Verified Document

Immigration - Drawing The Line Term Paper

Deportation Factors and Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

Research indicates that since the late 1980s, Congress had been tightening the substantive provisions of the immigration laws, to make it far less likely that a convicted criminal alien can find a way to be relieved of expulsion. For many years the basic statutory pattern was that a crime involving moral turpitude rendered a person deportable, if it was committed less than five years after the person's entry and resulted in a sentence of one year or more confinement. A later-committed crime or one that drew a lighter sentence did not result in deportation. If the person committed two such crimes that were not part of a single criminal scheme, they could render the person deportable no matter when they were committed. A drug offense or a firearms possession offense ordinarily made a person deportable whenever it was committed.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 added the concept of an aggravated felony to the immigration laws. A person found guilty of an aggravated felony committed at any time would be deportable. Until 1994, the definition of an aggravated felony included only murder, drug trafficking, and firearms trafficking, plus conspiracy or attempt to commit those offenses. In the years that followed, the definition of an aggravated felony expanded. As a result, its' impact on the immigration laws became more severe since the rule remained that commission of an aggravated felony made the person deportable, no matter how many years of lawful residence the person may have accrued earlier. Congress also began to use this widening list of aggravated felonies as a tool to cut back on discretionary relief from deportation for criminal aliens.

Cancellation of removal was a form of relief that evolved to provide protection primarily to persons convicted of criminal offenses who had been lawful permanent residents for seven years or more. If the person met the basic threshold requirements, then wide discretion was accorded to the immigration judge to decide whether the person deserved to escape removal, despite the crime. This provision provided a necessary safety valve to recognize the stakes that a lawful permanent resident had in the community, and to allow the immigration judge to determine that the criminal sanction was sufficient penalty for the crime, a penalty that should not be compounded by deportation.

Cancellation of removal was very flexible, because any alien, no matter how serious the crime, could be considered for the benefit. The statute provided no clear standards for exercise of this discretion, and as a result, patterns could vary widely among immigration judges, and INS appeals brought only limited uniformity.

In 1990, the aggravated felony concept was amended to read that aggravated felons sentenced to five years or more incarceration were ineligible to receive cancellation-type relief. This change carried a limited impact initially because of the narrow definition of aggravated felony. However, as indicated in the Legislative History above, the impact widened considerably with legislative changes in 1994 and 1996. In 1994, the definition of aggravated felony was expanded to include additional serious offenses, including racketeering, alien smuggling for commercial advantage, child pornography, peonage, fraud offenses involving losses of over $200,000, and crimes of violence or theft offenses drawing a 5-year sentence. As a result, a conviction of one of these offenses would render the person deportable whenever it was committed, and cancellation relief would be barred if the sentence was greater than five years. In 1996 the aggravated felony definition was again greatly expanded, and this time its impact was made even more sweeping. New offenses were added to the list, and minimum thresholds required were substantially reduced.

Drawing the Line in Cases involving Moral Turpitude

As a result of the legislation, crimes involving moral turpitude, which rendered an individual deportable, essentially now included every possible offense. Cancellation relief is now wholly unavailable to anyone with an aggravated felony conviction. Asylum and withholding of removal, since 1990, have been likewise barred to aggravated felons. Withholding is now possible for an aggravated felon if the sentence was for less than five years, although immigration judges retain discretion to find that a lesser offense is nonetheless a particularly serious crime barring the criminal from refugee protections. The broadening of the definition of an aggravated felony has raised many questions as to where the line should be drawn involving crimes of moral turpitude. As a result of the broadening, practically any alien who commits a nontrivial crime, is subject to automatic expulsion. This is especially true if the crime fits one of the 21 paragraphs of the new definition of an aggravated felony. This result ensues even if the alien has been a lawful permanent resident since childhood, the crime and punishment took place...

This sweeping restriction stands in sharp tension with the U.S. constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus to test the legality or constitutionality of a person's detention, because all aliens will have to be deprived of their liberty at some point before involuntary expulsion. Just how wide a range of issues is open to court review when the alien petitions for habeas corpus is now the subject of extensive litigation in federal courts. As a result, the number of deportable criminal aliens in the United States has greatly increased.
Legal critics and researchers have indicated that in the years between 1996 and 2001, the immigration system bought into the severity revolution occurring within the criminal justice system. Some describe it as the criminalization of immigration law, whereas others describe it as a convergence between the criminal justice and deportation systems. Under either characterization, the interaction of the two systems produced outcomes that were unprecedented, and even unintentional at times, in their harshness. Research indicates that criminal sentencing enhancements for past offenses coalesced with immigration law's enhanced aggravated felony definition now mandate the incarceration and removal of noncitizens with mere misdemeanor convictions on their criminal records.

