Stipulated removal

Last updated

Stipulated removal is a summary deportation procedure used in immigration enforcement in the United States. Stipulated removal occurs when a noncitizen who is facing removal proceedings and is scheduled for a hearing with an immigration judge signs a document stipulating that he is waiving the right to trial and to appeal, and is prepared to be removed immediately. The stipulation of removal must still be signed off by the judge before whom the hearing is to take place, but the noncitizen need not be physically presented to the judge. It is authorized under Section 240(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 [1] [2] According to Muhammed awwal July 28, 2015|publisher = Legal Information Institute}}</ref> Stipulated removal applies only to those who are scheduled for regular removal proceedings, and does not apply to people who are being removed through other summary procedures such

Contents

History

Stipulated removal was formally launched in 1995 with the stated goal of alleviating overcrowding in federal, state, and local detention centers. [3] However, it began to be used in a significant way only starting 2004, when George W. Bush, the President of the United States at the time, started ramping up immigration enforcement. [2] [3] Between 1999 and 2003, a total of 6 people were subject to stipulated removal. On the other hand, the number of people subject to stipulated removal increased from 5,491 in 2004 to over 30,000 by 2007. [2] Between 2004 and 2009, the detention facilities at Eloy and Chicago together accounted for over a third of the stipulated removal orders. [2] The total number of stipulated removals exceeded 160,000 as of September 2011, [4] [5] and the majority of individuals targeted for stipulated removal hailed from Mexico. [2]

In September 2010, the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigration officials at Eloy had violated the rights of Isaac Ramos, an illegal immigrant from Mexico with prior criminal convictions, in 2006. [3] In response, new guidelines for stipulated removal were issued according to which the noncitizen could sign the stipulated removal order only if he or she had legal representation (legal representation is not provided at taxpayer expense). [1] [3]

In November 2011, it was reported that the use of stipulated removal in Arizona (including the Eloy Detention Center) had stopped after the changes triggered by the Ramos case. [3]

A "Just Facts" summary by the Immigration Policy Center identified a few other summary removal practices similar to stipulated removal: [5]

Reception

Concerns about confusion, strong-arming, and lack of due process

Law resource NOLO notes that people have a common confusion about stipulated removal, believing that stipulating to be removed improves a person's chances for re-entry, possibly due to the conflation of stipulated removal with voluntary departure. In fact, stipulated removal is treated like any other removal for the purposes of future re-entry. [6]

A review of stipulated removal by the Stanford Law School noted: "The government targets undocumented individuals for stipulated removal while they are in immigration detention, most likely because they cannot afford to post thousands of dollars in bond money to obtain release from detention. If these individuals were able to post bond, they could continue to challenge their removal cases instead of simply accepting deportation. Unfortunately, these individuals also are typically unable to obtain or afford legal representation." [2] Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center (an immigrant rights advocacy group and support center) told the Los Angeles Times that of the more than dozen detainees she interviewed at the Mira Loma Detention Center in Lancaster, none understood what they had agreed to and what the legal consequences for them would be. [4]

Positive reception and defense

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers have argued that stipulated removal helps both the government and the individuals deported: the government saves on detention costs whereas the individuals involved are freed from confining and highly restrictive detention. They have also argued that the program has adequate safeguards to make sure that people with a legal basis to stay in the United States are not subject to stipulated removal. [3] [4]

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates reduced immigration to the United States, has argued that the stipulated removal program should be expanded rather than scaled back. She has also been critical of the changes to the program after the Ramos decision, noting that offering stipulated removal only to immigrants who hire their own lawyers bogs down the judicial process and defeats the purpose of the program: to quickly remove illegal immigrants with no legal grounds to remain in the U.S. who want to go home. [3]

Related Research Articles

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. ICE's stated mission is to protect the United States from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety.

Immigration detention is the policy of holding individuals suspected of visa violations, illegal entry or unauthorized arrival, as well as those subject to deportation and removal until a decision is made by immigration authorities to grant a visa and release them into the community, or to repatriate them to their country of departure. Mandatory detention refers to the practice of compulsorily detaining or imprisoning people seeking political asylum, or who are considered to be illegal immigrants or unauthorized arrivals into a country. Some countries have set a maximum period of detention, while others permit indefinite detention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</span> Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Key Provisions

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub. L. 104–208 (text)(PDF), 110 Stat. 3009-546, enacted September 30, 1996, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal immigration to the United States</span> Immigration to the United States in violation of US law

Illegal immigration to the United States is the process of migrating into the United States in violation of US immigration laws. This can include foreign nationals (aliens) who have entered the United States unlawfully, as well as those who lawfully entered but then remained after the expiration of their visas, parole, TPS, etc. Illegal immigration has been a matter of intense debate in the United States since the 1980s.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act was a United States Senate bill introduced in the 109th Congress (2005–2006) by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PE) on April 7, 2006. Co-sponsors, who signed on the same day, were Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Sen. Mel Martínez (R-FL), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS).

Removal proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine an individual's removability under United States immigration law. Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court by an immigration judge (IJ).

