The U.S. Immigration Crisis and a Call for the Church's Lifeworld Politics: Why Should Hauerwas Collaborate with Habermas on the U.S. Immigration Crisis?

The U.S. Immigration Crisis and a Call for the Church's Lifeworld Politics: Why Should Hauerwas Collaborate with Habermas on the U.S. Immigration Crisis? Ilsup Ahn Introduction: Saying “No” to the State's Biopolitics Against the Undocumented Migrants According to the recent survey report published by the Washington, D.C.‐based Public Religion Research Institute, throughout 2013, there has been consistent bipartisan and cross‐religious support for creating a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the United States. While 14 percent percent of Americans support allowing undocumented immigrants to become permanent legal residents but not citizens, 63 percent favor providing a way for immigrants who are currently living in the United States without legal documentation to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements. They also discovered that nearly two‐thirds of Americans believe that the U.S. immigration system is either completely broken (34 percent) or mostly broken but working in some areas (31 percent). The report also shows that 41 percent of Americans believe immigration policy should be an immediate priority for President Obama and Congress, while roughly as many (42 percent) say it should be a priority during the next couple of years. Interestingly enough, only 14 percent of Americans say it should not be a priority at all. Despite the majority of the U.S. citizens favor some sort of comprehensive immigration reform, the Congress has failed to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul to date largely due to the House Republican leaders, who recently unveiled their principles for an overhaul for the nation's immigration laws. These principles, however, do not clarify whether most undocumented immigrants would ever be able to become legal residents or U.S. citizens, while they would require tighter border security and more interior immigration enforcements. These principles seem to reiterate the problematic anti‐immigration mantra to continuously militarize our borders as well as to criminalize undocumented immigrants. The Obama administration has been increasingly criticized in regard to the inhumane deportation of many undocumented people, especially those parents whose children are U.S. citizens. Critiques argue that President Obama has overseen record levels of deportations, with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) repatriating about 2 million undocumented people since he took office in January 2009 (roughly 400,000 a year or 1,100 per day). Amid the increasing political turmoil relating to the immigration reform, the public media begin to notice that the real winners in immigration control are the prison industry. The Atlantic, for example, reports that since 2003, when ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was created and government crackdowns on undocumented aliens increased, private prisons have gained business, with industry profits more than doubling. Damon Hininger, CEO of CCA (Corrections Corporation of America), said during a conference call with investors in May 2010 that between 2007 and 2009, when earnings for the S&P dropped by 28 percent, the company's earnings drew by 18 percent. According to The Atlantic, the government spends more than $2 billion a year on immigration detention, while spending only $72 million on alternatives to detention. It also reports that the private prison industry, such as CCA, has spent more than $1 million on lobbying. Although private prisons say that their lobbying efforts are aimed at promoting their services, not shaping immigration policy, immigrant advocates argue that the private prison industry is always lobbying for more detention beds. Given that the cost of detaining an immigrant averages $159 a day and half of 34,000 beds are operated by private prison corporations, it is not difficult to see the connection between the interests of the private prison corporations such as CCA and the Geo Group and the criminalization of undocumented migrants. According to Lee Fang of The Nation, the controversial Arizona SB1070 was developed in consultation with private prison lobbyists through a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Unfortunately, as Aubrey Pringle reports, several pending immigration bills would increase the number of incarcerated immigrants even more. The ongoing political struggles related to the increasing border militarization, the widespread criminalization of undocumented migrants, and the massive deportation of undocumented parents are the explicit exemplification of what philosophers Michel Foucault and Giorgio Agamben call the...

