Roundtable #12 | Immigration
Section 1 - Criminalization of Undocumented Immigrants from 1988-1996
The beginning of the Biden Administration was characterized by a distinct shift away from the immigration policies of the Trump Administration. Namely, President Biden’s recent temporary guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought to redefine the grounds for deportation. These provisions centered around deporting individuals who recently crossed the border, pose a threat to national security, or have committed “aggravated felonies.” [1] An aggravated felony is a specific class of crime that first originated in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and has come to encompass both violent and nonviolent criminal offenses. [2] The consequences of an aggravated felony charge are immense for undocumented immigrants, even when the charge pertains to a nonviolent offense. When an undocumented immigrant is convicted of an aggravated felony, that individual is legally identified as a “public safety threat,” which, in turn, justifies grounds for deportation. [3] Deportation prohibits undocumented immigrants from re-entering the United States for a period of time; it is substantially harder for a deported person to obtain citizenship. [4] Through the classification of crimes such as aggravated felonies and their consequences upon the immigration system, the United States has historically criminalized undocumented immigrants for minor crimes and has made legal residence harder and deportation easier.
Immigration law enacted between 1988 and 1996 played an important part in establishing a process for expanding deportable offenses and limiting undocumented immigrants’ rights in a court of law, which in turn expedited deportation proceedings. In the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, aggravated felonies encompassed crimes such as murder, drug trafficking, and firearms smuggling. [5] More importantly, this Act explicitly placed harsh legal repercussions upon undocumented immigrants for committing such crimes. The Act specified that committing an aggravated felony constituted a deportable offense for every noncitizen; this was the first such restriction on undocumented immigrants. [6] Lastly, it is important to consider that the definition of an aggravated felony has continued to encompass more and more minor offenses over time.
The Immigration Act of 1990 followed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and further limited aggravated felons’ pursuit of fair rulings in court. Specifically, the Immigration Act reduced felons’ period of judicial review from sixty to thirty days. [7] Judicial review involves the re-examination of decisions by immigration agencies and is essential to check the government’s decision-making power to ensure just rulings. [8] Through the Immigration Act of 1990, Congress has made it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to appeal their rulings. This increased both undocumented immigrants’ helplessness in the court of law as well as their probability of deportation.
In addition to the limitation on judicial review, the Immigration Act of 1990 also encouraged the deportation of undocumented immigrants through the elimination of judicial recommendations. [9] Judicial recommendations prevent the unnecessary deportation of undocumented immigrants, including those who are cooperative or have substantial reasons that outweigh deportation. [10] The removal of these recommendations prohibits courts from using their own judgment in deportation proceedings and instead favors blanket deportations. Overall, the limitation of judicial review and the elimination of judicial recommendations both signified the government’s commitment to limiting undocumented immigrants’ ability to remain in the United States.
Further provisions in the Immigration Act of 1990 regarding aggravated felons involved the denial of asylum, which grants refuge to individuals who are fleeing persecution in their countries of origin. [11] This denial of protection is undoubtedly extreme, as the Immigration Act actively jeopardizes the safety of asylum applicants in the case they have committed even a minor aggravated felony. With the enumeration of these additional restrictions, the U.S. government solidified aggravated felonies as a class of crimes that effectively guarantees deportation with little to no exception. These changes were particularly harmful to undocumented immigrants who hoped to return to the United States due to the increase from ten to twenty years wherein deported individuals could re-enter the country. [12] This increase in the length of the re-entry period coupled with the restrictions on an aggravated felon’s ability to avoid deportation further streamlined the deportation process, producing a legally justified method for systematically reducing the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Both the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Immigration Act of 1990 played important roles in expediting deportation proceedings and prolonging periods of re-entry. However, the ratification of the Anti-Terrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) extended the immigration consequences of both the aforementioned acts to a wider class of undocumented immigrants. The AEDPA expanded the term “aggravated felony” to include minor crimes such as forgery, document fraud, and perjury. [13] Conviction of an aggravated felony came to encompass a wider range of crimes for which undocumented immigrants could be deported—ranging from major crimes such as murder to minor crimes such as document fraud. Under these new developments, small mistakes such as incorrectly filling out one’s tax form retain the same legal consequences as significant crimes such as murder. This discrepancy highlights how conviction of an aggravated felony is not necessarily a serious crime that warrants deportation. Despite this, legislation dictates deportation for this crime, thereby overlooking the vastness of what is considered an aggravated felony to permit the deportation of more undocumented immigrants.
