Illegal Mexican Immigrants Research Articles

Anti-discrimination jurisprudence: US v. Carrillo-Lopez

In August 2021, a U.S. Federal District Court ruled that §1326 of the Immigration Naturalization Act (INA) which criminalizes illegal reentry violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment because it has disparate impact upon and discriminatory intent against Mexican and Latinx individuals. While §1326 has been unsuccessfully challenged in numerous other federal courts, US v. Carrillo-Lopez stands out in its originality of interpretation regarding the discriminatory intent of a federal statute. In this case commentary, the reasoning of the case will be explicated, followed by an analysis of the unique statutory interpretation applied within the context of discriminatory intent doctrine.

Opening the “Black Box” of Federal Illegal Reentry Sentencing: A Non-Participant Observational Analysis of Sentencing Constraints and Judicial Discretion

Judicial discretion in sentencing has historically produced disparities in criminal sentencing outcomes. In an effort to address disparity at the federal level, in 1984, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that led to the creation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and subsequently the adoption of federal sentencing guidelines. Studies show that even among similarly situated defendants (in terms of offense score and criminal history category) disparities have persisted regardless of the sentencing guidelines. An understudied source of disparity is the combined and interactive role of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in the application of the guidelines and the statutory framework that informs sentencing. The current study examines sentencing for the federal offense of illegal reentry of removed aliens (8 U.S. Code §1326) in one division of a U.S. District Court. This study reports data from direct non-participant observation of sentencing hearings and publicly available court records. Findings reveal sources of sentencing disparity among similarly situated cases that are not readily illuminated by the yearly quantitative data provided by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The findings suggest that disparity in the sentencing of similarly situated illegal reentry defendants is influenced by differential judicial interpretation of and use of the tools made available to them in the sentencing guidelines and the statutory sentencing authority.

Caught In-Between: A Video Essay of Masculine Identity and Methamphetamine Use in the Rural South

Judicial discretion in sentencing has historically produced disparities in criminal sentencing outcomes. In an effort to address disparity at the federal level, in 1984, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that led to the creation of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and subsequently the adoption of federal sentencing guidelines. Studies show that even among similarly situated defendants (in terms of offense score and criminal history category) disparities have persisted regardless of the sentencing guidelines. An understudied source of disparity is the combined and interactive role of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in the application of the guidelines and the statutory framework that informs sentencing. The current study examines sentencing for the federal offense of illegal reentry of removed aliens (8 U.S. Code §1326) in one division of a U.S. District Court. This study reports data from direct non-participant observation of sentencing hearings and publicly available court records. Findings reveal sources of sentencing disparity among similarly situated cases that are not readily illuminated by the yearly quantitative data provided by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The findings suggest that disparity in the sentencing of similarly situated illegal reentry defendants is influenced by differential judicial interpretation of and use of the tools made available to them in the sentencing guidelines and the statutory sentencing authority.

Discurso y resistencia: la cultura de la deportación de los migrantes mexicanos

It was sought to know the meaning of deportation for Mexicans who were returned from the United States in the last decade, based on their ideas, attitudes, and beliefs, from the educational approach and the analysis of content as a methodological strategy. Empirical material consisted of 25 digital narratives from the public archive “Humanizing Deportation,” six in-depth interviews conducted between 2016 and 2017 in Tijuana, Baja California, and five historical testimonies located in bibliographic sources. Findings show that post-deportation irregular re-emigration underlines a political behavior of resistance that suggests the existence of a culture of deportation, which differs from the culture of migration and the culture of clandestine border crossing, even though the current penalty for illegal reentry has inhibited or postponed these practices.

Review 2 of "Use of the federal guidelines while maneuvering to achieve 'justice': A non-participant observational study of judicial sentencing discretion in illegal reentry cases in a U.S. District Court"

Review 2 of "Use of the federal guidelines while maneuvering to achieve 'justice': A non-participant observational study of judicial sentencing discretion in illegal reentry cases in a U.S. District Court"

Review 3 of "Use of the federal guidelines while maneuvering to achieve 'justice': A non-participant observational study of judicial sentencing discretion in illegal reentry cases in a U.S. District Court"

Review 3 of "Use of the federal guidelines while maneuvering to achieve 'justice': A non-participant observational study of judicial sentencing discretion in illegal reentry cases in a U.S. District Court"

Review 1 of "Use of the federal guidelines while maneuvering to achieve 'justice': A non-participant observational study of judicial sentencing discretion in illegal reentry cases in a U.S. District Court"

Review 1 of "Use of the federal guidelines while maneuvering to achieve 'justice': A non-participant observational study of judicial sentencing discretion in illegal reentry cases in a U.S. District Court"

