Mandatory Immigration Detention for U.S. Crimes: The Noncitizen Presumption of Dangerousness

Noferi, Mark

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24690-1_13

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…34 See [3] for discussion about how ICE arrives at this determination, and why ICE's risk classifications are somewhat questionable. 35 The individuals listed as "bag and baggage" tended to skew towards higher flight risk and lower public safety risk compared to the individuals listed as in judicial proceedings. Of the 107 "bag and baggage" individuals, RCA assessed 78 percent Many mandatory detainees are not a very high risk because their crimes are relatively minor and they have significant equities.…”

Section: Mandatory Detainees and Over Detentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As several former INS officials argued in an amicus brief in Demore v Kim, absolutist rulemaking authority under 1226(c) hinders fair and efficient efforts at detention [33]. Since those mandatorily detained hold fewer rights than nearly all those similarly situated elsewhere in public law, mandatory detention amounts to a wholesale rejection of a balanced approach (with applicable legal norms) to detention and release determinations that transports it outside public law norms [34,35]. Unlike in the criminal justice system, for example, mandatory detention decisions are made without a neutral magistrate, individualized determination with regard to risk of flight or to public safety, clear and convincing evidence in support of a decision to deny release, or any record to explain why release has been denied ([1]; [33], p. 9).…”

Section: Mandatory Detentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using Risk to Assess the Legal Violence of Mandatory Detention

Koulish

2016

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immigration mandatory detention is a particularly harsh example of the structural violence embedded in immigration enforcement. It deprives liberty without bond for immigrants with prior crimes, and assigns many individuals to the harsh conditions associated with unnecessary and even wrongful detention. Mandatory detention has been justified on the grounds that mandatory detainees are a danger to public safety. This article puts to the test this presumption of dangerousness among mandatory detainees, and finds, to the contrary, that immigrants with prior charges or convictions are no more dangerous than any other category of individuals in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Using the risk classification assessment (RCA) tool, which the author is the first to obtain through the Freedom of Information Act, the article contributes to the growing criticism of mandatory detention, providing evidence that many of those in mandatory detention should probably have never been detained.

show abstract

Section: Mandatory Detainees and Over Detentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mandatory Detentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Risk to Assess the Legal Violence of Mandatory Detention

Koulish

2016

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At a time of politically charged debate on the apparent failure of states to secure their borders, crimmigration has a role in re-establishing a strong image of the governing state (Bosworth & Guild, 2008, p. 714). Monitoring and expelling ‘non-citizens’ functions to bolster state power, and to remind citizens of the state’s role in their protection (Bosworth, 2008; Noferi, 2014). It provides the appearance that the state can, and will, manage ‘risky’ populations, through whatever means (Malloch & Stanley, 2005).…”

Section: Crimmigrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Against this backdrop, ‘non-citizens’ are now commonly depicted in ways that emphasize their illegitimate or abnormal status (Bigo, 2007; Krasmann, 2007), they are presented as the ‘great unknown’ or an ‘indeterminate threat to social order’ (Bosworth, 2008, p. 203). A culture of suspicion has evolved towards those who arrive at the border, and national or ethnic difference is often represented as an indicator for an inherently risky or dangerous nature (Malloch & Stanley, 2005; Noferi, 2014). These ‘notions of otherness and suspicion’ have developed in relation to a ‘global privilege’ of citizenship (Aas, 2011, p. 332).…”

Section: Crimmigrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding crimmigration: The detention and deportation of New Zealanders from Australia

Stanley

2017

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The significant concept of 'crimmigration' has evolved to explain how criminal and immigration laws have begun to merge, expanding state powers to surveil, control and punish. States use crimmigration processes to reinforce cultural, political and moral boundaries. In doing so, states frequently displace principles of punishment or rights in favour of promoting compliance, security or belonging. In relation to the case of New Zealanders detaineddeported from Australia, this article illustrates new forms of crimmigration. First, crimmigration is expanding in a context of neoliberal responsibilization. Given the gradual removal of economic supports or political inclusion, 'non-citizens' share a deeply precarious space, and more groups are being made 'at risk' of crimmigration interventions. Once likely to focus upon certain populations, especially on 'race' or nationality grounds, crimmigration now engages all 'non-citizens'. Second, crimmigration has expanded to include pre-emption-'non-citizens' are targeted not just on account of their criminal behaviours but also their perceived associations, 'risky' behaviours or suspicious associations. Finally, and third, crimmigration strategies have expanded across borders, in ways that fundamentally distort established legal principles on the ever-shifting grounds of security. The contagion of crimmigration creates multiple punishments for 'non-citizens' that far surpass the nature of their offending or their 'risk' to society.

show abstract

“…For instance, in recent years, there has been a constant mutation of detention facilities (see Ballesteros et al, in this issue; Lindberg, 2022; Tazzioli, 2018; Tazzioli and Garelli, 2020). We are also witnessing the transformation of rationales for detention (Campesi, 2020; Fernández Bessa, 2021; Könönen, 2023); decision-making tools, such as risk assessments (Noferi and Koulish, 2014; Silverman and Kaytaz, 2020); technologies and practices of supervision and control of detainees and ex-detainees post-detention (Sánchez Boe and Mainsah 2021; Ballesteros-Pena, 2021), including the use of artificial intelligence and digital tools; as well as the growing involvement of a multiplicity of stakeholders in this field (Ballesteros-Pena et al, in this issue; Rivas, in this issue). Moreover, the gendered and racialised nature of detention has been highlighted (Bosworth et al, 2016; Canning, 2017; Esposito et al, 2020; Fernandez Bessa, 2019; Fernández de la Reguera, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%