This paper introduces a special collection of 15 papers that chart a course for long-term reform of the US immigration system. The papers look beyond recent legislative debates and the current era of rising nationalism and restrictionism to outline the elements of a forward-looking immigration policy that would serve the nation's interests, honor its liberal democratic ideals, promote the full participation of immigrants in the nation's life, and exploit the opportunities offered by the increasingly interdependent world. This paper highlights several overarching themes from the collection, as well as dozens of proposals for reform. Together, the papers in the collection make the case that: • Immigration policymaking should be embedded in a larger set of partnerships, processes, and commitments that respond to the conditions that force persons to migrate. • The US immigration system should reflect liberal democratic values and an inclusive vision of national identity. • It is incumbent on policy and opinion makers to publicize the broad national interests served by US immigration policies. • Policymakers should, in turn, evaluate and adjust US immigration policies based on their success in furthering the nation's interests. • The United States should prioritize the gathering and dissemination of the best available evidence on migration and on the nation's migration-related needs and programs, and should use this information to respond flexibly to changing migration patterns and new economic developments. • Immigrant integration strengthens communities and represents an important, overarching metric for US immigration policies. • The successful integration of the United States' 43 million foreign-born residents and their progeny should be a national priority. • An immigration federalism agenda should prioritize cooperation on shared federal, state, and local priorities. • An immigration federalism agenda should recognize the federal government's enforcement obligations; the interests of local communities in the safety, well-being and participation of their residents; the importance of federal leadership in resolving the challenges posed by the US undocumented population; and the need for civil society institutions to serve as mediators of immigrant integration. • Immigration reform should be coupled with strong, well-enforced labor standards in order to promote fair wages and safe and healthy working conditions for all US workers. • Fairness and due process should characterize US admission, custody, and removal decisions. • Family unity should remain a central goal of US immigration policy and a pillar of the US immigration system. • The United States should seek to craft “win-win” immigration policies that serve its own interests and that benefit migrant-sending states. • US immigration law and policy should be coherent and consistent, and the United States should create legal migration opportunities for persons uprooted by US foreign interventions, trade policies, and immigration laws. • The United States should reduce the size of its undocumented population through a substantial legalization program and seek to ensure that this population never again approximates its current size.

Migration research and analysis: Growth, reach and recent contributions of research and analysis being produced on migration is important for those working on migration policies, studying migration, or wanting to develop an informed opinion on migration.It is important to highlight at the outset that there are fundamental differences in the publishing processes for academic and non-academic material, and each has its strengths and weaknesses.The academic publishing system is largely focused on producing journal articles and books.This process typically involves multi-stage reviews and editorial comments involving authors, editors and reviewers.Most published academic research ("white" literature) is behind paywalls (that is, not freely accessible), and often managed by commercial publishers.In contrast, the production of research and analysis publications outside of academic publishing ("grey" literature) generally involves faster and simpler processes that are typically, although not always, characterized by more limited peer review.Contributions from grey literature (such as research reports, working papers and government/official documents) are usually freely available.A report such as this, designed to contribute to our collective understanding of migration and mobility in an increasingly interconnected world, would clearly be incomplete without describing the role of grey literature, which has been "recognized as a key source of evidence, argument, innovation, and understanding". 6 The volume, diversity and growth of both white and grey literature preclude a systematic review of all the material produced and published on migration in 2017 and 2018.Instead, this chapter highlights examples of key contributions made during this period, published in English by a selection of academic journals and intergovernmental organizations.It provides an update to the chapter in World Migration Report 2018, including by focusing on different academic journals and intergovernmental organizations, and their key output in 2017 and 2018. 7 The next section provides an overview of the different actors involved in migration research and analysis.The third section features recent, selected contributions from academia and intergovernmental organizations, and the reach and impact of some of the migration research materials published. Main producers of migration research and analysis AcademiaIdeally, researchers create new knowledge that is supported by strong evidence and is useful for others.Research findings are produced for, and disseminated to, different target audiences.Traditional academic work can be highly technical and narrowly focused, although academic researchers are increasingly encouraged to disseminate their work beyond academic spheres. 8 Researchers analysing policy-relevant issues are often keen to engage with policymakers to impart knowledge that can inform policy deliberations and help shape policymaking -this is especially the case with migration.Effective research contributions for policy audiences tend to take the form of short papers and blog articles, as well as policy workshops and interactive expert meetings.6 GreyNet International, 2014.7 In order to ensure, to the extent possible, that this chapter provides a comprehensive "stand-alone" overview of migration research and analysis in 2017 and 2018, we have drawn upon key background and context material included in the

