Operation Streamline

Last updated
Federal courthouse in Tucson, AZ where Operation Streamline proceedings take place. Tucson Federal Courthouse.jpg
Federal courthouse in Tucson, AZ where Operation Streamline proceedings take place.

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. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Contents

After launching Streamline at one sector of the Texas/Mexico border sector in 2005, the number of criminal prosecutions for illegal border crossing and/or re-entry quadrupled from around 4,000 annually in the early 2000s to 16,000 in 2005. [5] The program expanded to several other sectors during the first term of the Obama administration and total prosecutions for first time offenders tripled to 44,000 in 2010 and by 2013, that number doubled to a peak of 97,000. [6]

Goals

Operation Streamline was created with the goal of combating drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human smuggling, and repeat illegal immigration into the United States. [7] Its ultimate goal is to achieve a 100% criminalization of unauthorized border-crossing. [8]

Program description

Regions of operation

All states on the U.S.-Mexico border except California have implemented the program. [4] [7] [9] In 2010, the program was operational in the following border sectors: Del Rio, Texas, Yuma, Arizona, Laredo, Texas, Tucson, Arizona, El Paso, Texas, Las Cruces, New Mexico, McAllen, Texas, and Brownsville, Texas. By December 2014, only the Tucson, Del Rio, and Laredo sectors continued to participate in Streamline. However, the border sectors that discontinued the Operation Streamline program still continue to prosecute misdemeanor 8 USC § 1325 – improper entry by alien cases. [10]

Criminal prosecution of illegal entry and re-entry

Under Operation Streamline, those caught in the act of crossing the United States border without authorization may be rounded up and subject to criminal prosecution. This is in contrast to the historical policy of catch and release and even to the policy of deporting people through expedited removal or after formal removal proceedings. Under Operation Streamline, immigration violations are processed under the criminal justice system. [2] [11]

The penalties that Operation Streamline carries for immigrants are as follows: [7]

About 99% of people prosecuted under Operation Streamline plead guilty. [7] According to The Washington Post , this is because those who plead guilty are likely to get substantially shorter prison terms than the theoretical maximum, whereas those who do not plead guilty are likely to get close to the maximum sentence. [12]

The annual cost of Operation Streamline in Arizona alone was estimated as $120 million for court proceedings and $50 million for detention and incarceration. [13]

Bundling and rapid processing of cases

Another distinguishing feature of Operation Streamline is that cases are not heard individually, but rather in large groups, with many people caught crossing the border together generally being processed in one case. [2] [11] According to a New York Times report, a single court case in Tucson, Arizona can have up to 70 defendants, the upper limit being set by the physical capacity of the court. The time taken to decide the cases varies between 30 minutes (or 25 seconds per defendant) and 2 hours 35 minutes (or a little over 2 minutes per defendant). [11]

Relationship with expedited removal

Expedited removal is a removal procedure where a person who has recently entered the United States without authorization and does not qualify for some particular exemptions may be removed without going through formal removal proceedings. A person who is sentenced through Operation Streamline may be subject to expedited removal after completing his or her prison term. [14]

Expedited removal may apply not just to people caught by United States Border Patrol in the act of border-crossing but also people who have recently crossed a border and are living in the United States. Also, although expedited removal may be applied after criminal prosecution through Operation Streamline, it is itself an administrative procedure and does not involve the criminal justice system.

In terms of historical timeline, the rollout of Operation Streamline started at around the time that the rollout of expedited removal was being completed. Expedited removal was expanded to all border sectors by September 2005 and the entire border zone by March 2006, whereas Operation Streamline launched in December 2005.

Relationship with reinstatement of removal

Reinstatement of removal is a removal procedure where a person who had a previous order of removal and subsequently departed the United States, and then re-entered without authorization, may be removed by "reinstating" the previous order. Like expedited removal, it is an administrative procedure that does not involve the criminal justice system. Like expedited removal, it may be applied to a person making a repeat unauthorized entry after the person has gone through the Operation Streamline court process.