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) is a non-profit legal services organization in Washington state. NWIRP's mission is to promote justice by defending and advancing the rights of immigrants through direct legal services, systemic advocacy, and community education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration detention in the United States</span>

The United States government holds tens of thousands of immigrants in detention under the control of Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Immigrants are detained for unlawful entry to the United States, when their claims for asylum are received, and in the process of deportation and removal from the country. During Fiscal Year 2018, 396,448 people were booked into ICE custody: 242,778 of whom were detained by CBP and 153,670 by ICE's own enforcement operations. A daily average of 42,188 immigrants were held by ICE in that year. In addition, over twelve thousand immigrant children are housed by facilities under the supervision of the Office of Refugee Resettlement's program for Unaccompanied Alien Children. Prior to referral to these other agencies, the CBP holds immigrants at processing centers; between mid-May and mid-June 2019, it held between 14,000 and 18,000 immigrants.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 American immigration crisis</span> Surge in immigration along US southern border

The 2014 American immigration crisis was a surge in unaccompanied children and women from the Northern Triangle of Central America (NTCA) seeking entrance to the United States in 2014. According to U.S. law, an unaccompanied alien child refers to a person under 18 years of age, who has no lawful immigration status in the U.S., and who does not have a legal guardian to provide physical custody and care.

Expedited removal is a process related to immigration enforcement in the United States where an alien is denied entry to and/or physically removed from the country, without going through the normal removal proceedings. The legal authority for expedited removal allows for its use against most unauthorized entrants who have been in the United States for less than two years. Its rollout so far has been restricted to people seeking admission and those who have been in the United States for 14 days or less, and excludes first-time violators from Mexico and Canada.

Reinstatement of removal refers to an immigration enforcement procedure in the United States in which a previously deported immigrant can be again deported for subsequent illegal entries with no required judicial review except in very limited circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Streamline</span>

Operation Streamline is a joint initiative of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice in the United States, started in 2005, that adopts a "zero-tolerance" approach to unauthorized border-crossing by criminally prosecuting those perpetrating it. Up to 70 people are tried at the same time, sometimes wearing shackles in the courtroom. Entering without inspection is a misdemeanor, and re-entering after deportation is a felony.

The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000, also known as the LIFE Act and as the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act, along with its Amendments, made some changes to laws surrounding immigration for family members of United States citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, as well as people eligible for employment-based immigrant visas, in the direction of making it easier for family members and immigrant workers to move to and adjust status within the United States. It was passed on December 21, 2000, as title XI of Pub. L. 106–553 (text)(PDF).

Voluntary departure in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States is a legal remedy available to certain aliens who have been placed in removal proceedings by the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or the now Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

The Priority Enforcement Program is a program by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency responsible for immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States, under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). PEP was an ICE program that worked with state and local law enforcement to identify illegal aliens who come in contact with state or local law enforcement, and remove those who are removable. PEP was announced by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson in a November 20, 2014 memo as a replacement for Secure Communities (S-COMM). It builds on an updated list of immigration enforcement priorities released in another memo by Johnson issued on the same day.

Deportation of Americans from the United States is the wrongful expulsion, return or extradition of Americans to other countries, often after being convicted of a crime. These individuals in removal proceedings include Americans by birth and legal immigrants that were naturalized under 8 U.S.C. § 1427 or admitted as nationals of the United States under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. A U.S. citizen cannot legally be deported, and thus can return to the United States at any time.

Federal policy oversees and regulates immigration to the United States and citizenship of the United States. The United States Congress has authority over immigration policy in the United States, and it delegates enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, the United States went through a period of loose immigration policy in the early-19th century followed by a period of strict immigration policy in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Policy areas related to the immigration process include visa policy, asylum policy, and naturalization policy. Policy areas related to illegal immigration include deferral policy and removal policy.

Ahilan Arulanantham is an American human rights lawyer. He specializes in immigrants' rights, particularly the rights of people facing deportation from the United States. He has been Senior Counsel and Director of Advocacy/Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, and has also been a lecturer at the University of Chicago and University of California, Irvine law schools. Arulanantham is the recipient of a 2016 MacArthur Fellow.

References

  1. 1 2 O'Leary, Brian M. (September 15, 2010). "Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 10-01" (PDF). Executive Office for Immigration Review . Retrieved July 24, 2015.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Backgrounder: Stipulated Removal. Federal authorities are deporting immigrants without hearings, but the public knows very little about the program" (PDF). Stanford Law School.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Gonzalez, Daniel (November 6, 2011). "Immigration officials back away from deportation program. Effort quickened process but raised rights issues". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved July 24, 2015.
  4. 1 2 3 Esquivel, Paloma (September 9, 2011). "Many deportees unwittingly waive rights, report says. More than 160,000 immigrants signed so-called stipulated removals, many of them without legal representation or understanding the documents, according to the National Immigration Law Center and legal experts". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved July 28, 2015.
  5. 1 2 "Removal Without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States". Immigration Policy Center. April 28, 2014. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  6. ↑ Koh, Jennifer L.; Srikaniah, Jayashri; Tumlin, Karen C. (September 2011). "Deportation Without Due Process" (PDF). National Immigration Law Center. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.