Through the numerous acts ratified before the turn of the century, the U.S. government has made a concerted effort to expand grounds for deportation by criminalizing minor crimes. The criminalization of aggravated felons, coupled with the limitations on their rights, successfully enables the deportation of more undocumented immigrants and further complicates their abilities to remain in the country as productive members of society. This is evident through the expansion of crimes that make one deportable, the limitation of one’s rights in a court of law, and the increase in the period during which one is banned from the United States. Undocumented immigrants then exist within a system that pushes for their expulsion rather than gradually encouraging the development of their lives in United States. While the criminalization of undocumented immigrants was legally enumerated until the 1990s, the pattern continues into the 21st century under the Obama and Trump administrations. Both presidents, either implicitly or explicitly, continue to encourage the detainment and removal of immigrants for varying levels of crimes, including nonviolent crimes.
By: Raymond Sterling, Roundtable Contributor from Columbia University
Section 2: Immigration Across Presidential Administrations
The U.S. government’s approach to immigration has shifted notably during the Obama and Trump administrations. As broad approach towards immigration, the Obama Administration claimed to protect undocumented immigrant families and deport violent offenders, while the Trump administration sought to restrict legal immigration and deport all undocumented immigrants. However, the Obama Administration also failed to safeguard undocumented immigrants without criminal records, contrary to common understanding. On the other hand, Trump’s hostile emphasis on deportation contradicts the reality of decreased deportation rates during his presidency. Thus, deportation during the Trump era much rather reflects what many had expected from the Obama administration, while deportation during the Obama era reflects a behavior more characteristic of the Trump administration.
Immigration laws enacted between 2009 and 2017 prioritized the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had committed serious felonies and eased difficulties for undocumented immigrants currently residing in the country. In 2012, the Obama administration passed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), an effort to prevent the deportation of individuals who had been illegally brought to the United States as children. DACA allowed for a two-year deferment from deportation and provided eligibility for work permits. [1] In 2014, a separate immigration policy, informally deemed “Felons, Not Families,” also sought to prevent the separation of undocumented immigrant families. [2] These two policies display the Obama administration’s efforts to target violent offenders rather than all undocumented immigrants.
However, contrary to the purported purpose behind these Obama-era policies, less than a fifth of the immigrants deported in the United States during his presidency had been convicted of violent crimes. In fact, more than 40 percent of deported immigrants had no criminal convictions at all. [3] These statistics reveal that, in reality, the vast majority of nonviolent offenders were still deported. Thus, an important question emerges: Why did the Obama administration, which championed the assimilation of nonviolent undocumented immigrants, continue to implement restrictive immigration policies? While the 2014 policy was created only to deport undocumented immigrants with serious criminal backgrounds, deportation after the policy was enacted affected individuals who had either committed minor crimes or none at all. In California specifically, 47 percent of immigrants detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) between October 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015, had no criminal history. [4]
Ultimately, the "Felons, Not Families" policy failed to exclusively deport undocumented immigrants who committed serious crimes because of the state-by-state ambiguity of what constituted a "serious crime." Although 47 percent of convictions under this policy were classified as significant misdemeanors, the definition varies from state to state; for example, shoplifting, low-level traffic violations, and minor drug possession may be considered a serious crime in one state and not in another. [5] Deportation based on minor crimes becomes especially difficult to address due to the lack of consistency among states in defining a “serious crime.” According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the category of crimes that qualify as grounds for deportation depends on the state-level definition. For example, definitions of a “crime involving moral turpitude” or an “aggravated felony” vary from state to state, enabling the same crime to lead to deportation if committed in one state, but not if committed in another. [6]
To further exacerbate the failures of the “Felons, Not Families” policy, undocumented immigrants who did not commit crimes were also deported, contradicting the policy’s very purpose. In 2015, half of the 95,085 immigrants targeted by ICE for possible criminal deportations did not have criminal convictions. The rest were convictions for assault, drunk driving, drug trafficking, illegal sale of cannabis, and traffic offenses. [7] Thus, the Obama Administration’s 2014 immigration policy had little to no effect in accommodating undocumented immigrants, as the statistics contradict the policy’s claim of focusing solely on serious crimes for deportation proceedings.