Relationship with credible fear

In principle, a person being subject to criminal prosecution via Operation Streamline should have the opportunity to request asylum and get scheduled for a credible fear interview. However, due to the rapid processing of these cases, many people do not get this opportunity, and may have to serve their prison term despite being eligible for asylum. After the prison term is completed and they are being processed for expedited removal, they are asked if they would like to request asylum and, if so, are scheduled for the credible fear interview. [14]

History

Initial launch in Del Rio (December 2005)

An initial version of Operation Streamline was proposed by the United States Border Patrol for Del Rio, Texas in response to a significant increase in the number of apprehended non-Mexican migrants, from 10,000 in 2004 to 15,000 in 2005. [8] The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas requested a change to the proposal: in order to avoid running afoul of equal protection, the courts would need to criminally prosecute all migrants, not just those from Mexico. [8] Note that many other related programs, such as the expedited removal procedure, do treat people differently based on nationality: those from Mexico or Canada without a criminal record are not subject to expedited removal, whereas people from other countries may be subject to expedited removal despite the absence of a criminal record. However, the provisions of these programs do not run afoul of equal protection because they are not administered through the criminal justice system.

After approval from then Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Operation Streamline became active starting December 2005: all unauthorized border-crossers in the Eagle Pass area of the Del Rio sector would be prosecuted criminally for unlawful entry and re-entry. [8]

Rollout to other border sectors

Operation Streamline was gradually rolled out in other parts of the United States border: [4] [8]

By 2010, every US-Mexico border sector not in California had implemented Operation Streamline. [8]

In December, 2009, it was decided in United States v. Roblero-Solis that en masse judicial proceedings like those in Operation Streamline violated Rule 11 in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11 states that the court must determine that a guilty plea is voluntarily made by addressing the defendant personally in court. The Roblero-Solis case determined that “personally” means that the judge must address the defendant in a person-to-person manner. [15]

Protests

Starting February 2013, Operation Streamline has been protested by activists in Arizona and Texas, the two main states where it is operational. [16] [17] [18] [19]

Senate Resolution by Jeff Flake and John McCain

United States Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain introduced a Senate Resolution in March 2015 in the 114th United States Congress calling on the Obama administration to immediately remove any directives or policies that would bar the prosecutions of first-time border crossers under this program. [1] The resolution was co-sponsored by Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson.[ needs update ]

Reception

Primary aspects of criticism

Operation Streamline has received significant criticism from groups concerned about immigrant rights, civil rights, due process, and human rights. Some of the chief angles of criticism have been:

Defenses of the program

The United States Border Patrol and other branches of the US government have defended the program as a key component of a deterrent strategy that they believe has reduced overall rates of unauthorized border-crossing. [8] [22] Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates reduced levels of immigration to the United States (both legal and illegal), also defended the program's necessity and importance in comments to Christian Science Monitor . [22] Legislators Jeff Flake and John McCain, who have proposed the continuation and expansion of the program, have defended its importance in maintaining the national security of the United States. [1]

The Judge Brack exception

Judge Robert Brack, who has presided over a large number of Operation Streamline court cases in Las Cruces, New Mexico, has expressed dissatisfaction over the system of laws he is required to enforce with Operation Streamline. [22] [23] He proposed to the Wall Street Journal a "Judge Brack exception" where anybody separated from their family after being sentenced by him should be allowed back in and legalized. [24] [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Border Patrol</span> U.S. federal law enforcement agency

The United States Border Patrol (USBP) is a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and is responsible for securing the borders of the United States. According to its web site in 2022, its mission is to "Protect the American people, safeguard our borders, and enhance the nation’s economic prosperity."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Wetback</span> 1950s U.S. immigration law enforcement initiative

Operation Wetback was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Joseph Swing, the Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The program was implemented in June 1954 by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell. The short-lived operation used military-style tactics to remove Mexican immigrants—some of them American citizens—from the United States. Though millions of Mexicans had legally entered the country through joint immigration programs in the first half of the 20th century and some who were naturalized citizens who were once native, Operation Wetback was designed to send them to Mexico.