This is problematic because currently, a single misdemeanor conviction of one year or more for a crime as minor as shoplifting subjects a non-U.S. citizen to detention and deportation. This expansion of the types of crimes mandating detention and deportation applies to all categories of noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents.

Furthermore, it is also applied retroactively, so that noncitizens convicted of crimes that would not have rendered them deportable before 1996 suddenly faced deportation after passage of the IIRIRA. After the events of September 11th, 2001, these measures were supplemented through the issuance of presidential directives, regulations, and policy initiatives undertaken to strengthen national security through stricter enforcement of immigration laws and greater coordination of governmental resources. Research indicates that these policies accelerated the criminalization of the immigration system.

In response to the 9/11 attacks, immigration officials and criminal law enforcement authorities took a zero-tolerance approach to non-compliance with immigration laws that disproportionately punished immigrant communities, targeting them for tough law enforcement measures only indirectly related to counterterrorism efforts.

Federal law enforcement officials have begun to work more closely with state and local law enforcement agents to police compliance with federal immigration laws. Asylum seekers are foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States based upon allegations of their persecution at the hands of the government of the country from which they are fleeing. Unlike refugees, they arrive without prior State Department clearance, but are traditionally treated more sympathetically because of their claims of persecution. However, under the new laws, this favorable treatment has ended; their motives for seeking asylum are now suspect.

Legal critics and theorists have indicated that the policies and initiatives discussed above are changes in immigration law and policy that draw upon the objectives, techniques, and discourses of a harshly punitive system of criminal justice to deal with noncitizens and the terrorist threat of 9/11. However, the broad category of what constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude is a continuing a process of convergence that began in the 1980s and 1990s during the crackdown on noncitizens with criminal convictions. Immigration authorities have employed the immigration system to apprehend, arrest, detain, and deport a wide variety of criminal aliens, without the need for constitutional guarantees of due process and free counsel for indigents that inure to aliens apprehended and detained through criminal law enforcement.

These explanations provide practical reasons for the convergence of criminal control and the use of immigration law to achieve it.

In recent years, sweeping changes to the law and unprecedented growth in the size and responsibilities of the INS have overwhelmed the agency, which has been severely criticized by the press, its customers, and Congress for ineffective management of its dual adjudication and enforcement missions. Congress must share responsibility as well, due to conflicting and unfunded mandates directed at the agency. In spite of some…

Sources used in this document:
Bibliography

Calavita, Kitty. Immigration, law and marginalization in a global economy: Notes from Spain. Law and Society Review (1998).

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/chinex.html (26 Apr. 2005).

Immigration Act of 1907. http://www.multied.com/documents/immigrationact.html (26 Apr. 2005).