On the other hand, President Trump’s administration took a decisively more hardline stance against immigration—whether legal or illegal—and publicly opposed many of Obama’s immigration policies. Early in his administration, President Trump issued an executive order that banned individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. [8] In 2020, he attempted to terminate DACA, rolled out under President Obama, but this action was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that it was judicially reviewable and done in an arbitrary and capricious manner. [9]
Additionally, in April 2018, the Trump Administration announced a “zero tolerance” policy on unauthorized immigration. Under this policy, every immigrant attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, including asylum seekers, was to be detained and criminally prosecuted. [10] Immigration detention in the United States raises a number of civil rights concerns: violations of the right to due process, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and freedom from cruel and unusual treatment, which the U.S. Constitution guarantees for non-citizen detainees. [11] Under the Trump Administration, at least thirty-nine people died while or immediately after being detained; twelve of these people died by suicide. The deaths were a result of solitary confinement and deficient mental health care. [12] Thus, the increase of ICE detention centers under Trump has negatively impacted the government’s approach to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions for non-citizen detainees.
Despite President Trump’s hostility towards immigration compared to his predecessors, the deportation of undocumented immigrants had decreased. Between 2008-2011 while under the authority of the Obama Administration, ICE deported 1.18 million people. While under the authority of the Trump Administration from 2017-2018, ICE deported fewer than 800,000 people. ICE attributes this downturn in deportations to an “increased deterrent effect from ICE’s stronger interior enforcement efforts.” [13] Interestingly, however, the rhetoric surrounding the Trump Administration’s desire to deport immigrants indiscriminately rather than targeting criminals, as the Obama Administration had, is known to have consequently slowed the pace of deportation in the United States. This can be attributed to the fact that the Obama administration had enforcement priorities, which allowed them to streamline deportations based on a smaller population. However, the Trump Administration restricts the process of obtaining visas and legal status while simultaneously prioritizing deportation for all, making it more difficult for the immigration system to be effective. [13]
Despite the political rhetoric surrounding immigration laws of the Obama and Trump administrations, the shifting rate of deportation from one administration to the other proves that the issue of immigration is not dependent on politics. Ultimately, the Obama Administration’s focus on deportation based on minor crimes had two flaws: it failed to safeguard non-criminal undocumented immigrants in the deportation process and unwittingly led to the streamlining of deportation. Thus, deportation rates increased during his presidency. On the other hand, Trump’s tough rhetoric against immigration worked against his policy motives, leading to a systemic gridlock within ICE that decreased deportations.
By: Elissa Kim, Roundtable Contributor from Columbia University
Section 3: Moral Turpitude and the Problems with Enforcing Uniformity in Immigration Law
The lack of national uniformity in immigration laws is further convoluted by the vague classification of a legal standard used in deportation trials. This standard is the categorization of crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT). While there is no standard legal definition in the United States of crimes involving moral turpitude, they are generally understood as “act[s] of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” [1] Crimes involving moral turpitude often render those charged ineligible to obtain a green card or citizenship. In other cases, an offender’s residency or citizenship status may even be revoked because it violates the citizenship criterion of good moral character. [2] While there have been previous attempts to do away with this classification on the grounds of lacking a “sufficiently definite meaning,” the Supreme Court rejected attempts to do so in its 2019 ruling on Jordan v. De George. [3]
In Jordan v. De George, the Supreme Court established two things: firstly, that crimes involving fraud are crimes involving moral turpitude; and secondly, “[t]he phrase ‘crime involving moral turpitude’ does not lack sufficiently definite standards to justify … deportation proceeding, and the statute is not unconstitutional for vagueness.” [4]. That is, the court refused to make this standard defunct on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague. To add to the confusion, the court had previously established in the 2010 case Padilla v. Kentucky that an attorney’s 6th Amendment duty lies in informing noncitizens only of consequences pertaining to their immigration status that are “succinct, clear and explicit” in the Immigration and Nationality Act. [5] This creates an impediment because crimes involving moral turpitude are not “succinct, clear and explicit.” Therefore, defense councils are not required to inform their clients about CIMTs, thus leaving noncitizens in the dark regarding how their entanglements with the legal system may impact their citizenship statuses. This poses a two-fold problem to noncitizens convicted of CIMTs, as the Court has both declared it to be constitutional and established that defendants do not need to be informed of the class of their crimes or their potentially dangerous immigration consequences.
