Understanding Immigration Detention: Causes, Conditions, and Consequences

Ryo, Emily

doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042743

Cited by 24 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, by definition, IHP participants are incarcerated during their court proceeding. As studies on migrant detention have identified, those who remain detained during their court case rarely find lawyers (Eagly and Shafer 2015;Ryo 2016).…”

Section: Access To Counselmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Institutional Hearing Program: A Study of Prison-Based Immigration Courts in the United States

Eagly¹,

Shafer²

2020

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the findings of the first research study of the Institutional Hearing Program (IHP), a prison‐based immigration court system run by the U.S. Department of Justice. Although the IHP has existed for four decades, little is publicly known about the program's origin, development, or significance. Based on original analysis of archival records, this study makes three central contributions. First, it traces the origin and growth of the IHP within federal, state, and municipal correctional facilities. Notably, although the IHP began in 1980 as a program to deport Cuban asylum seekers held in civil detention in an Atlanta prison, it now operates to deport noncitizens serving prison sentences in twenty‐three federal prisons, nineteen state prison systems, and a few municipal jails. Second, this article uncovers the crucial role that prison‐based immigration courts have played in shaping the design of carceral institutions around the priorities of an immigration system that primarily targets Latinos for deportation. Third, this article shows how immigration courts embedded in carceral spaces have served as influential, yet overlooked, incubators of changes to immigration law and practice that today apply to all immigration courts, not just the IHP. These findings have important implications for contemporary understandings of the relationship between immigration detention, racialized control of migration, and penal punishment.

show abstract

Section: Access To Counselmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Institutional Hearing Program: A Study of Prison-Based Immigration Courts in the United States

Eagly¹,

Shafer²

2020

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Local jails, however, also provide a unique window into the world of immigration detention-a vast civil confinement system facing mounting public scrutiny and litigation over due process violations and human rights abuses (see e.g., Office of Inspector General 2017). As the sole explicit aim of immigration detention is to facilitate the deportation process of individuals accused of immigration law violations, immigration authorities are not authorized to detain individuals for the purposes of punishment (Ryo 2019). Nonetheless, the U.S. federal government contracts with hundreds of local authorities across the country to hold immigrant detainees in jails on a per diem basis.…”

Section: Jailing Immigrant Detainees: a National Study Of County Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jailing Immigrant Detainees: A National Study of County Participation in Immigration Detention, 1983-2013

Ryo

Peacock

2019

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hundreds of county jails are involved in detaining immigrants facing removal proceedings, a civil process. In exchange, local jails receive per diem payments from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration detention thus presents a striking case of commodification of penal institutions for civil confinement purposes. Yet we know very little about the counties participating in this arrangement and the predictors of their participation over time. Our study offers the first systematic analysis of immigration detention in county jails using new and comprehensive panel data on jails across the United States. First, we find that the number of counties confining immigrant detainees steadily increased between 1983 and 2013, with the largest growth concentrated in small to medium sized, rural, and Republican counties located in the South. Second, our regression analyses point to a number of significant predictors of county participation in immigration detention: (a) worsening labor market conditions, combined with growing excess bed space for the criminal inmate population, (b) an increasing Latino population up to a certain threshold level, and (c) increasing Republican Party strength. These findings have important implications for current debates raging across the United States about the proper role of local communities in detaining immigrants.

show abstract

“…Local jails, however, also provide a unique window into the world of immigration detention—a vast civil confinement system facing mounting public scrutiny and litigation over due process violations and human rights abuses (see, e.g., Office of Inspector General ). As the sole explicit aim of immigration detention is to facilitate the deportation process of individuals accused of immigration law violations, immigration authorities are not authorized to detain individuals for the purposes of punishment (Ryo ). Nonetheless, the U.S. federal government contracts with hundreds of local authorities across the country to hold immigrant detainees in jails on a per diem basis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For studies analyzing structural and experiential similarities between immigration detention and criminal incarceration, see Bosworth and Turnbull () and Ryo ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Jailing Immigrant Detainees: A National Study of County Participation in Immigration Detention, 1983–2013

Ryo¹,

Peacock²

2020

Law Soc Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hundreds of county jails detain immigrants facing removal proceedings, a civil process. In exchange, local jails receive per diem payments from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration detention thus presents a striking case of commodification of penal institutions for civil confinement purposes. Yet we know very little about the counties participating in this arrangement and the predictors of their participation over time. Our study offers the first systematic analysis of immigration detention in county jails using new and comprehensive panel data on jails across the United States. First, we find that the number of counties confining immigrant detainees steadily increased between 1983 and 2013, with the largest growth concentrated in small‐ to medium‐sized, rural, and Republican counties located in the South. Second, our regression analyses point to a number of significant predictors of county participation in immigration detention: (a) worsening labor market conditions, combined with growing excess bed space for the criminal inmate population; (b) an increasing Latino population up to a certain threshold level; and (c) increasing Republican Party strength. These findings have important implications for current debates raging across the United States about the proper role of local communities in detaining immigrants.

show abstract

Understanding Immigration Detention: Causes, Conditions, and Consequences

Cited by 24 publications

References 89 publications

The Institutional Hearing Program: A Study of Prison-Based Immigration Courts in the United States

The Institutional Hearing Program: A Study of Prison-Based Immigration Courts in the United States

Jailing Immigrant Detainees: A National Study of County Participation in Immigration Detention, 1983-2013

Jailing Immigrant Detainees: A National Study of County Participation in Immigration Detention, 1983–2013

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About