The U.S. Immigration System is complex for technology professionals seeking to relocate to the United States for employment or education. The United States relies on its employment-based immigration to attract and select the best talent to fill the shortage of skilled jobs. Technology professionals, a stream of highly skilled immigrants, tend to contribute and be more beneficial to the U.S. economy, which is one of the principles of U.S. immigration policies. Although U.S. immigration policies are constantly updating, policymakers, experts, and scholars suggest that the United States needs significant immigration reform to solve current issues, such as improving technological capabilities to process applications, backlog, paths for permanent residence, numerical limits per visa category, and others. Therefore, this research aims to develop a Hierarchical Decision Model (HDM) to evaluate U.S. immigration policies for technology professionals. Moreover, this research can guide policymakers to fix current U.S. immigration issues. The research process of this dissertation is organized as follows: (1) a systematic literature review was conducted to identify gaps, research questions, objectives, and an initial four-level HDM. The second level of the model includes five criteria: Technological, Regulatory Landscape, Economic, Political Interpretation & Proposals, and Social. The third level includes twenty-one subcriteria, and the fourth level includes five alternatives: Permanent Residence and visas H-1B, O-1, F-1 STEM OPT, and L-1. (2) 60 experts working in some vein in U.S. immigration policies participated in this study to validate the HDM criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives and quantify the HDM criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives using a pairwise comparison technique to provide their judgment. The last sections of this dissertation include (1) a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the HDM's flexibility and (2) policy guide recommendations for decision-makers based on the HDM results.

The article focuses upon the problem of a comprehensive reform of the US immigration system. The reform was supposed to increase the effectiveness of immigration policy, make it able to respond the needs of the economy. The author notes the extreme politicization of the problem of immigration. Acute inter-party contradictions made it impossible to carry out a comprehensive immigration reform, the need for which was recognized at the beginning of this century. Many developed countries successfully compete with the United States, attracting thousands of foreign specialists to their countries.

In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform in the US, many states and local governments have attempted to enact their own immigration policies. In 2010, Arizona legislature passed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (referred to as SB‑1070, the version introduced in Arizona’s senate) to decrease illegal immigration within the state.A few months before the presidential elections of 2012, two issues – healthcare and immigration – became the main focus of Barack Obama’s second presidential campaign, especially because the US Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of both acts: federal law – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and state law – SB‑1070. The decisions of the Supreme Court were eagerly anticipated and, quite surprisingly, they brought the president a double victory in June 2012.The Supreme Court confirmed that states lack the power to regulate immigration issues and create their own immigration policy. Its ruling preserved federal control over immigration. However, in light of the inability of Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, we may expect a gridlock resulting in temporary measures aimed to solve the most crucial problems with executive orders of the president, or further changes in enforcement policy.

The conventional wisdom holds that the only point of consensus in the fractious US immigration debate is that the system is broken. Yet, the US public has consistently expressed a desire for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests. This paper describes how to create such a system. It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform,1 the legal immigration system,2 and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population. The paper begins with an analysis of presidential signing statements on seminal immigration legislation over nearly a century. These statements reveal broad consensus on the interests and values that the United States seeks to advance through its immigration and refugee policies. They constitute additional common ground in the immigration debate. To serve these interests, immigration and refugee considerations must be “mainstreamed” into other policy processes. In addition, its policies will be more successful if they are seen to benefit or, at least, not to discriminate against migrant-sending states. Not surprisingly, the US immigration system does not reflect the vast, mostly unanticipated changes in the nation and the world since Congress last meaningfully reformed this system (27 years ago) and last overhauled the law (52 years ago). The paper does not detail the well-documented ways that US immigration laws fall short of serving the nation's economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. Nor does it propose specific changes in categories and levels of admission. Rather, it describes how a legal immigration system might be broadly structured to deliver on its promises. In particular, it makes the case that Congress should create a flexible system that serves compelling national interests, allows for real time adjustments in admission based on evidence and independent analysis, and vests the executive with appropriate discretion in administering the law. The paper also argues that the United States should anticipate and accommodate the needs of persons compelled to migrate by its military, trade, development, and other commitments. In addition, the US immigration system needs to be able to distinguish between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers, and to treat these two populations differently. The paper assumes that there will be continued bipartisan support for immigration enforcement. However, even with a strong enforcement apparatus in place and an adaptable, coherent, evidence-based legal immigration system that closely aligns with US interests, some (reduced) level of illegal migration will persist. The paper offers a sweeping, historical analysis of how this population emerged, why it has grown and contracted, and how estimates of its size have been politically exploited. Legalization is often viewed as the third rail of immigration reform. Yet, Congress has regularly legalized discrete undocumented populations, and the combination of a well-structured legalization program, strengthened legal immigration system, and strong enforcement policies can prevent the reemergence of a large-scale undocumented population. In contrast, the immense US enforcement apparatus will work at cross-purposes to US interests and values, absent broader reform. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to reform the legal immigration system, downsize the current undocumented population, and ensure its permanent reduction. It proposes that the United States “reissue” (or reuse) the visas of persons who emigrate, as a way to promote legal immigration reform without significantly increasing annual visa numbers.

