scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Posted Content

Enforcement Redundancy and the Future of Immigration Law

TL;DR: In United States v. Arizona as mentioned in this paper, the Arizona Court rejected redundant enforcement by conceptualizing law as a set of prices rather than a series of obligations, which constitutes a radical departure from conventional approaches to preemption.
Abstract: It is commonplace for states to help enforce federal law. Indeed, "enforcement redundancy" is a widespread and typically unremarkable aspect of American federalism. Local police regularly arrest people for violating federal criminal law; states criminalize wide swaths of conduct, like dealing drugs, that are also federal offenses; and states often attach civil penalties to conduct, such as workplace discrimination, already proscribed by federal law. Nevertheless, in United States v. Arizona — the most significant immigration federalism case in decades — the Supreme Court vitiated Arizona’s efforts at redundant enforcement.This Article explores why the Arizona Court rejected redundant enforcement and what implications the rejection holds for the future of immigration law. The Court rejected redundant enforcement, I argue, by conceptualizing law as a set of prices rather than a series of obligations. This analytic framework constitutes a radical departure from conventional approaches to preemption. Moreover, the approach is one the Court cannot possibly embrace as a general way of analyzing intergovernmental conflicts. Doing so would eliminate vast swathes of state regulatory authority and dramatically reshape our federal system.The Court’s law-as-price approach makes Arizona much more a case about separation of powers than one about federalism. It consolidates tremendous immigration policymaking power in the Executive Branch, endorsing the idea that immigration law is centrally the product of executive “lawmaking” that bears little relation to immigration law on the books. The Court’s decision to ratify this sort of Presidential control over migration policy has important implications for the ongoing transformation of immigration law, as well as for the future of American federalism.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For example, the authors argues that because of the multiuse nature of most basic research and the long time lags between discovery and application, it is unlikely that any one individual, company, or industry would support a sufficient amount of basic research to advance innovation.
Abstract: tive to facilitate. ‘‘Because of the multiuse nature of most basic research as well as the long time lags between discovery and application, it is unlikely that any one individual, company, or industry would support a sufficient amount of basic research to advance innovation’’ (p. 8). But, calling the system ‘‘highly functional’’ tells us nothing about why research is structured in this way, and for whom this structure is more or less beneficial. Second, many of her arguments about researcher incentives hinge on assessments of the motivations of individual scientists and engineers that lack basis in empirical research. Assertions like ‘‘scientists are innately curious’’ (p. 17) or engineers patent for ‘‘intellectual challenge and advancement’’ (p. 50) while biomedical scientists patent to have an ‘‘impact on society’’ (p. 51) are mostly gleaned from anecdotal evidence, stories of famous scientists, or even colloquial references like Napoleon quotes and popular song lyrics. These anecdotes and colloquialisms make the book entertaining to read, but frustrating to learn from. Third, while Stephan refers to early work in Science and Technology Studies and attempts to situate her research in conversation with this literature, her book is decidedly not economics’ answer to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Disappointingly, Stephan’s policy suggestions lack the same critical teeth as the provocative questions she raises about the techno-scientific research enterprise. The reason for the weakness of her policy suggestions may rest in her stated belief that, fundamentally, basic research drives economic growth. For example, even though she highlights the astronomical profits that private corporations (especially pharmaceutical and oil companies) make from the ‘‘public good’’ knowledge produced by government-funded research, she is more concerned with how universities can better serve the profit-making endeavors of corporations than with why corporations are not contributing more to funding university research. Stephan does offer a few insightful solutions, such as making academic placement rates more accessible to potential graduate students and evening out the stop-andgo character of federal research funding. Any changes that would radically alter the structure of this ‘‘functional’’ system, however, seem off the table. On balance, Stephan exercises refreshing restraint in extrapolating from the data and literature she compiles. If the reader is willing to wade through truisms about scientists and rosy discussions of economic growth, there is much to be learned from this book.