Pereida v. Wilkinson, among the first immigration cases after Biden’s inauguration decided by a majority Trump-appointed Supreme Court, highlights this first problem of noncitizens facing the burden of proving that the crimes with which they were charged were not CIMTs. The case involved petitioner Clemente Avelino Pereida, who unlawfully entered the United States and secured employment in Nebraska using a fraudulent social security number, violating the state’s “criminal impersonation” statute. [6] This statute has several subsections listing crimes that involve moral turpitude, as well as those that do not. The problem for Pereida was that, at the time of his sentencing, the subsections with which he had been charged had not been clearly iterated. Thus, the question arose: can Pereida still plead for “cancellation of removal” considering that his charges were ambiguous? According to the Cornell Legal Information Institute, “[c]ancellation of removal is an immigration benefit whereby permanent residents and nonpermanent residents may apply to an immigration judge to adjust their status from that of deportable alien to one lawfully admitted for permanent residence, provided certain conditions are met.” [7] A cancellation of removal plea is rejected if the plaintiff is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, which is important because Pereida was arguing that those charges were ambiguous.
However, when the Department of Homeland Security sought Pereida’s removal, the burden fell on him to prove that the crime that he was charged with was not a CIMT. The plurality of the Supreme Court—Justice Barrett did not participate in the ruling—found that the primary legal issue at play was whether the burden of proof to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal fell on Pereida. The Court concluded that the burden of proof for a noncitizen’s removal falls on the Immigration and Naturalization Service or, in other words, the government. Similarly, in proving that an alien is eligible for relief from removal, the burden of proof falls on the alien to prove that they meet all four of INS’s criteria for eligibility for deportation cancellation. [8] The criteria are as follows: “Nonpermanent residents must establish that he/she (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of 10 years (2) has been of good moral character during the 10-year period, (3) has not been convicted of select criminal offenses and (4) that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to US citizen or lawful permanent resident family members.” [9] Because Pereida failed to produce evidence proving that he was not charged with a CIMT, his application was rejected per the third criterion.
There are two problems with this burden of proof approach: firstly, since there is no statute of limitations on immigration law, there is an inherent incompatibility between state and federal laws.[10] Inconsistencies in states’ statutes of limitations—the time periods following which deliberations on the legal issue cannot be raised—could result in key documents being purged from records, making it all the more difficult for aliens to prove their eligibility for cancellation of removal. That is, in similar situations, a noncitizen may be able to produce such evidence if the statute of limitations extends over a longer time period. On the other hand, a noncitizen from a state with a shorter-lived statute of limitations will not be able to make their case on the same terms, placing them at a distinct disadvantage.
To combat this issue, in his dissent, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, proposed using a modified categorical approach. When considering immigration cases, the courts will sometimes adopt either a categorical or modified categorical approach. These are used to assess whether a particular offence, which violates a particular state statute, breaches a federal standard, thus resulting in certain immigration consequences such as deportation. Using this approach, courts do not consider what the defendant did, instead considering only “whether the minimum conduct required to convict someone meets all the elements of the federal offense category.” [11] While the categorical approach is employed when considering non-divisible state statutes, or statutes without sub-divisions, the modified categorical approach is employed for divisible statutes such as the Nebraska statute in Pereida v Wilkinson. In the modified categorical approach, “the adjudicator reviews the record of conviction to determine which crime (out of the several potential crimes) is the crime of conviction. Then, the adjudicator uses the categorical approach to see if the state crime meets the definition of a federal offense.” [12]
While the court adopted the categorical approach in Pereida v Wilkinson, the plurality eliminated the concept of the modified categorical approach. In the majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “... in the INA, Congress has expressly authorized parties to introduce a much broader array of proof when it comes to prior convictions….Nor is it even clear whether these many forms of proof are meant to be the only permissible ways of proving a conviction…” [13] He further asserts that because the record of conviction is broader than the court has previously established, such as in Shepard v. United States, Pereida had not fully utilized his options to fulfill his burden of proof. Justice Gorsuch’s analysis contradicts the specific evidence that constitutes a record of conviction established by the INA.