Moving Parts: Immigration Policy, Internal Migration and Natural Resource Shocks

Detroit and Windsor as Transnational Spaces: A Case Study of Asian Indian Migrants by Vibha Bhalla A recent book, Permeable Border The Great hakes Basin as Transnational Region, 1650-1990, has drawn attention to the Great Lakes region as a transnational space. Emphasizing the economic and social linkages across this area, the authors examine the artificial nature of the border, stating: "The border also has been a principal mechanism for articulating and implementing immigration, economic development, and nation building policies while it has become, on a symbolic level, the embodiment of national sovereignty."1 Highlighting the regional economic linkages that have, since the seventeenth century, spanned what is now the Canadian and U.S. border, the authors also discuss the symbiotic relationship between nation building and capitalist interests. The nation state, they argue, played a central role in encouraging economic developments?it eliminated tariffs to promote economic development and it also created immigration policies to ease labor shortages in key industries by allowing selective migration. Finally, the authors demonstrate the ways inwhich people interacted with economic and political developments because of their individual or family needs. The book's authors call for future writers to look beyond the nation state narrative and focus on regions that transcend borders.2 This article follows the themes discussed in Permeable Border into recent decades. Using the migration of Asian Indians/East Indians3 within the Great Lakes region, especially between Detroit and Iwould like to thank Nora Fakes for her help in revising this article. Thanks also go to Christine Drennan. 1 John J. Bukowczyk et al., Permeable Border. The Great Lakes Basin as Transnational Region, 1650-1990 (Calgary and Pittsburgh: University of Calgary Press, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005), 3. 2 Ibid. 3 Canada and the United States categorize migrants from India differently. In Canada they are defined as East Indians, while the United States characterizes them as Asian Indians. For this article Iwill use the terms Asian Indians and Indian immigrants. Michigan Historical Review 34:2 (Fall 2008): 99-116 ?2008 by Central Michigan University. ISSN 0890-1686 All Rights Reserved. 100 Michigan Historical Review Windsor from 1960-2000, the article highlights the new regional economic relationships that have developed since the 1960s, and emphasizes the extensive economic integration of the regional economy during those years, especially in the auto industries. Furthermore, this article will demonstrate that national economic and immigration policies introduced after the 1960s continued to accommodate the dynamic transnational economic needs of the region centered on Windsor and Detroit. The economic opportunities offered by these centers, coupled with the fact that both permitted (if only temporarily) easy access for each others' residents fostered regional networks within the Indian diaspora. Information transmitted through these networks enabled individuals to understand the intricacies of immigration policies and acquire new skills to suit both regional labor needs and national immigration policies. To illustrate this process, the present article draws upon migration narratives of five Indian immigrants to Canada who became involved in these regional economies and subsequendy moved to the United States. As their stories illustrate, Asian Indians inDetroit andWindsor have continued to make the border a permeable space. Large-scale Asian Indian migrations from India to mainland North America began in the 1960s with the passage of new immigration legislation by both Canada and the United States that overturned their anti-Asian immigration policies.4 Canadian immigration laws passed in 1962 and 1967 established a point-based immigration system that allowed Indians once again to immigrate to Canada. Similarly, in 1965 passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act in the United States overturned an immigration policy that had until then been based on the national origins quota system. The new policy established hemispheric quotas and emphasized the importance of reuniting families as well as economic development.5 The liberalization of Canadian and U.S. immigration policies coincided with Great Britain's decision to restrict immigration. 4Trinidad and Guyana already had large Indian diaspora populations. See Ninette Kelley and Michael J. Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), for information on Canadian immigration policies. See David M. Reimers, Still the Golden Door...

ABSTRACTCrisis, subjectivity and the polymorphous character of immigrant family detention in the United States. Territory Politics Governance. This article expands on research into the politics of ‘immigration crises’ by bringing feminist insights to bear on how one understands the political unfolding of immigration crises. In order to do so, it draws on ethnographic research and media and policy analysis to trace the 2014 ‘immigration crisis’ surrounding unauthorized family immigration and detention in the United States. In doing so, it is argued that in order to understand the shifting spatialities and mechanisms of border enforcement we must also attend to the way in which these processes play out in relation to different forms of subjectivity; cultural and legal frameworks surrounding precisely who can be detained and how detention can play out shapes the legal and practical options available to policy-makers and border enforcement agencies. Moreover, in examining both the proliferation of brick-and-mortar family detention centres as well as the adoption of geographically unfixed enforcement strategies, this article illustrates the constantly evolving and polymorphous character of immigrant family detention in the United States.

