CLJ 120 Crime and Society Exam on Crimmigration PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by AuthenticPetra4166
Tags
Summary
This document is a study guide for a Crime and Society exam (CLJ 120), focusing on the topic of crimmigration in the U.S. It covers the definition and historical development of crimmigration, including the convergence of criminal law. The document outlines the key aspects of crimmigration and examines its evolution across different periods. The document also mentions key legislation such as the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Full Transcript
ertainly, I'd be glad to assist you in preparing for your CLJ 120: Crime and Society exam on C the topic of crimmigration in the U.S. Below, I provide explanations and answers based on the readings you've specified: Stumpf (2014), Provine et al. (2016), Lind (2016), and Varsanyi et al. (2...
ertainly, I'd be glad to assist you in preparing for your CLJ 120: Crime and Society exam on C the topic of crimmigration in the U.S. Below, I provide explanations and answers based on the readings you've specified: Stumpf (2014), Provine et al. (2016), Lind (2016), and Varsanyi et al. (2012). Week 1: What is Crimmigration? uliet Stumpf defines "crimmigration" as the convergence of criminal law and immigration law, J where the boundaries between the two become increasingly blurred. This merging results in immigration enforcement adopting punitive measures traditionally associated with criminal law, leading to non-citizens facing criminal penalties for immigration-related offenses. digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu raditionally, immigration law and criminal law served distinct purposes: immigration law T governed the entry, residence, and removal of non-citizens, focusing on civil regulations, while criminal law addressed offenses against societal norms, emphasizing punishment and deterrence. However, crimmigration has led to a significant overlap between these two areas. Stumpf identifies three major aspects of crimmigration: 1. C riminal offenses carry immigration penalties:Certaincriminal convictions can lead to severe immigration consequences, such as deportation or inadmissibility. For example, a lawful permanent resident convicted of a nonviolent drug offense may face deportation due to the criminal conviction. 2. Immigration violations result in criminal penalties:Actions that were once considered civil violations under immigration law are now criminalized. For instance, unauthorized reentry into the U.S. after deportation is prosecuted as a federal offense, leading to imprisonment before subsequent deportation. 3. Local criminal justice systems facilitate immigration enforcement:Local law enforcement agencies increasingly collaborate with federal immigration authorities, effectively acting as extensions of immigration enforcement. Programs like 287(g) agreements and Secure Communities enable local police to detain individuals based on their immigration status, leading to deportation proceedings. In her analysis, Stumpf refers to crimmigration as a "leviathan" to illustrate its expansive and all-encompassing nature. This metaphor emphasizes how the fusion of criminal and immigration law creates a powerful system that can engulf individuals, leading to severe consequences such as detention and deportation. digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu Week 2: Historical Development of Crimmigration The evolution of immigration control in the U.S. can be divided into four distinct periods: 1. E ra of State and Local Control (pre-1870s):During this period, individual states and localities held authority over immigration matters. Policies varied widely, with some states enacting restrictive measures targeting specific groups, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act implemented by California before federal intervention. 2. Federal Supremacy over Immigration (1870–1900):Thefederal government asserted control over immigration, standardizing policies across states. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 marked a significant federal intervention, prohibiting the immigration of Chinese laborers and setting a precedent for future federal immigration restrictions. 3. Consolidation of Federal Enforcement Powers (1900–1970):Federal authorities expanded their enforcement capabilities, implementing stricter border controls and deportation procedures. Notable actions include Operation Wetback in 1954, which aimed to repatriate Mexican nationals, reflecting growing federal involvement in immigration enforcement. 4. Rise of Crimmigration (1980s–present):The lines betweencriminal and immigration law began to blur, leading to the current era of crimmigration. Legislative acts such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (1996) introduced measures that criminalized immigration violations and increased penalties for related offenses. hroughout these periods, debates and controversies often centered on issues of race, labor, T and national security. For example, the Chinese Exclusion Act was driven by racial prejudices and economic fears of job competition. Legal challenges, such as Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. (1889), questioned the federal government's authority to regulate immigration, ultimately affirming its plenary power in this domain. Week 3: Governing Immigration through Crime he concept of the "aggravated felony" has played a pivotal role in intertwining criminal and T immigration law. