Actions
Department of Homeland Security (2014) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses, FiscalYear 2015 Congressional Justification, 81
Hernández G, Cuauhtémoc C (2014) Immigration detention as punishment. UCLA Law Rev 61(5):13–41
Koulish R, Noferi M (2015) Immigration detention in the risk classification assessment era. Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC
Legomsky SH (2007) The new path of immigration law: asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms. Immigr Nationality Law Rev 28:679
Lydgate J (2010) Assembly-line justice: a review of operation streamline. Calif Law Policy Brief 481–544
Meissner D, Kerwin D, Muzaffar C, Bergeron C (2013) Immigration enforcement in the United States: the rise of a formidable machinery. Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC
Mitsilegas V (2015) The criminalisation of migration in Europe: challenges for human rights and the rule of law. Springer, New York
Morton J (2011) Morton memo exercising prosecutorial discretion. http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf
Morton J (2014) Morton memo on secure communities. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_secure_communities.pdf
Noferi M, Koulish R (2014) The immigrant detention risk assessment. Georgetown Immig Law J 29:45
Schriro D (2010) Improving conditions of confinement for criminal inmates and immigrant detainees. Am Crim Law Rev 47:1441
Simon J (2007) Governing through crime. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Stumpf J (2006) The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. Am Univ Law Rev 56:367
Waever O (1995) Securitization and desecuritization. In: Lipschutz R (ed) On security. Columbia University, New York, pp 46–86
Welch M (2007) Moral panic, denial and human rights: scanning the spectrum from overreaction to under-reaction. Crime, social control and human rights: from moral panics to states of denial: essays in honour of Stanley Cohen 92–104
Statutes
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214
Illegal Immigration reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Pub. L. No. 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009
U.S. Cases Cited
Chae Chan Ping, 130 U.S. 581 (1889)
Matter of Chairez-Castrejon, 26 I&N Dec. 349, 354 (BIA 2014)
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003)
Fiallo v Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)
Fong Yue Ting v U.S., 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
Jean v Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985)
Kleindienst v Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)
Knauff v Schaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)
Matter of Silva-Trevino, 2008 BIA LEXIS 37, 2 (B.I.A. 2008)
Nishimura Ekiu v U.S., 42 U.S. 631 (1892)
Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v Stranahan (214 U.S. 320 (1909)
Omargharib, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24289 (4th Cir. Dec. 23, 2014)
Olmstead v United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
Orantes Hernandez v Thornburg, 919 F. 2d. 549 (1990)
Plyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
United States v. Royal 731 F.3d 333, 342 (4th Cir. 2013)
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896)
Zadvydas v. United States, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koulish, R. (2016). Sovereign Bias, Crimmigration, and Risk. In: Guia, M., Koulish, R., Mitsilegas, V. (eds) Immigration Detention, Risk and Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24690-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24690-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24688-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24690-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)