Today, more than 5,000 children are living in foster care as a result of immigration enforcement procedures that separate immigrant families. While these children remain largely invisible in the affairs of state politics, they are the principal casualties of an immigration system that prioritizes detention and removal over family unification. These children may represent their parents’ aspirations and hopes for a better life, yet, they have also become key actors in the struggle for comprehensive immigration reform. The journey for immigration reform in the United States, while not equivalent to a family journey, is a dramatically strenuous and conflictive process for children who have been left behind by deported parents. The important question is, are we there yet? This article argues that it may be possible to reach a much-needed solution to the immigration question through proposed changes in family immigration policy. A greater focus on children and their best interests within the context of immigration reform may offer necessary relief to immigrant families and a viable solution for state actors charged with enforcing immigration laws.

In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border in the New Era of Heightened Nativism, Victoria Cartycompares the immigration crises in the European Union and the United States. Beginning in 2014, the Arab Spring upheavals and failed states in Northern Africa and the Middle East overwhelmed many European countries which the European Union system was not prepared for. In the Americas, failed states in Central America such as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador also led to an unexpected influx of immigrants to the United States, many of them unaccompanied minors, fleeing gangs, violence and poverty. In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border, Carty studies theories of immigration, social movements, and critical race theory to provide a better understanding of the current immigration crises in Europe and the United States. Carty shows that the high volume of immigration in both the EU and the United States has led to a resurgence of nativist sentiments and white supremacy groups.

In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border in the New Era of Heightened Nativism, Victoria Cartycompares the immigration crises in the European Union and the United States. Beginning in 2014, the Arab Spring upheavals and failed states in Northern Africa and the Middle East overwhelmed many European countries which the European Union system was not prepared for. In the Americas, failed states in Central America such as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador also led to an unexpected influx of immigrants to the United States, many of them unaccompanied minors, fleeing gangs, violence and poverty. In The Immigration Crisis in Europe and the U.S.-Mexico Border, Carty studies theories of immigration, social movements, and critical race theory to provide a better understanding of the current immigration crises in Europe and the United States. Carty shows that the high volume of immigration in both the EU and the United States has led to a resurgence of nativist sentiments and white supremacy groups.

Why do legislators in Congress do what they do when it comes to voting on immigration policy? The Politics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the United States argues that contemporary immigration politics is defined by three core features: the entrenchment of partisan divides over the issue of immigration, demographic changes that are reshaping the electorate, and how these changes are creating new opportunities to define what it means to be an American in a period of unprecedented national origins, racial and ethnic, and cultural diversity. It analyzes more than 30,000 votes in the House and in the Senate since H.R. 4437, which was a restrictive immigration bill that, after passing in the House in late 2005, led to nationwide marches in 2006 that crystallized the contemporary immigrant-rights movement. The book provides readers with a primer on United States immigration policy, offering detailed discussions on legal admissions policies, border security polices, interior immigration enforcement policies, and policies related to the legal status of undocumented immigrants. After laying out the current policy landscape, legislative proposals to reform the United States immigration system are also discussed. The book also uses the analysis of voting on immigration policy to forecast the future of comprehensive immigration reform in the United States.

U nlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the US Immigrant Detention System addresses one of the most troubled features of the US immigration system and highlights the need for fundamental changes to it. The report comes six years since the inception of the Obama administration’s detention reform initiative. In the interim, the number of immigrant detainees per year has risen to more than 400,000, the administration has opened immense new family detention centers, and the overwhelming majority of persons in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have remained in prisons, jails and other secure facilities where they are subject to standards designed for criminal defendants and, in many ways, treated more harshly than criminals. The report’s overarching recommendation is that the US immigrant detention system be dismantled and replaced with a network of supervised release, case management, and community support programs, designed to ensure court appearances. It recognizes that detention may be necessary for short periods and in certain cases, but it rejects detention as a central immigrant “management” tool, and argues that detention should only be used as a last resort if less harmful strategies and programs—viewed on a continuum beginning with the least restrictive and moving to release programs with different levels of supervision, monitoring, and support—cannot reasonably ensure court appearances or (in rare cases) protect the public. It opposes the detention of pregnant and nursing women, bona fide asylum seekers, the very ill, the disabled, the elderly, and other vulnerable persons. It calls for the substantial contraction of detention facilities and “bed space.” As the first step in this process, the report urges Congress to commission a comprehensive study on the benefits, challenges, cost, and time frame for creating a civil immigration detention system. It also proposes that the administration create a full menu of court compliance programs, with varying degrees of supervision, reporting, oversight and monitoring. In order to realize this vision, it offers several additional recommendations. T he Obama administration should desist from using detention as a “deterrent” to illegal migration and de facto refugee flows . DHS should close its family detention centers in favor of community-based supervision and support programs for immigrant families. The vast majority of families would appear for removal proceedings with appropriate orientation, supervision and community support. The growth of an immense family detention infrastructure will not (as intended) deter imperiled persons from seeking refuge in the United States, but will invariably lead to the return of de facto refugees to their persecutors in violation of international law. C ongress should pass legislation to repeal mandatory detention in all but the most egregious criminal and national security cases . US mandatory detention laws cover lawful permanent residents, asylum seekers, petty offenders, and persons with US families and other enduring ties to the United States. By definition, they prevent individualized release determinations based on family ties, employment, housing, criminal history, and other factors. In the overwhelming majority of cases, immigration judges or judicial officers should be permitted to consider the full range of equities and release options for persons in removal proceedings, whether formal court proceedings or non-court, administrative and summary processes. P r ivate corporations should have a more limited, regulated and modest role in a shrinking detention system . The federal government has increasingly ceded responsibility for detention to entities whose loyalties run to their shareholders, not the common good. By some estimates, for-profit prison corporations administer more than 60 percent of the “beds” in the US immigrant detention system. Rather than expanding its reliance on for-profit prison companies, the federal government ought to decrease the use of detention, develop greater government expertise, and strengthen oversight of private contractors. D etention reform should include a significant expansion of Alternative to Detention programs (ATD) . Detention should only be used sparingly, for brief periods (when necessary), and as a last resort when less restrictive strategies cannot reasonably ensure appearances during the adjudication and removal process and cannot protect the public. ATD programs can offer effective, humane alternatives to detention. However, they should not be used to expand detention capacity. Like detention, intensive reporting and monitoring programs can stigmatize and incapacitate persons. If necessary, ATD programs should be treated as a form of custody, which would open them to mandatory detainees. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should undertake a comprehensive analysis of its information systems . The proposed review should identify the information ICE tracks on those who are subject to its custody; how, when, and which officials collect, enter, and can access this information; its quality control procedures; and the accessibility of information to congressional oversight committees, government watchdog agencies, relevant ICE officials, and the public. D etained immigrants—those who do not qualify for release or ATD programs—should be held in non-penal settings which reflect the conditions of normal life to the extent feasible . DHS should provide generous access to international organizations, faith-based groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the press, to all of its facilities. Immigration judges should adjudicate removal cases now handled through administrative, informal and non-court processes, and should make release and custody determinations soon after their detention for all persons in DHS custody . They should also regularly revisit custody decisions for detainees. However, these responsibilities—added to an immense yearly workload and a daunting backlog of more than 440,000 cases—will require increases in funding and staffing by an order of magnitude. As it stands, the immigration court system receives less than two percent of the combined funding of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE. The cost of “right-sizing” the immigration court system may well be offset by reductions in DHS detention funding and diminished federal court expenses from habeas corpus petitions. U nrepresented, indigent persons in removal proceedings should be provided with legal representation at the government’s expense . As numerous studies have revealed, legal counsel is one of the most important factors, even more important than the strength of the underlying legal claim, in influencing asylum and other case outcomes. Representation also increases court appearance rates and leads to decreased overall costs to the government due to reduced use of detention, more efficient court proceedings, and less frequent placement of the children of detainees in foster care. More importantly, it contributes to the right decisions being made under the law. Migration and Refugee Services of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (MRS/USCCB) and the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) approach the detention of immigrants from a pastoral perspective. Each day US Catholic institutions minister to detained immigrants, represent them in removal proceedings, tend to the material and spiritual needs of their families, and witness the pain of traumatized children and the anguish of divided families. Because of the detention system’s devastating effect on the lives of millions of persons each year, MRS/USCCB and CMS strongly support the transformation of this system and urge the Obama administration and Congress to proceed with the proposed reforms with all deliberate haste.