There are two problems with this analysis: firstly, the INA section that Justice Gorsuch is referring to clearly states what the record of conviction entails and what forms of evidence the government may use to convict a defendant. There is no mention of what evidence the defendant may use, meaning that Justice Gorsuch’s claims that Pereida has the opportunity to bring in additional evidence are not legally substantiated. Secondly, as Justice Breyer points out in his dissent, “...we limited the documents that a judge can review in order ‘to implement the object of the statute and avoid evidentiary disputes.’” [14] That is, this cap on the evidence that can be used in court was placed to protect immigrants from governments who may have greater access to resources, giving the government an advantage when making the case against unlawful immigrants. Moreover, Justice Breyer claims that Justice Gorsuch’s ideas were not even brought up by the government during oral argument because “in [the government's] view, that issue was not implicated since no other documents existed.” [15] This goes to show that Justice Gorsuch provided his own solution that firstly, neither party argued for, and secondly, would not work in the case at hand, as no other evidence exists by which either party can prove their case.
The larger implications of this case lie in the fact that the plurality attempted to virtually eliminate the modified categorical approach through an overbroad reading of the particular INA section. This will result in increasingly “less fair and less predictable” immigration court proceedings as the categorical approach allows noncitizens to prepare for the immigration consequences of their convictions. [16] Without the modified categorical approach, noncitizens will be unable to ascertain whether their convictions deem them ineligible for cancellation of removal. Without an adequate record of conviction, as was the case for Pereida, the noncitizen will no longer be able to satisfy their burden of proof. [17] Advocates of immigration law reform have been citing its benefits in “concerns for uniformity, predictability, efficiency, and judicial review.” It essentially requires judges to “determine whether all of the conduct covered under the statute of conviction (or, under the ‘“modified categorical approach,’” the conduct covered under a divisible sub-portion of the statute) fits within the alleged criminal removal classification. ” [18] Furthermore, as the plurality established that the record of conviction applies only to criminal cases and not immigration cases, the government can now bring in a broader range of evidence to convict noncitizens, which could result in proportionally higher deportation rates throughout the country. If a prosecutor failed to identify which subsection of a particular statute a noncitizen violated, as in Pereida, the noncitizen will be left with no legal avenue to defend themself as no other evidence will exist. Thus, this case makes it significantly more difficult for noncitizens to defend their immigration status, posing an undue and unfair burden on them.
By: Aarushi Sharma, Roundtable Contributor from Columbia University
Section 4: The Future of Deportation Law
Although principles such as judicial independence, presumption of innocence, and fair rule of law are purportedly foundational to the U.S. justice system, these tenets often fail to extend to legal processes for undocumented immigrants. In particular, the unwieldy scope of the doctrine of moral turpitude and the enforcement of deportation for minor crimes, as previously discussed, render immigrant justice a tenuous aspiration. A central issue is that the criminal justice system for undocumented immigrants effectively functions on the principle of maximizing deportations rather than seeking justice for defendants, lacking the due process, judicial precision, and checks and balances afforded to U.S. citizens. To combat these systemic failures, it is evident that a series of political, legislative, and judicial reforms must occur; this includes, but is not limited to, fostering the depoliticization of enforcement agencies like ICE, the creation of laws which provide protections from deportation, and the establishment of an Article I immigration court decoupled from the executive branch of government.
Political efforts to advance immigration enforcement in the interest of undocumented citizens have already begun. Since entering office, President Biden has worked to assert control over ICE, penning new guidelines for enforcement prioritization which make national security and public safety its priority. Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE create policies on enforcement prioritization, ICE agents typically retain prosecutorial discretion; Biden’s changes to the agency, however, effectively dismantle agents’ discretion and limit their ability to arrest and deport criminals. [1] Rather than pursuing deportation for crimes such as driving while intoxicated and assault, ICE now targets criminals such as recent border-crossers, national security threats, and those completing prison sentences for aggravated felony convictions. [2] Before pursuing the arrest of noncitizens convicted of smaller crimes, such as minor drug or immigration offenses, officers must gain approval from supervisors, in practice limiting ICE arrests to convicted felons already detained in prisons. [3] Hence, Biden has weakened the instruments of deportation without formal legislation.
While Biden’s actions constitute a step in the right direction to provide justice for undocumented immigrants, the notion that grounds for deportation ought to be defined strictly has yet to be codified in law. Moreover, enforcement priorities at ICE are feeble instruments of reform, often changing with the politics of the administration in power. In order to rectify the undue human toll caused by the current immigration justice system, the crimes which constitute an aggravated felony must be more narrowly defined, or otherwise relinquished altogether in favor of an alternative doctrine that protects from fickle political interpretation by recommending removal only when an undocumented immigrant truly poses a threat to the security of those around them. This includes abandoning aforementioned legislative acts which have expanded the definition of aggravated felony beyond crimes which render an immigrant a public safety threat.