CROSSING THE BORDER AND MIGRATION DURATION

1.INTRODUCTION Immigration and border enforcement is a contentious political issue in the United States. The existence .of over 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States, with 62% being from Mexico, has led to stricter border enforcement over the years (Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker 2010). An example of this was the law passed by the state of Arizona requiring police to detain anyone who they reasonably suspect may be an illegal immigrant (Archibold 2010). While the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled against many facets of this law, the initial passing of the law shows how important immigration is as an issue, especially for states in the West where the majority of illegal Mexican immigrants are located. Immigration was a major campaign issue for Obama and Romney in the 2012 presidential election. Since the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, the United States has increased the number of border watch hours by an average of 10% per year (Mexican Migration Project 2012). The coal of increased enforcement has been to reduce the number of illegal immigrants entering, the United States from Mexico. This increased border enforcement has been prompted by policy makers' (and their constitutents') concerns about the impact of illegal immigration on the employment of native workers, crime, and public spending (Borjas 1999; Dodson 2001; Enchautegui 1997). Despite the intent of the legislation, the post-IRCA time period has seen a dramatic increase in the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border (Hanson and Spilimbergo 1999). The number of apprehensions from 1980 to 2008 is shown in Figure 1. The majority of these are from the Mexico-U.S. border. While these numbers may appear to be rather large, many of these are repeaters. This is because of the -revolving door nature of border enforcement (Durand 1994). Immigrants who are caught trying to illegally enter the United States are apprehended and dropped back in Mexico where they are free to attempt the crossing again. Studies have found the probability of apprehension to be consistently around 1 in 3 (Massey and Espinosa 1997: Massey and Singer 1995). While would-be immigrants are free to attempt another crossing. each crossing does pose significant dangers from both criminals and the elements. Eschbach et al. (1999) and Cornelius (2001) both discuss the dangers faced by people attempting to cross the border. Increased border enforcement and .apprehensions may be good, however, for one group of people: coyotes. Coyotes are smugglers who are paid to illegally bring people over the border from Mexico to the United States. (1) [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] The agricultural migration to the United States tends to be short term, with migrants working in the United States and then returning home to Mexico in the off-season. Even nonagricultural workers have engaged in repeated attempts, apprehensions, and short-term stays in the United States. If coyote use makes entering the United States too expensive or difficult then immigrants may choose to stay in the United States during the off-season. Given the large stock of Mexican immigrants already in the United States, moves to strengthen the border even further may not actually reduce the stock of illegal immigrants in the United States and could actually increase it. There are strong policy reasons to reduce the usage of coyotes, other than migration duration. The coyote industry has changed significantly over the years. Some of these changes have involved using new technology such as cell phones to remotely guide migrants across the border (Lacey 2011). However, other changes in the coyote business have been troubling. Mexican cartels such as the Gulf and Zetas have large-scale operations along the U.S. border. Coyotes now have to pay tolls to these criminal organizations in order to smuggle people through their territory (Beaubian 2011). These gangs also kidnap illegal immigrants who. …

Determinants of Illegal Mexican Immigration into the US Southern Border States

We model illegal immigration across the US-Mexico border into Arizona, California, and Texas as an unobservable variable applying a Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes model. Using state-level data from 1985 to 2004, we test the incentives and deterrents influencing illegal immigration. Better labor market conditions in a US state and worse in Mexico encourage illegal immigration while more intense border enforcement deters it. Estimating the state-specific inflow of illegal Mexican immigrants we find that the 1994/95 peso crisis in Mexico led to significant increases in illegal immigration. US border enforcement policies in the 1990s provided temporary relief while post-9/11 re-enforcement has reduced illegal immigration.

Re-Thinking Illegal Entry and Re-Entry

This Article traces the history of two federal immigration crimes that have long supplemented the civil immigration system and now make up nearly half of all federal prosecutions: illegal entry and illegal re-entry. Academics have written little about the historical lineage of either crime, despite the supporting role each played in enforcing America’s civil immigration laws, particularly along the U.S.–Mexico border. This Article takes a critical look at the enforcement of each crime — from when they were initially conceived as a way to deter illegal immigration, then as a way to target dangerous aliens, and most recently as a means to do both. These shifting strategies, however, have one thing in common: ineffectiveness. Enforcing the crimes has never meaningfully deterred illegal immigration, and the government’s poorly designed proxy to determine whether an alien is “dangerous” ensured that prosecutions have not made the public safer. The most recent period is particularly troubling — approximately 72,000 combined prosecutions a year, at the cost of well over a billion dollars and at the expense of foregoing more serious criminal prosecutions. Despite these huge costs and the related human carnage, the criminalization of illegal entry and re-entry is invariably left out of the discussion of comprehensive immigration reform, which reflects the silent treatment these crimes have received in the immigration and criminal law literature more generally. By reviewing eight decades of ineffective policy, this Article contends that enforcing the crimes of illegal entry and re-entry warrants both more attention as well as a fundamental re-thinking of using the criminal justice system to regulate immigration.