Reforming the immigration policy of the United States is a subject of political discourse and contention. Immigration has played an essential part in American history, as except for the Native Americans, everyone in the United States is descended from people who migrated to the United States. Some claim that the United States maintains the world's most liberal immigration policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wet feet, dry feet policy</span> US policy on Cuban migrants between 1995 and 2017

The wet feet, dry feet policy or wet foot, dry foot policy was the name given to a former interpretation of the 1995 revision of the application of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that essentially says that anyone who emigrated from Cuba and entered the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. Prior to 1995, the U.S. government allowed all Cubans who reached U.S. territorial waters to remain in the U.S. After talks with the Cuban government, the Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people intercepted in U.S. waters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</span> US federal immigration legislation

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 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">Mexico–United States border</span> International border in North America

The Mexico–United States border is an international border separating Mexico and the United States, extending from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Gulf of Mexico in the east. It traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from urban areas to deserts. The Mexico–U.S. border is the most frequently crossed border in the world with approximately 350 million documented crossings annually. Illegal crossing of the border to enter the United States has caused the Mexico–United States border crisis. It is one of two international borders that the United States has, the other being the northern Canada–United States border; Mexico has two other borders: with Belize and with Guatemala. The Mexico-U.S. border is the tenth-longest border between two countries in the world.

<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, or unauthorized immigration, occurs when foreign nationals, known as aliens, violate US immigration laws by entering the United States unlawfully, or by lawfully entering but then remaining after the expiration of their visas, parole or temporary protected status.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act was a United States Senate bill introduced in the 109th Congress (2005–2006) by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 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).

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

The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) provides expedited U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processing, at the U.S.-Mexico border, of pre-approved travelers considered low-risk. Voluntarily applicants must undergo a thorough background check against criminal, customs, immigration, law enforcement, and terrorist databases; a 10-fingerprint law enforcement check; and a personal interview with a CBP Officer. The total enrollment fee is $122.50, and SENTRI status is valid for 5 years.

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).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coyote (person)</span> Migrant smuggler

Colloquially, a coyote is a person who smuggles immigrants across the Mexico–United States border. The word "coyote" is a loanword from Mexican Spanish that usually refers to a species of North American wild dog (Canis latrans).

<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).

In United States immigration enforcement, "catch and release" refers to a practice of releasing a migrant to the community while he or she awaits hearings in immigration court, as an alternative to holding them in immigration detention. The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum.

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.

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/she 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 According to the United States Code of Federal Regulations: "A stipulated order shall constitute a conclusive determination of the alien’s removability from the United States." 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 as expedited removal, reinstatement of removal, or administrative removal for aggravated felons.

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).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trump administration family separation policy</span> Policy intended to deter illegal immigration

The United States family separation policy under the Trump administration was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation. In some cases, families following the legal procedure to apply for asylum at official border crossings were also separated. It was officially adopted across the entire US–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018. Under the policy, federal authorities separated children and infants from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails or deported, and the children were placed under the supervision of the US Department of Health and Human Services. More than 5,500 children, including infants, were removed and up to 2,000 still have not been reunited as of March 2024.

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.

Joe Biden's immigration policy initially focused on reversing many of the immigration policies of the previous Trump administration, before implementing stricter enforcement mechanisms later in his first term.