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (ADAA) introduced the term, initially encompassing severe crimes like murder and drug trafficking. However, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 significantly expanded this definition to include minor offenses, such as shoplifting and simple drug possession. IIRIRA implemented several key changes: E xpanded Definition of Aggravated Felony:The broadeneddefinition applied retroactively, meaning individuals convicted of newly included offenses before the law's enactment became deportable. Fast-Tracked Deportations:The act facilitated expeditedremoval procedures for those classified as aggravated felons, reducing opportunities for legal defense. Increased Enforcement Spending:IIRIRA allocated substantialfunds to enhance border security and interior enforcement, reflecting a shift towards a more punitive approach to immigration control. L imited Pathways to Legal Status:The introduction of 3- and 10-year bars penalized individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. by restricting their ability to adjust to legal status, even if they had qualifying family relationships. Strengthened Local-Federal Cooperation:Section 287(g)of IIRIRA authorized formal agreements between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement agencies, deputizing local officers to perform immigration enforcement functions. espite these stringent measures, IIRIRA did not lead to a decrease in undocumented D immigration. Factors such as economic disparities, ongoing labor demands in the U.S., and complex social dynamics continued to drive migration. Moreover, heightened border security inadvertently encouraged undocumented individuals to settle permanently rather than risk repeated crossings. Immigration enforcement priorities have fluctuated with changing administrations. While rhetoric often emphasizes the removal of "criminal immigrants," in practice, many deportees have no criminal history or have committed only minor offenses. This discrepancy highlights the broad Sources 4o You said: what about week 4 manee ChatGPT said: ou're right—let’s coverWeek 4: Multilayered JurisdictionalPatchworkusingVarsanyi et al. Y 2012and other relevant sources. Week 4: Multilayered Jurisdictional Patchwork arsanyi et al. (2012) describe how the U.S. immigration system operates as amultilayered V jurisdictional patchwork, meaning that immigrationenforcement is no longer handled exclusively by the federal government. Instead,stateand local governments play an increasing role, leading to a fragmented and inconsistentapplication of immigration policies across different jurisdictions. Immigration Federalism & Local-Level Immigration Policies F ederal government still sets immigration lawsbutrelies onstate and local cooperationto enforce them. Some localities actively participate in enforcement,while others resist and implementpro-immigrant policieslike sanctuary citylaws. T his createsconflictsbetween different levels of government, withsome states and localities passing restrictive immigration laws while others provide protections for undocumented residents. State & Local Immigration Enforcement Approaches 1. Cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement ome states and local governmentsactively collaboratewith federal agencies like ICE S (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), enforcing immigration laws at the local level.Key mechanisms include: 2 87(g) Agreements– Allow local law enforcement officersto receive training and authority to enforce federal immigration laws. Secure Communities– A federal program where localpolice share fingerprint data with ICE to check for immigration violations. 2. Resistance & Grassroots Immigration Policies ther states and localitiesreject federal immigrationenforcement efforts, often citing O concerns about: C ommunity trust(immigrants less likely to reportcrimes if local police collaborate with ICE). Economic contributionsof immigrant populations. Ethical and human rights concernsregarding detentionand deportation. Examples of grassroots immigration policies include: S anctuary Policies– Local governments limit cooperationwith ICE (e.g., New York City, San Francisco). Driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants– Somestates allow undocumented residents to obtain IDs to improve public safety. Restrictions on local police collaboration with ICE– Preventing local jails from holding individuals for ICE detainers unless there is a serious criminal charge. 3. Backdoor Policies & Indirect Immigration Enforcement ven in places without explicit immigration enforcement laws, local governments may adopt E indirect policiesaffecting immigrant communities: H ousing Codes– Restricting the ability of undocumentedimmigrants to rent apartments or live in certain areas. Business Licensing Laws– Targeting immigrant-ownedbusinesses through restrictive permits and fines. V ending Restrictions– Criminalizing street vending, a common livelihood for undocumented workers. Cross-Jurisdictional Conflicts: Case Studies 1. Mesa, AZ ○ Conflict betweencity police and county sheriffoverimmigration enforcement. ○ Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaioaggressively targetedimmigrants, leading to racial profiling lawsuits. 2. New Haven, CT ○ The city adoptedpro-immigrant policies(e.g., municipalID cards for undocumented residents). ○ ICE retaliatedwith large-scale raids, arresting localimmigrants. 3. Raleigh, NC ○ City police sought tolimit cooperation with ICE,but ○ County sheriffenforced a287(g) agreement, leadingto more deportations. Conclusion: Why It Matters Immigration enforcementvaries widelybased onlocaland state policies, leading to inconsistent outcomesfor immigrants. Some jurisdictions act asdeportation pipelines, whileothers provideprotections through sanctuary policies. Thefederal-state-local relationshipin immigrationremains ahighly contested issue, often influenced by political changes. his should help round out your study guide forWeek4and tie it all together! Let me know if T you need anything else. 🚀 4o