Fix the Broken Illegal Reentry Guideline

This short essay is included in an issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter that was dedicated to giving advice to the U.S. Sentencing Commission on setting their future priorities. The essay contends that the Commission should set their sights on repairing the broken illegal re-entry Guideline. This item should be at the top of the Commission’s to-do list both because the Guideline is so broken and because so many defendants are now sentenced for illegal re-entry.

Memorandum Reporting Revisions to Illegal Reentry Fast-Track Program in Central District of California

Memorandum Reporting Revisions to Illegal Reentry Fast-Track Program in Central District of California

Disparities and Discretion in Fast-Track Sentencing

Since the Supreme Court held in United States v. Booker that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory,1 the government and circuit courts have repeatedly attempted to carve out areas in which the Guidelines remain effectively mandatory, and the Court has repeatedly rebuffed these attempts and reasserted the advisory nature of the Guidelines.2 Whether sentencing judges may grant below-Guidelines sentences to correct for what are commonly known as “fasttrack” disparities is the next frontier of the post-Booker sentencing debate. In certain select federal districts (but only in those districts), the Department of Justice (DOJ) operates “fast-track” sentencing programs through which it grants deeply below-Guidelines sentences to illegal reentry defendants in exchange for quick guilty pleas.3 For example, if a defendant is caught in Oregon after returning to the United States after deportation, he is eligible for a thirtymonth sentence because of that district’s fast-track program; if that same defendant is caught in Illinois, he may face a Guidelines range of seventy-seven to ninety-six months because such a program does not exist in any Illinois district.4 The central questions are whether these disparities are “unwarranted disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), and whether sentencing judges have discretion to grant below-Guidelines sentences to illegal reentry defendants in districts without fast-track programs to mitigate these disparities. This Issue explores the fast-track disparity debate, which raises myriad questions that lie at the heart of modern debates over federal sentencing after Booker: Who determines whether disparities are “warranted”: prosecutors, Congress, or sentencing courts? Can an advisory guideline be functionally mandatory in certain respects? Can judicial discretion trump prosecutorial discretion in the sentencing arena? There is, of course, a central irony in the fast-track disparity debate: while the Guidelines’ raison d’etre was to eliminate unwarranted disparities,5 and while the DOJ has often warned that allowing greater discretion to sentencing courts risks greater sentencing disparity,6 the fast-track policy statement and the DOJ programs it condones create unmistakable and arguably unwarranted disparities among defendants based solely on the location of arrest. Moreover, available evidence suggests that fast-track disparities are widespread: although fast-track programs operate in a small minority of the country’s ninety-four federal districts, the vast majority of illegal reentry defendants appear to receive lenient fast-track sentences rather than Guidelines sentences.7 The purpose of this Issue is to describe the history of fast-track sentencing, illuminate the current circuit split over whether judges have discretion to mitigate fast-track disparities, and reprint difficult-to-obtain primary sources that are relevant to ongoing fast-track litigation. These Guest Editor’s Observations will briefly review the history of fast-track disparity litigation and will discuss the current circuit split over whether sentencing judges have discretion to find that the fast-track disparity is unwarranted under § 3553(a)(6) and to grant lower sentences to illegal reentry defendants in non-fasttrack districts based on this finding. These Observations will then articulate the arguments in favor of sentencing court discretion. And finally, these Observations will explain the essential role the primary materials that make up the bulk of this Issue play in the litigation that continues in the district courts and in many circuits.

Fast-Track Dispositions District-By-District Relating to Illegal Reentry Cases

Research Article| June 01 2009 Fast-Track Dispositions District-By-District Relating to Illegal Reentry Cases Federal Sentencing Reporter (2009) 21 (5): 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2009.21.5.339 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Fast-Track Dispositions District-By-District Relating to Illegal Reentry Cases. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 June 2009; 21 (5): 339–348. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2009.21.5.339 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentFederal Sentencing Reporter Search This content is only available via PDF. ©©2009 Vera Institute of Justice. All rights reserved.2009 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Lowering Sentences for Illegal Immigrants: Why Judges Should Have Discretion to Vary from the Guidelines Based on Fast-Track Sentencing Disparities