129 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: Secure Communities as discussed by the authors is part of a broader, technology-based shift toward automated immigration policing, the use of interoperable database systems and other technologies to automate and routinize the identification and apprehension of potentially deportable noncitizens in the course of ordinary police encounters and other moments of day-to-day life.
Abstract: With the deployment of technology, federal programs to enlist state and local police assistance with immigration enforcement are undergoing a sea change. For example, even as it forcefully has urged invalidation of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and similar state laws, the Obama administration has presided over the largest expansion of state and local immigration policing in U.S. history with its implementation of the “Secure Communities” program, which integrates immigration and criminal history database systems in order to automatically ascertain the immigration status of every individual who is arrested and booked by state and local police nationwide. By 2012, over one fifth of all individuals removed from the United States were initially identified and apprehended through the program, contributing to unprecedented overall numbers of noncitizens who have been removed from the United States.Secure Communities is part of a broader, technology-based shift toward automated immigration policing, the use of interoperable database systems and other technologies to automate and routinize the identification and apprehension of potentially deportable noncitizens in the course of ordinary police encounters and other moments of day-to-day life. In this Article, I analyze the implications of this shift. Automated immigration policing does not simply effect a massive increase in the number of state and local law enforcement officials involved in immigration enforcement — although it certainly does that, on an enormous scale. More fundamentally, the technological architecture of these initiatives radically disrupts the prevailing equilibrium of immigration federalism by effectively mandating state and local participation in immigration policing where previously there had been significant room for voluntary state and local choice along the cooperation-noncooperation spectrum. In the process, these programs also blur the substantive lines between immigration control and criminal justice.As part of a broader, longer term set of developments concerning technology, surveillance, and information sharing across a range of different policy domains, automated immigration policing constitutes a leading edge in a more basic transformation of immigration enforcement, raising questions analogous to those arising from other forms of technology-based surveillance. Accordingly, I assess automated immigration policing in this context, drawing upon technology-, surveillance-, and privacy-based frameworks to complement and refract the insights of existing immigration scholarship. Finally, I advance principles to inform, guide, and constrain the use of these technologies, urging preservation of zones in society where immigration policing does not take place, restoration of greater scope for state and local choice, and improved transparency, oversight, and accountability in their implementation.

31 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is found that sanctuary policies, although effective at reducing deportations, do not threaten public safety, but that those policies do not reduce deportations of people with violent criminal convictions, and that sanctuary has no measurable effect on crime.
Abstract: The US government maintains that local sanctuary policies prevent deportations of violent criminals and increase crime. This report tests those claims by combining Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation data and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime data with data on the implementation dates of sanctuary policies between 2010 and 2015. Sanctuary policies reduced deportations of people who were fingerprinted by states or counties by about one-third. Those policies also changed the composition of deportations, reducing deportations of people with no criminal convictions by half—without affecting deportations of people with violent convictions. Sanctuary policies also had no detectable effect on crime rates. These findings suggest that sanctuary policies, although effective at reducing deportations, do not threaten public safety.

19 citations

01 Jan 2019
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a list of FIGURES and ABBREVIATIONS of figures and ABBEVIATION of ABBEVVIATIONS in the last century and the present century.
Abstract: .................................................................................................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ ix

15 citations

References
More filters
Book
16 Jun 2006
TL;DR: McCarty et al. as mentioned in this paper examined the relationship of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality.
Abstract: The idea of America as politically polarized--that there is an unbridgeable divide between right and left, red and blue states--has become a cliche. What commentators miss, however, is that increasing polarization in recent decades has been closely accompanied by fundamental social and economic changes--most notably, a parallel rise in income inequality. In Polarized America, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal examine the relationships of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality.Using NOMINATE (a quantitative procedure that, like interest group ratings, scores politicians on the basis of their roll call voting records) to measure polarization in Congress and public opinion, census data and Federal Election Commission finance records to measure polarization among the public, the authors find that polarization and income inequality fell in tandem from 1913 to 1957 and rose together dramatically from 1977 on; they trace a parallel rise in immigration beginning in the 1970s. They show that Republicans have moved right, away from redistributive policies that would reduce income inequality. Immigration, meanwhile, has facilitated the move to the right: non-citizens, a larger share of the population and disproportionately poor, cannot vote; thus there is less political pressure from the bottom for redistribution than there is from the top against it. In "the choreography of American politics" inequality feeds directly into political polarization, and polarization in turn creates policies that further increase inequality.

1,894 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: McCarty et al. as mentioned in this paper examined the relationship of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality.
Abstract: The idea of America as politically polarized—that there is an unbridgeable divide between right and left, red and blue states—has become a cliche. What commentators miss, however, is that increasing polarization in recent decades has been closely accompanied by fundamental social and economic changes—most notably, a parallel rise in income inequality. In Polarized America, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal examine the relationships of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality. Using NOMINATE (a quantitative procedure that, like interest group ratings, scores politicians on the basis of their roll call voting records) to measure polarization in Congress and public opinion, census data and Federal Election Commission finance records to measure polarization among the public, the authors find that polarization and income inequality fell in tandem from 1913 to 1957 and rose together dramatically from 1977 on; they trace a parallel rise in immigration beginning in the 1970s. They show that Republicans have moved right, away from redistributive policies that would reduce income inequality. Immigration, meanwhile, has facilitated the move to the right: non-citizens, a larger share of the population and disproportionately poor, cannot vote; thus there is less political pressure from the bottom for redistribution than there is from the top against it. In "the choreography of American politics" inequality feeds directly into political polarization, and polarization in turn creates policies that further increase inequality.