A Title 42 expulsion is the removal by the U.S. government of a person who had recently been in a country where a communicable disease was present. The extent of authority for contagion-related expulsions is set out by law in 42 U.S.C. § 265. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the Trump administration used this provision to generally block land entry for many migrants. This practice was initially continued by the Biden administration before the program was ended with the end of the COVID-19 national emergency on May 12, 2023. Title 42 of the United States Code includes numerous sections dealing with public health, social welfare, and civil rights, but, in the context of immigration, the phrase "Title 42" came to be used to refer specifically to expulsions under section 265.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Flake, Jeff (March 19, 2015). "Flake, McCain Introduce Resolution on Operation Streamline. Legislation stresses importance of maintaining prosecution of first-time illegal border crossers" . Retrieved August 14, 2015.
  2. 1 2 3 "US: Reject Mass Migrant Prosecutions. 'Operation Streamline' Program Unjust, Wasteful". Human Rights Watch. July 28, 2015. Retrieved August 14, 2015.
  3. ↑ Planas, Roque (February 20, 2015). "Operation Streamline, Immigration Enforcement Program, Protested In Arizona And Texas". The Huffington Post . Retrieved August 14, 2015.
  4. 1 2 3 Kerwin, Donald; McCabe, Kristen (April 29, 2010). "Arrested on Entry: Operation Streamline and the Prosecution of Immigration Crimes". Migration Policy Institute . Retrieved August 14, 2015.
  5. ↑ "The remarkable history of the family separation crisis". cnn.com . 18 June 2018.
  6. ↑ "The remarkable history of the family separation crisis". cnn.com . 18 June 2018.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lydgate, Joanna (January 1, 2010). "Assembly-line justice: a review of Operation Streamline" (PDF). Retrieved August 17, 2015.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Operation Streamline: Costs and Consequences" (PDF). Grassroots Leadership. September 1, 2012. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  9. ↑ "Operation Streamline: Drowning Justice and Draining Dollars along the Rio Grande" (PDF). Retrieved August 22, 2015.
  10. ↑ "Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing" (PDF). Retrieved August 30, 2016.
  11. 1 2 3 Santons, Fernanda (February 11, 2014). "Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in 'Streamline' Justice on Border". The New York Times . Retrieved August 17, 2015.
  12. ↑ Partlow, Joshua (February 10, 2014). "Under Operation Streamline, fast-track proceedings for illegal immigrants". The Washington Post . Retrieved August 17, 2015.
  13. 1 2 3 "Fact Sheet: Operation Streamline" (PDF). No More Deaths. March 1, 2012. Retrieved August 17, 2015.
  14. 1 2 Puhl, Emily. "Prosecuting the Persecuted: How Operation Streamline and Expedited Removal Violate Article 31 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol". Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.
  15. ↑ Nazarian, E. (2011). "Crossing Over: Assessing Operation Streamline and the Rights of Immigrant Criminal Defendants at the Border". Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 44: 1399–1430. Archived from the original on June 23, 2018. Retrieved December 21, 2020. Alt URL
  16. ↑ "Operation Streamline". Grassroots Leadership. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  17. ↑ Planas, Roque (February 22, 2013). "Operation Streamline, Immigration Enforcement Program, Protested In Arizona And Texas". The Huffington Post . Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  18. ↑ Johnston, Steve. "Civil Disobedience against Operation Streamline. Defendant Steve Johnston's moving court testimony details the immigration policy's disastrous human toll". NACLA.
  19. ↑ "Operation Streamline protest". Arizona Daily Star . October 3, 2014. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  20. ↑ "Joint letter to the Attorney General Lynch calling for end to illegal entry/reentry prosecutions at the border". www.hrw.org. July 28, 2015. Retrieved July 16, 2018.
  21. 1 2 Emily Puhl (2015). "Prosecuting the Persecuted: How Operation Streamline and Expedited Removal Violate Article 31 of the Convention on the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol". La Raza L.J. 25 (3): 87–109. Retrieved July 16, 2018. Section IV. Article 31 on the status of refugees prohibits states from penalising refugees, page 96–97.
  22. 1 2 3 Peter, Tom (August 31, 2014). "Behind the gavel of America's busiest judge. Robert Brack's crowded docket in a New Mexico federal courtroom shows the effects of a tougher US immigration policy". The Christian Science Monitor . Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  23. ↑ "Border Patrol Program Raises Due Process Concerns". National Public Radio. September 13, 2010. Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  24. ↑ Palazzolo, Joe; Jordan, Miriam (May 31, 2013). "Border Laws Put Judge on Map. New Mexico Jurist, the Nation's Busiest, Seeks to Influence Immigration Debate". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved August 23, 2015.
  25. ↑ Li, Kung (August 5, 2013). "Operation Streamline". American Civil Liberties Union . Retrieved August 23, 2015.
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.