Beyond "Crimigration" and the Civil-Criminal Dichotomy - Applying Mathews V. Eldridge in the Immigration Context

By Nadadur, Ramanujan | Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Annual 2013 | Go to article overview

Beyond "Crimigration" and the Civil-Criminal Dichotomy - Applying Mathews V. Eldridge in the Immigration Context


Nadadur, Ramanujan, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal


I. INTRODUCTION

Policies and regulations from the past decade underscore the need for strong constitutional safeguards in removal proceedings, which are administrative proceedings where an Immigration Judge adjudicates whether a noncitizen should be deported from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Deportation has accelerated; the Obama Administration has removed nearly 400,000 noncitizens in each of the last three years. (1) Congress and the Executive have limited appellate review of final orders of removal (2) and sharply curtailed avenues of discretionary relief. (3) Immigration detention has increased significantly; Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained a record total of 384,000 noncitizens in 2009, and 363,000 noncitizens in 2010. (4) Immigration law also has become more complex, with a maze of difficult regulations that govern the forms of relief available at different stages of the removal process. (5) Recognizing recent changes in immigration enforcement and the severity of deportation, this Note suggests that some groups of noncitizens in removal proceedings ought to have heightened procedural safeguards as a matter of constitutional law.

In Padilla v. Kentucky, (6) the Supreme Court recently drew attention to the constitutional safeguards for noncitizens facing removal. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel requires criminal defense attorneys to advise noncitizen clients about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea or conviction. (7) Over the past two years, this decision has led to a dramatic shift in criminal practice. It has prompted a series of advisories for defense attorneys who represent noncitizen clients; criminal defense offices have begun to create new positions staffed by immigration experts; (8) and state bar associations and other organizations have sponsored training sessions to instruct defense attorneys on immigration law. (9) Although Padilla focused on the rights of noncitizens in criminal proceedings, the Court also recognized the significant individual liberty interests for noncitizens facing removal, the decreasing avenues of immigration relief available for noncitizens, and the growing nexus between immigration law and criminal law, the latter of which grants strong constitutional protections to suspects and defendants. (10)

Despite the recent changes to immigration law and language in Padilla recognizing the seriousness of deportation, noncitizens in removal proceedings continue to lack important procedural safeguards for a variety of reasons. Historically speaking, the Supreme Court considered deportation proceedings to be an intrinsic part of the U.S. government's sovereignty; the Court held that the government therefore retained the power to limit the procedural rights granted to noncitizens. (11) The expansion of procedural rights would also entail a significant financial burden on the state; the approximate cost of providing counsel to indigent noncitizens could be as much as $110 million per year. (12) Given the negative public perception towards those convicted of crimes, it is politically challenging to support greater procedural rights for noncitizens today; the Obama Administration has focused a significant part of its removal efforts on removing noncitizen criminals. (13) Moreover, the relative lack of procedural rights for noncitizens allows the government to enforce criminal or anti-terrorism priorities within an administrative system that does not require that the government extend litigants the rigorous protections associated with the criminal process. (14) The government, for example, can preventively detain a suspected terrorist for immigration violations and circumvent the pre-trial detention requirements from criminal law. (15)

Accordingly, several notable procedural weaknesses persist in removal proceedings. First, indigent noncitizens do not have the right to court-appointed counsel, (16) a right that can be outcome-determinative given the complexity of immigration law. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Beyond "Crimigration" and the Civil-Criminal Dichotomy - Applying Mathews V. Eldridge in the Immigration Context
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.