154 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For example, the authors argues that because of the multiuse nature of most basic research and the long time lags between discovery and application, it is unlikely that any one individual, company, or industry would support a sufficient amount of basic research to advance innovation.
Abstract: tive to facilitate. ‘‘Because of the multiuse nature of most basic research as well as the long time lags between discovery and application, it is unlikely that any one individual, company, or industry would support a sufficient amount of basic research to advance innovation’’ (p. 8). But, calling the system ‘‘highly functional’’ tells us nothing about why research is structured in this way, and for whom this structure is more or less beneficial. Second, many of her arguments about researcher incentives hinge on assessments of the motivations of individual scientists and engineers that lack basis in empirical research. Assertions like ‘‘scientists are innately curious’’ (p. 17) or engineers patent for ‘‘intellectual challenge and advancement’’ (p. 50) while biomedical scientists patent to have an ‘‘impact on society’’ (p. 51) are mostly gleaned from anecdotal evidence, stories of famous scientists, or even colloquial references like Napoleon quotes and popular song lyrics. These anecdotes and colloquialisms make the book entertaining to read, but frustrating to learn from. Third, while Stephan refers to early work in Science and Technology Studies and attempts to situate her research in conversation with this literature, her book is decidedly not economics’ answer to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Disappointingly, Stephan’s policy suggestions lack the same critical teeth as the provocative questions she raises about the techno-scientific research enterprise. The reason for the weakness of her policy suggestions may rest in her stated belief that, fundamentally, basic research drives economic growth. For example, even though she highlights the astronomical profits that private corporations (especially pharmaceutical and oil companies) make from the ‘‘public good’’ knowledge produced by government-funded research, she is more concerned with how universities can better serve the profit-making endeavors of corporations than with why corporations are not contributing more to funding university research. Stephan does offer a few insightful solutions, such as making academic placement rates more accessible to potential graduate students and evening out the stop-andgo character of federal research funding. Any changes that would radically alter the structure of this ‘‘functional’’ system, however, seem off the table. On balance, Stephan exercises refreshing restraint in extrapolating from the data and literature she compiles. If the reader is willing to wade through truisms about scientists and rosy discussions of economic growth, there is much to be learned from this book.

129 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: Secure Communities as discussed by the authors is part of a broader, technology-based shift toward automated immigration policing, the use of interoperable database systems and other technologies to automate and routinize the identification and apprehension of potentially deportable noncitizens in the course of ordinary police encounters and other moments of day-to-day life.
Abstract: With the deployment of technology, federal programs to enlist state and local police assistance with immigration enforcement are undergoing a sea change. For example, even as it forcefully has urged invalidation of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and similar state laws, the Obama administration has presided over the largest expansion of state and local immigration policing in U.S. history with its implementation of the “Secure Communities” program, which integrates immigration and criminal history database systems in order to automatically ascertain the immigration status of every individual who is arrested and booked by state and local police nationwide. By 2012, over one fifth of all individuals removed from the United States were initially identified and apprehended through the program, contributing to unprecedented overall numbers of noncitizens who have been removed from the United States.Secure Communities is part of a broader, technology-based shift toward automated immigration policing, the use of interoperable database systems and other technologies to automate and routinize the identification and apprehension of potentially deportable noncitizens in the course of ordinary police encounters and other moments of day-to-day life. In this Article, I analyze the implications of this shift. Automated immigration policing does not simply effect a massive increase in the number of state and local law enforcement officials involved in immigration enforcement — although it certainly does that, on an enormous scale. More fundamentally, the technological architecture of these initiatives radically disrupts the prevailing equilibrium of immigration federalism by effectively mandating state and local participation in immigration policing where previously there had been significant room for voluntary state and local choice along the cooperation-noncooperation spectrum. In the process, these programs also blur the substantive lines between immigration control and criminal justice.As part of a broader, longer term set of developments concerning technology, surveillance, and information sharing across a range of different policy domains, automated immigration policing constitutes a leading edge in a more basic transformation of immigration enforcement, raising questions analogous to those arising from other forms of technology-based surveillance. Accordingly, I assess automated immigration policing in this context, drawing upon technology-, surveillance-, and privacy-based frameworks to complement and refract the insights of existing immigration scholarship. Finally, I advance principles to inform, guide, and constrain the use of these technologies, urging preservation of zones in society where immigration policing does not take place, restoration of greater scope for state and local choice, and improved transparency, oversight, and accountability in their implementation.

31 citations