Levinson, Peter. The facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence in Immigration Appellate Adjudications. http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/files/peter_article.pdf.(26 Apr. 2005).
Martin, David. Expulsion of Criminal Aliens from the United States. Third Forum on Migration Policy (1998). http://migration.uni-konstanz.de/german/Forschungszentrum/veranstaltungen/mpf3/mpf3-dmartin.html (26 Apr. 2005).
Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law, http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/prop187text.html (24 Apr. 2005).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Act of April 29, 1943, Act of February 14, 1944. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (24 Apr. 2005).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration Reform and Control Act of November 6, 1986. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (24 Apr. 2005).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of September 30, 1996. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (25 Apr. 2005).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration Act of March 3, 1891. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (26 Apr. 2005).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, Quota Law of May 19, 1921. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (22 Apr.. 2005).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration Act of May 26, 1924. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (23 Apr. 2005).
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/chinex.html (26 Apr. 2005). The Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese laborers from entering the United States and denied them naturalization..
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration Act of March 3, 1891. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (26 Apr. 2005).
Immigration Act of 1907. http://www.multied.com/documents/immigrationact.html (26 Apr. 2005). This Act added crimes involving moral turpitude to the list of classes excluding aliens from admission.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, Quota Law of May 19, 1921. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (22 Apr.. 2005). These progressively more restrictive immigration acts culminated in the Immigration Act of 1924, also referred to as the National Origins Act, which stood with the Immigration Act of 1917 as the foundations for immigration policy until 1952. This act had two quota provisions and defined ceilings for immigration. The first, which was in effect until June 30, 1927, set the annual quota of any quota nationality at two percent of the number of foreign-born persons of that nationality already residing in the continental United States in 1890, with a total quota of 164,667. See also U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration Act of May 26, 1924. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (23 Apr. 2005). After that date (actually implemented July 1, 1929), the total quota was reduced to 150,000, and admissible nationalities were granted quotas in relation to the 150,000 based on the ratio between a nationality's enumerated population in 1920 and the total U.S. population in 1920.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Act of April 29, 1943, Act of February 14, 1944. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (24 Apr. 2005).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Immigration Reform and Control Act of November 6, 1986. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (24 Apr. 2005).
Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law, http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/prop187text.html (24 Apr. 2005). This revision to the state's constitution was never implemented. A temporary restraining order was issued, arguing that the state was assuming the federal role of policing immigration and would be denying undocumented immigrants due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment if the procedures outlined in the proposition were implemented.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of September 30, 1996. http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist (25 Apr. 2005).
Martin, David. Expulsion of Criminal Aliens from the United States. Third Forum on Migration Policy (1998). http://migration.uni-konstanz.de/german/Forschungszentrum/veranstaltungen/mpf3/mpf3-dmartin.html (26 Apr. 2005).
Cancellation of Removal. http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/newshints.08/htm (26 Apr. 2005). Cancellation of removal for permanent residents, (previously known as 212- relief), is available to an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien: (1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than five years, (2) has resided in the United States continuously for seven years after having been admitted in any status, and (3) has not been convicted of any aggravated felony.
Martin, David. Expulsion of Criminal Aliens from the United States. Third Forum on Migration Policy (1998). http://migration.uni-konstanz.de/german/Forschungszentrum/veranstaltungen/mpf3/mpf3-dmartin.html (26 Apr. 2005).
Levinson, Peter. The facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence in Immigration Appellate Adjudications. http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/files/peter_article.pdf.(26 Apr. 2005).
Matter of Puente. Levinson, Peter. The facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence in Immigration Appellate Adjudications. http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/files/peter_article.pdf.(26 Apr. 2005).
But see Levinson, Peter. The facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence in Immigration Appellate Adjudications. http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/files/peter_article.pdf.(26 Apr. 2005). Research offering other explanations for this discrepancy in decisions by the Board. "This examination of the outcomes individual Board Members favored in the eleven closely divided en banc cases lends support to the hypothesis that particular adjudicators were removed from the Board because of their "liberal" views. None of the 11 Board Members retained by the Attorney General supported outcomes favorable to the alien in every case."
But see Levinson, Peter. The facade of Quasi-Judicial Independence in Immigration Appellate Adjudications. http://www.rightsworkinggroup.org/files/peter_article.pdf.(26 Apr. 2005).
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Immigration Policies Describe U.S. Immigration Policies Within
Words: 1000 Length: 3 Document Type: Essay

Immigration Policies Describe U.S. Immigration policies within a historical framework. The current policies of the United States toward immigration are much different when compared to the historical strategies of the country. As: work was bountiful, immigrants were entering the nation in droves, and the availability of jobs was suited to employ the masses of people. The reason why is because historically, immigration was encouraged. This is because, it was considered to a

Immigration and the Effect on
Words: 3692 Length: 11 Document Type: Research Proposal

For that reason alone, it is imperative that illegal immigrants entering the United States who are apprehended and found to be infectious receive treatment before deportation. However, this question of the health risks posed by illegal immigration has only served to heighten the tensions in the border communities, and cause Americans to be more cognizant of the ethnicity of the illegal immigrants. In Review So far, in review, the key issues

Immigration Reform There Are Many
Words: 3336 Length: 8 Document Type: Term Paper

5 billion per year. "(Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Yorkers) In most cases, studies show that the central areas of expenditure are related to immigration are education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. (Costs of Illegal Immigration to New Yorkers) Education is of particular concern. In New York, more than $4.3 billion annually is spent on education for the children of illegal immigrants. The number of K-12 public

Immigration Issues
Words: 1469 Length: 5 Document Type: Essay

Immigration issues have been hot in the media ever since the Obama administration proposed to change the immigration rules in the U.S. earlier this year. The current rule states that illegal immigrants need first to leave the country before they can request a waiver on the 3-10-year ban on coming back to the U.S. legally. The ban is placed based on how long the immigrants have lived illegally in the

Immigration in America: 19th Century
Words: 2190 Length: 6 Document Type: Essay

This doesn't explain why the Irish had such a difficult time, but in America, religious differences are often the cause of intolerance as well. The truth is that without immigrants in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century -- and of course the two hundred years before this, this nation would not be where or what it is today and to remain true to our roots we must accept that

Immigration in January of 2010 Haiti Suffered
Words: 674 Length: 2 Document Type: Essay

Immigration In January of 2010 Haiti suffered a 7.0 magnitude earthquake which destroyed much of the country and left the population devastated. When this tragedy occurred, Haiti was "already the poorest in the Western Hemisphere with 80% of the population living under the poverty line and 54% in abject poverty." ("CIA") As a Haitian with little prospects of having a decent life, or making a decent living, I have decided that

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now