Abstract

Sub-federal enforcement of immigration law has expanded significantly in the last decade raising questions concerning policing, rights violations, and remedies. While the Fourth Amendment has historically provided an avenue for potentially suppressing evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s civil rights, its applicability in the immigration removal context has been circumscribed. Thus, the avenues to protect the rights of unauthorized noncitizens in immigration removal proceedings are less clear where sub-federal agents act outside of their authorization, particularly in the context of Secure Communities, and enforce immigration law. In the context of immigration exceptionalism, racial profiling has historically played a unique role in immigration law. The lack of adequate measures to deter rights violations where sub-federal agents enforce immigration law raises questions concerning the relationship between criminal and immigration law, and the importance of deterring civil rights violations such as racial profiling, in immigration enforcement. This article will examine the problem of sub-federal law enforcement agents’ use of criminal law violations as a pretext to enforce immigration law and the lack of adequate deterrence of civil rights violations.

Highlights

  • The enforcement of immigration law has historically been considered a plenary power of the federal government, and the responsibility of federal immigration authorities

  • There are indications that in some jurisdictions lacking 287(g) agreements, sub-federal agents have cooperated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents (ICE) in enforcing immigration law by checking the immigration status of individuals detained for nonimmigrant infractions [32]

  • Once the FBI checks the fingerprints of an arrestee, the FBI automatically sends them to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE determines if the person is subject to removal

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The enforcement of immigration law has historically been considered a plenary power of the federal government, and the responsibility of federal immigration authorities. This essay will consider the potential for pretextual enforcement of immigration law and racial profiling by sub-federal agents, and the inadequacy of existing legal remedies in addressing these potential problems. Lopez-Mendoza court’s ruling restricting the suppression of evidence in immigration removal proceedings has been rightly critiqued by scholars [6,7,8,9,10], the remedy falls short of addressing the potential underlying problems of pretextual enforcement and racial profiling. Immigration courts have increasingly considered suppression of evidence obtained by sub-federal agents in violation of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic or criminal investigation or arrest [12,13]. Part five will discuss the shortcomings of existing remedies of deterring pretextual enforcement of immigration law and racial profiling, and identify other mechanisms to avoid such unintended outcomes which may undermine federal immigration policy

Sub-federal Enforcement of Immigration Law
Secure Communities
Discretion to Arrest and Pretextual Enforcement
Pretextual Arrests and Racial Profiling by Sub-federal Agents
Limitations on the Exclusionary Rule in Immigration Proceedings
What Constitutes an “Egregious” Violation?
Circuit Courts on Egregious Violations
Potential Preventative Measures
ICE Prosecutorial Discretion
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call