Currently on the legislative floor, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 contains potential solutions to the problems of our immigration system, including an eight-year pathway to citizenship for the eleven million undocumented persons in the U.S., as well as an expedited one for farmworkers and DACA recipients. [4] This effectively institutes a statute of limitations on deportation, already a firmly established concept in other cases of criminal law, that would mitigate the fear of undocumented immigrants of being deported for committing harmless or unintentional crimes long after settling in America. [5] More than acknowledging the crucial economic and cultural role that undocumented people have provided for this nation, this program would recognize undocumented immigrants as established, productive members of society who have built American lives since migrating to the U.S.
Still, however, it is unlikely that the institution of individual laws is enough to remedy a fundamentally flawed judicial system. Currently, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which includes the immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), is housed under the Department of Justice (DOJ), the agency which presides over the prosecution of immigrants in federal courts. [6] This structure highlights the fundamentally hostile and politicized justice system for undocumented immigrants: the function of the immigration courts, including the selection and evaluation of its judges, is at the overwhelming whim of the Attorney General, allowing the executive branch far political reach over its outcomes. [7]
The structural contradictions of the immigration court has led many legal experts to call for the establishment of an independent, Article I immigration court. [8] In practice, the setup could consist of a trial-level immigration court and an appellate-level Appellate Immigration Review Court, unwed from the supervisory power of any government agency. [9] While removing immigration review capacities from the DOJ, this action would establish an independent and insulated Article I court, granting the necessary checks and balances to ensure due process for immigrants.
Undocumented immigrants currently face a criminal justice system premised on pursuing prosecution and deportation rather than justice; overzealous immigration legislation and its enforcement has led to an endemic miscarriage of justice. Although currently tempered by the exogenous policy of Biden’s leadership, the basic structure of the immigration court and the scope of its laws place immigrant lives at the hands of political expediency. Access to a just legal process should be affirmed as a human right rather than a privilege reserved for U.S. citizens. In order to codify the free and fair judicial values so fundamental to American identity, it is necessary to reform the instruments of immigration justice to uphold the principle that the thousands of noncitizens fed through the system are human beings, not political pawns.
By: Julia Chang, Roundtable Contributor from Columbia University
This Roundtable was edited by David Jung
Sources for Section 1
[1] The Associated Press, Biden Administration Reverts to Targeted Immigration Enforcement (2021), online at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden-administration-reverts-targeted-immigration-enforcement-n1258318 (visited April 29, 2021).
[2] Rebecca Beitsch, Biden Team Unveils New ICE Deportation Guidelines, The Hill (2021), online at https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/539436-biden-team-unveils-new-ice-deportation-measures?rl=1 (visited March 20, 2021).
[3] id
[4] Diener Law, Re-entry to US After Deportation, Diener Law (2019), online at https://dienerlaw.net/re-entry-to-the-us-after-deportation/ (visited March 24, 2021).
[5] U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. 100th Congress, 1988, H. Doc. 100-690, https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/5210.
[6] id
[7] U.S. Congress. Senate. Judiciary Committee. Immigration Act of 1990. 101st Congress, 1990, S. Doc. 101-649, S.358 - 101st Congress (1989-1990): Immigration Act of 1990 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.
[8] American Immigration Council, Background on Judicial Review of Immigration Decisions, American Immigration Council (2013), online at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/background-judicial-review-immigration-decisions (visited April 7, 2021).
[9] U.S. Congress. Senate. Judiciary Committee. Immigration Act of 1990. 101st Congress, 1990, S. Doc. 101-649, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2009/03/04/IMMACT1990.pdf.
[10] Warren L. Leiden and David L. Neal, “Highlights of the U.S. Immigration Act of 1990,” 14 Fordham International Law Journal 1st, 336 (1990).
[11] Wex Definitions Team, Asylum, Legal Information Institute (2020), online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/asylum (visited March 28, 2021); U.S. Congress. Senate. Judiciary Committee. Immigration Act of 1990. 101st Congress, 1990, S. Doc. 101-649, https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/358.
