Brian Root, M.S., Ph.D. CandidateProspectus Defense, December 14, 2010

U.S. Immigration Policy, Practice and Human Rights: A Descriptive Study of the Deportation of Non-Citizens for Crimes, 1997-2007

Ph.D. Committee

Chair: Dr. Janet RiceDr. Eamon M. Kelly

Dr. William E. BertrandProfessor Adeno Addis

Presentation Agenda

• Introduction to the Subject and Background

• Research Objectives• Conceptual Frameworks• Methodology• Sample Hypotheses• Review

Subject: The Deportation of Non-Citizens for Criminal BehaviorOrigins: 1996 Legislation -AEDPA & IIRIRAResults:• Increase in Crimes that

Result in Deportation• Decrease in Options to

Defend Against Deportation

Introduction to the Subject

Additional Issues for Aggravated Felons and Crimes of Moral Turpitude

• Expedited Removal• Retroactive• Mandatory Detention• Mandatory Deportation• Permanent Deportation• Inclusion of Minor Crimes• Interpretive Law

Result: Increased Total Deportations

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

42,542 69,680

358,886

Total Annual Deportations

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%Implementation of 1996

Laws

Transfer of Responsibility From INS to ICE and DHS

Percent Increase in Deportation From Previous Year

An Increase in Criminal Deportations?

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 20080%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Criminal

Non-Criminal

% of TotalDeportationsThat AreCriminal

Immigration Reform Advocates: Both quantitative and qualitative evidence that criminal deportations are often not in concordance with ICE policies, priorities and rhetoric.

Concerns

Apprehension Priorities for Fugitive Operations Teams

1Fugitives posing a threat to the nation

2Fugitives posing a threat to the community

3Fugitive with a violent criminal history

4Fugitive aliens with a criminal conviction

5Fugitive aliens with no criminal conviction

ConcernsHuman Rights Advocates: Qualitative evidence of international human rights law violations.• The Right to Raise Defenses to

Deportation• The Right to Protection from

Refoulement• Proportionality in Punishment• The

Right to Family

• Children’s Rights

Research Objectives1. To estimate the scope of potential human

rights law violations that may have occurred through criminal deportations.

2. To estimate the extent to which the deportations were in concordance with ICE enforcement policy, priorities and rhetoric.

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Framework

Methodology

Complete Deportee Population

Secondary Data on Non-citizens and Deportation

Processes

Quantitative Estimates

Primary Dataset

• Received from DHS via FOIA• Complete Population: All 897,099 non-citizens

deported for criminal behavior, or with a criminal conviction, between 4/1/1997 and 9/1/2007.

• Five Variables:– Immigration Status– Nationality– Country Deported to– Date of Deportation– Crime Data

Secondary Data Sources• American Community Surveys:

Personal Characteristic Variables for Non-citizens.

• Nationally Representative Annual Survey ~170K Non-citizen Respondents.

• For 1997-1999, will use 2000 Survey.• Will Stratify by Year of

survey/Deportation and by Nationality to increase accuracy.

• Limitations: No variables for Immigration Status or Criminal History.

American Community Surveys:

• Provide data for personal characteristic variables.• Family Life: Children, Family size, etc.• Military Service: Length of Service• Community Ties• Personal Demography: Age, Language

Spoken, Years in US, etc.• Income, employment.

Secondary Data Sources

• BOP Prison Data: Personal and Crime Characteristic Variables for Non-citizens in Federal Prison

• Includes all non-citizens in Federal prison at year-end ~ 45,000 individuals.

• Will stratify by year nationality and crime.

• Limitations: only Federal facilities, cannot determine whether BOP non-citizens were deported.

• Human Rights Watch/Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) Data on Detainee Transfers: Personal Characteristics and Process Variables for all non-citizens in ICE detention.

• Data from ~ 200 ICE detention facilities.• Limits: Includes non-criminal detainees,

must use analyzed data.

Secondary Data Sources

Secondary Data Sources

• Data released in Government Reports:• Congressional Research Service•U.S. Department of Homeland Security•U.S. Department of Justice•Office of Inspector General• Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Research Hypotheses

Exemplar Hypothesis – Human Rights

• Hypothesis: Children’s rights to family were violated by the deportation of non-citizens for criminal behavior.

• Methodology: Provide quantitative evidence of the scope of criminal deportations that may have affected children left behind in the US.

• Analysis: Use proxy data. Determine rate of deportees that were likely parents. Develop estimates of family size, and # of children of certain ages.

Exemplar Hypothesis – Human Rights

• Hypothesis: Deported legally-present non-citizens that did not commit serious crimes may have had the right to proportionality in punishment violated.

• Methodology: Provide descriptive evidence of the typical criminal punishment that is meted out to both citizens and non-citizens for specific crimes and then estimate the additional potential immigration consequences.

• Analysis: Apply “Average Criminal Sentence” variable to each crime. Create categorical grouping variables based on crime data for additional punishment. Provide descriptive evidence in cross-tabulation.

Exemplar Hypothesis - Policy• Hypothesis: The frequency of criminal

deportations is negatively correlated with non-citizens incarcerated in federal facilities and with non-citizen crime.

• Methodology: Provide descriptive statistics and correlation tests on deportation data and DOJ data on non-citizens in federal and state facilities.

• Analysis: Create annual, per-capita rate of criminality for non-citizens. Run Pearson’s correlation tests comparing deportation rates with per-capita criminal rate and non-citizen prison population.

Exemplar Hypothesis - Policy• Hypothesis: Deportations of criminal non-

citizens were not reflective of ICE enforcement priorities (tiered levels of deportation priorities based on criminality and immigration status).

• Methodology: Determine whether ICE deported low-priority non-citizens despite presence of higher priority criminal non-citizens.

• Analysis: Annual per-capita rates of non-citizens entering/leaving prison will be used to determine whether trends of non-citizen criminality. Descriptive statistics will describe the criminality of those deported and determine whether criminal deportations vary annually while non-citizen criminality remains consistent.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Criminal

Non-Criminal

Criminality of non-Citizens Remains Consis-tent?

Exemplar Hypothesis - Policy• Hypothesis: Changes in budgeting and staff resulted in changes in the frequency of deportation of non-citizens for criminal behavior.

• Methodology: Descriptive statistics examining expenditures per criminal deportee deported.

• Analysis: Annual budget and staffing statistics will be examined in relation to crime data of deportees to determine whether increased budgets and staff result in an increase in deportations by crime level.

Review• Subject: Concerned with

criminal deportation.• Purpose: To provide aggregate

quantitative evidence. • Methodology:

Estimates generated by applying rates to population of deportees