“Fast-track” programs are selectively implemented programs that give illegal reentry defendants a reduced sentence in exchange for a quick guilty plea and broad waiver of procedural rights. Typically found in Southwest border districts overburdened with illegal immigrants, these programs cause grave sentencing disparities because a defendant in a fast-track district will receive a lower sentence than a defendant in a non-fast-track district based simply on the geography of arrest. Circuits are divided as to whether a sentencing court in non-fast-track district is permitted to give a defendant a lower sentence because of this disparity. This Note suggests that the emerging split is the result of a collision between an immigration policy that focuses on prosecutions and developments in federal sentencing law, including United States v. Booker and Kimbrough v. United States. This Note argues that, under advisory Guidelines, district judges should have the discretion to grant lower sentences to avoid the disparity created by fast-track programs because the fast-track sentencing scheme falls short of a binding legislative mandate. Interpretation of Kimbrough provides the essential legal framework allowing a district court to vary from the Sentencing Guidelines. The legal interpretation of Kimbrough and policy considerations of transparency, uniformity, and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) resolve the current split.

Suppressing Defendant's Identity and Other Strategies for Defending against a Charge of Illegal Reentry after Deportation

Suppressing Defendant's Identity and Other Strategies for Defending against a Charge of Illegal Reentry after Deportation

Defending Foreign Nationals Convicted for Illegal Reentry: The "Aggravated Felony" Issues

Research Article| March 01 1996 Defending Foreign Nationals Convicted for Illegal Reentry: The "Aggravated Felony" Issues Lee Teran Lee Teran Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Federal Sentencing Reporter (1996) 8 (5): 270–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/20639913 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Lee Teran; Defending Foreign Nationals Convicted for Illegal Reentry: The "Aggravated Felony" Issues. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 March 1996; 8 (5): 270–274. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/20639913 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentFederal Sentencing Reporter Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1996 Vera Institute of Justice, Inc. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market.

Are immigrants squeezing Americans out of the work force? Or is competition wth foreign products imported by the United States an even greater danger to those employed in some industries? How do wages and unions fare in foreign-owned firms? And are the media's claims about the number of illegal immigrants misleading? Prompted by the growing internationalization of the U.S. labor market since the 1970s, contributors to Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market provide an innovative and comprehensive analysis of the labor market impact of the international movements of people, goods, and capital. Their provocative findings are brought into perspective by studies of two other major immigrant-recipient countries, Canada and Australia. The differing experiences of each nation stress the degree to which labor market institutions and economic policies can condition the effect of immigration and trade on economic outcomesContributors trace the flow of immigrants by comparing the labor market and migration behavior of individual immigrants, explore the effects of immigration on wages and employment by comparing the composition of the work force in local labor markets, and analyze the impact of trade on labor markets in different industries. A unique data set was developed especially for this study ranging from an effort to link exports/imports with wages and employment in manufacturing industries, to a survey of illegal Mexican immigrants in the San Diego area which will prove enormously valuable for future research.

Undocumented Mexican immigrants and the earnings of other workers in the United States

This article examines the effects of undocumented Mexican immigrants on the earnings of other workers in geographical labor markets in the Southwest. The number of undocumented Mexicans included in the 1980 census in southwestern SMSAs is estimated. We then estimate the parameters of three specifications of a generalized Leontief production function with various demographic groups as substitutable factors. The statistically significant effects of undocumented Mexicans on the earnings of other groups are positive, but of slight magnitude. Legal immigrants' effects on native white earnings, however, are small and negative. The results are consistent with the possibility that undocumented Mexican immigrants' jobs complement those of other workers. The implications for public policy concerns about the effects of illegal Mexican immigration are discussed.

Job placement prospects and attitudes toward employment for undocumented Mexican Border‐Crossers in a U.S. Federal Correctional Institution

The influx of undocumented border-crossers from the Republic of Mexico into the United States has reached alarming proportions. The concern stems not only from their anticipated impact on job markets and social services utilization (Cooper 1985), but also from their growing impact on the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Illegal immigration is a federal offense and punishable by imprisonment in federal facilities. In 1970, the total number of arrested illegal entrants was 345,353 (80.3 percent Mexican). However, only 2,865 were prosecuted and convicted of illegal entry or illegal re-entry. In 1978, a total of 862,217 illegal border-crossers were apprehended (98 percent Mexican) of which 15,519 were prosecuted and convicted of either illegal entry or illegal re-entry (INS Annual Reports 1981). A record 1.77 million undocumented aliens were apprehended nationwide in fiscal 1986, a one-third increase over 1985 according to the U.S. Justice Department (Record Number 1986). Because all these cases have not yet been disposed of by the criminal justice system, there are no estimates about numbers of convictions for illegal entry from this pool. It is clear, however, that the federal prison system is struggling to keep up with the increasing number of convicted illegal entrants. Federal correctional facilities are currently housing about 31,000 inmates, which is about 28 percent over capacity (Bulging Prisons... 1984).