[12] U.S. Congress. Senate. Judiciary Committee. Immigration Act of 1990.
[13] U.S. Congress. Senate. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.104th Congress, 1996, S. Doc. 104-132, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ132/PLAW-104publ132.pdf.
Sources for Section 2
[1] A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: DACA and the DREAM Act, Georgetown Law Library (2021), online at https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4170929 (visited May 25, 2021).
[2] Barack Obama, Transcript: Obama's Immigration Speech, The Washington Post (November 20, 2014), online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html (visited August 4, 2021).
[3] Christie Thompson and Anna Flagg, Who Is ICE Deporting?, The Marshall Project (September 26, 2016), online at https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/09/26/who-is-ice-deporting#.AuIvhrboE (visited August 4, 2021)
[4] Leighton Akio Woodhouse, Obama's Deportation Policy Was Even Worse Than We
Thought, The Intercept (May 15, 2017), online at https://theintercept.com/2017/05/15/obamas-deportation-policy-was-even-worse-than-we
-thought/ (visited August 4, 2021).
[5] Teresa Wiltz, What Crimes Are Eligible for Deportation?, Pew Research Center (December 21, 2016), online at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/12/21/what-crimes-are-eligible-for-deportation (visited May 25, 2021).
[6] Sweta Khandelwal, Immigration Consequences for Minor Crimes, Legal.io (Aug 19, 2015), online at https://www.legal.io/articles/55d4cc5877777745bc00004d/Immigration-Consequences-for-Minor-Crimes (visited May 25, 2021).
[7] Ilona Bray, Crimes That Will Make an Immigrant Deportable, Nolo (August 11, 2020), online at https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-that-will-make-immigrant-deportable.html (visited August 4, 2021).
[8] Executive Order 13769 of January 27, 2017, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States, Federal Register (February 1, 2017), online at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/01/2017-02281/protecting-the-nation-from-foreign-terrorist-entry-into-the-united-states (visited august 4, 2021).
[9] President Trump's Executive Orders on Immigration and Refugees, The Center
for Migration Studies (February 17, 2021), online at https://cmsny.org/trumps-executive-orders-immigration-refugees/ (August 4, 2021).
[10] The Trump Zero Tolerance Policy: A Cruel Approach with Humane and Viable Alternatives, Refugees International (September 11, 2019), online at https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2018/7/31/trump-zero-tolerance-policy (visited August 4, 2021).
[11] Immigration Detention and the Rights of Migrants, The Advocates for Human
Rights (December 2010), online at https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/uploads/detention_fact_sheet.pdf (visited August 4, 2021).
[12] Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Tara Tidwell Cullen, and Clara Long, Justice-Free Zones: U.S. Immigration Detention Under the Trump Administration, American Civil Liberties Union (2020), online at https://www.aclu.org/report/justice-free-zones-us-immigration-detention-under-trump-administration (visited May 25, 2021).
[13] Zack Budryk, Deportations Lower under Trump Administration than Obama: Report, The Hill (November 18, 2019), online at https://thehill.com/latino/470900-deportations-lower-under-trump-than-obama-report (visited August 4, 2021).
Sources for Section 3
[1] Moral Turpitude, Legal Information Institute, online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/moral_turpitude (visited May 10, 2021).
[2] Ilona Bray, What's a Crime of Moral Turpitude According to U.S. Immigration Law?, Nolo (November 2, 2020), online at https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-s-crime-moral-turpitude-according-us-immigration-law.html (visited August 4, 2021).
[3] Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 232 (1951) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
[4] id
[5] Mary P. Holper, “Deportation for a Sin: Why Moral Turpitude Is Void for Vagueness,” 90 Nebraska Law Review 647, 648 (2012).
[6] Kate Evans, Pereida v. Barr Argument Analysis: Kate Evans, LexisNexis Legal Newsroom (October 19, 2020), online at https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/pereida-v-barr-argument-analysis-kate-evans (visited August 4, 2021).
[7] Cancellation of Removal, Legal Information Institute, online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cancellation_of_removal (visited May 10, 2021).
[8] Merle D. Kahn, “I'll Never Be Your Beast of Burden” (Unless You're a Noncitizen) – Pereida v. Wilkinson, Top of the Ninth (March 7, 2021), online at https://topoftheninth.com/ill-never-be-your-beast-of-burden-unless-youre-a-noncitizen-pereida-v-wilkinson-noncitizens-applying-for-cancellation-of-removal-must-prove-that-they-havent-been-convicted-of-a-removable-offense/ (visited August 4, 2021).
[9] Cancellation of Removal, Legal Information Institute, online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cancellation_of_removal (visited May 10, 2021).
[10] Merle D. Kahn, “I'll Never Be Your Beast of Burden” (Unless You're a Noncitizen) – Pereida v. Wilkinson, Top of the Ninth (March 7, 2021), online at https://topoftheninth.com/ill-never-be-your-beast-of-burden-unless-youre-a-noncitizen-pereida-v-wilkinson-noncitizens-applying-for-cancellation-of-removal-must-prove-that-they-havent-been-convicted-of-a-removable-offense/ (visited August 4, 2021).
[11] César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, Understanding the Categorical Approach, Crimmigration.com (February 14, 2015), online at http://crimmigration.com/2015/02/19/understanding-the-categorical-approach/ (visited August 4, 2021).
[12] Merle D. Kahn, “I'll Never Be Your Beast of Burden” (Unless You're a Noncitizen) – Pereida v. Wilkinson, Top of the Ninth (March 7, 2021), online at https://topoftheninth.com/ill-never-be-your-beast-of-burden-unless-youre-a-noncitizen-pereida-v-wilkinson-noncitizens-applying-for-cancellation-of-removal-must-prove-that-they-havent-been-convicted-of-a-removable-offense/ (visited August 4, 2021).
[13] Pereida v. Wilkinson 592 U.S. __ (2021).
[14] Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 21 (2005) (Breyer, J. dissenting).
[15] Pereida v. Wilkinson 592 U.S. __ (2021).
[16] Merle D. Kahn, “I'll Never Be Your Beast of Burden” (Unless You're a Noncitizen) – Pereida v. Wilkinson, Top of the Ninth (March 7, 2021), online at https://topoftheninth.com/ill-never-be-your-beast-of-burden-unless-youre-a-noncitizen-pereida-v-wilkinson-noncitizens-applying-for-cancellation-of-removal-must-prove-that-they-havent-been-convicted-of-a-removable-offense/ (visited August 4, 2021).
[17] id
[18] Using and Defending the Categorical Approach, Immigrant Defense Project (March 9, 2021), online at https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/using-and-defending-the-categorical-approach-2/ (visited August 4, 2021).
Sources for Section 4
[1] Biden Must Stop Deportations Now!, United We Dream (April 30, 2021), online at unitedwedream.org/protect-immigrants-now/biden-stop-deportations-now/ (visited August 4, 2021).
[2] Nick Miroff and Maria Sacchetti, New Biden Rules for ICE Point to Fewer Arrests and Deportations, and a More Restrained Agency (February 7, 2021), online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/new-biden-rules-for-ice-point-to-fewer-arrests-and-deportations-and-a-more-restrained-agency/2021/02/07/faccb854-68c6-11eb-bf81-c618c88ed605_story.html (visited August 4, 2021).
[3] Joel Rose, Biden Tries To Rein In ICE: New Rules Limit Who Immigration Agents Target for Arrest, NPR (February 18 2021), online at www.npr.org/2021/02/18/969083367/biden-tells-ice-to-chill-new-rules-limit-who-immigration-agents-target-for-arres (visited August 4, 2021).
[4] Hannah Miao, Democrats Introduce Sweeping Immigration Bill with 8-Year Pathway to Citizenship, CNBC (February 18, 2021), online at www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/immigration-democrats-to-introduce-bill-with-pathway-to-citizenship.html (visited August 4, 2021).
[5] Kenneth Roth, A Deportation Statute of Limitations in the US, Human Rights Watch (February 18, 2021), online at www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/18/deportation-statute-limitations-us# (visited August 4, 2021).
[6] AILA Calls for Independent Immigration Courts, American Immigration Lawyers Association (January 31, 2021), online at www.aila.org/dueprocess#PDF (visited August 4, 2021).
[7] Featured Issue: Immigration Courts, American Immigration Lawyers Association (June 2, 2021), online at www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/all/immigration-courts (visited August 5, 2021).
[8] Dana Leigh Marks, “An Urgent Priority: Why Congress Should Establish an Article I Immigration Court,” 13 Bender’s Immigration Bulletin 3, 3-21 (2008).
[9] id