Why illegal immigrants should be deported

They would also be better able to focus their efforts on promoting national security and enhancing public safety. America, both as a country and as an idea, has long played an outsize role on the global stage. For years, the country stood as a leader in the protection of refugees worldwide, partnering successfully with nonprofit organizations around the country to successfully resettle refugees and integrate them into U.

America must once again lead by example and increase refugee admission targets in response to the growing need for resettlement around the world. The country similarly needs to restore its commitment to protecting refugees who arrive at its doorstep to request asylum.

And while a discussion about what an adequate and durable response to the migration challenges in the Americas would look like is beyond the scope of this report, it has been discussed in greater detail elsewhere. An important goal in reforming the U. But that is not enough.

In order to build a system that reflects rule of law principles, the rules that defend that system must support clear, consistent, and fair enforcement. It can be challenging in the current social and political environment to have a rich discussion about what immigration enforcement should look like, largely because the current system is one that many people think is not worthy of defense.

Moreover, the mechanisms for enforcement that exist today frequently provide little due process and no consideration of proportionality in the imposition of a sanction. Nevertheless, enforcement is essential to defending the integrity of any system.

The following paragraphs lay out some initial steps to reform enforcement and increase accountability in agencies such as ICE and Customs and Border Protection that are on the front lines of this enforcement. First, U. In the immigration system today, there is no opportunity to consider the concept of proportionality—that is, whether the punishment fits the offense. If the judge finds this to be the case, banishment, and all of the consequences that flow from that, is the only option on the table despite being the harshest, most existential punishment conceivable in such a proceeding.

Only after the finding of removability can an individual request whatever form of relief from removal may be available to them. Over the years—and especially as a result of the immigration laws—the circumstances in which an individual might have grounds for relief from removal have narrowed considerably. Because the stakes for immigrants in removal proceedings—which are, essentially, deportation proceedings—are so high and the opportunities for immigration judges to mete out just and proportionate outcomes are so low, the system places an unsustainable amount of pressure on discretionary decisions by immigration enforcement personnel about whether to place a person in removal proceedings in the first place and, when a final removal order is issued, whether to execute it.

Immigration courts should be given a range of sanctions that they can issue short of removal from the country. Where removal may be an appropriate—though harsh—sanction, immigration judges should be empowered to do justice by considering the individual equities of each case. While deportation would remain a potential sanction in such a system—particularly for criminal convictions evidencing a disregard for the general public order or repeat or flagrant violations of U.

Second, much like in the U. Because these are almost entirely absent from U. Army veteran and who received his green card at the age of 11—based upon two simple marijuana possession convictions from the s and one from four years earlier in Finally, in order to restore respect for the rule of law in the U.

Under the current administration, immigration judges face the constant threat of disciplinary action if they do not maintain unrealistic case completion goals that necessitate giving short shrift to the due process rights of individuals who appear before them. Additionally, though every person in immigration court is entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U. Constitution, current law allows even a 3-year-old child to appear without counsel unless that child can secure an attorney—by him or herself—at no expense to the government.

Indeed, the way in which counsel is now secured by many people in immigration court is an example of the workarounds currently employed to shield the public, policymakers, and the system itself from the fundamental unfairness at the heart of the immigration court system. Today, counsel is frequently provided to immigrants in removal proceedings only by virtue of nonprofit providers; extensive pro bono and so-called low bono networks; and representation initiatives funded by state and local governments.

But civil society should not be required to shoulder the burdens of due process in a just society governed by the rule of law. And given the important liberty interests at stake, the system also should rely far less heavily on final orders of removal issued by enforcement personnel without meaningful court involvement.

There are today an estimated Replacing this extralegal immigration system with a legal system that truly works as designed is necessary to restore respect for the rule of law, but it will never be sufficient if it leaves millions of American residents in a second-class status. Undocumented immigrants in the country today must be given the opportunity to come forward, register with the government, pass a background check, and be put on a path to permanent residence and eventual citizenship.

Passing H. America is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, and it needs a system that reflects that reality. It is not sustainable to have an immigration enforcement apparatus that lacks popular support; operates without the most basic features of fairness, accountability, and proportionality; and increasingly exposes to the threat of detention and deportation people who have been part of U.

Because of the significant and protracted failings in the U. But it is also not sustainable—after decades of legislative inaction—to continue to rely on enforcement discretion alone as the magnitude of the challenges grow and people on all sides of the issue become increasingly distrustful of the system. Prior to joining the Center, he served as chief counsel on the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

In that capacity, Jawetz devised and executed strategies for immigration-related hearings and markups before the House Judiciary Committee as well as legislation on the House floor. District Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U. The author thanks Philip E. Wolgin and Scott Shuchart for their help in drafting and editing this report. Arelis R. See FWD. The fact that people frequently believe correctly that the U. Office of Rep. Demetrios G. This concept also arose in S. Rather than grant a static number of W visas in perpetuity, S.

See U. See, for example, Jill E. Incidentally, this also helps to explain the tremendous pressure on state and local officials considering how and under what circumstances they should cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, because the lack of proportionality and flexibility available in immigration court proceedings means that once a person has been placed in the custody of immigration enforcement personnel the die has often already been cast.

Currently, only a small handful of grounds of deportability include a statute of limitations. For instance, a noncitizen may be deported for a single crime involving moral turpitude only so long as that crime was committed within five years of admission to the country.

Ngai, Impossible Subjects. As such, advancing the date, and allowing it to continue to advance on a rolling basis, would help not just those who are undocumented, but also those trapped in temporary statuses such as TPS.

Lisette Partelow , Philip E. Julia Cusick Director, Media Relations. Madeline Shepherd Director, Government Affairs. In this article. InProgress Stay updated on our work on the most pressing issues of our time. The rules of such a system would be designed to recognize the fact that the only way to have an immigration system that works is to more closely align supply and demand, rather than force the system to adhere to artificial caps, untethered from reality and revisited only once in a generation at best.

Importantly, if immigration were successfully channeled through a functioning regulatory system, enforcement resources could instead be dedicated to preventing individuals from entering the country outside of that system and to appropriate enforcement actions necessary to maintain the integrity of that system and U. Commit to proportionality, accountability, and due process in immigration enforcement.

This would do away with the current one-size-fits-all approach, in which banishment from the country is the only sanction on the table and opportunities for relief are few, and instead allow for a range of potential penalties to fit the offense and the individual. Likewise, such a system would have real due process; be administered through independent immigration courts that consider cases with the ultimate goal of rendering fair and just outcomes; 9 and incorporate important aspects of the rule of law long found in the U.

Create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and other individuals long residing in the country. This would allow people to come forward, register with the government, pass a background check, and be put on a path to permanent residence and eventual citizenship. Someone who violates the immigration law by, for example, participating in a fraudulent marriage or helping smuggle other aliens into the United States, may be found deportable.

Anyone who has received a green card knows that proving that you will not become a "public charge"— that is, have to rely on need-based government assistance—was an important part of showing that you were not inadmissible to the United States and deserved a green card.

The immigration laws follow this up with the statement that, "Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry; has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable. Section a. If you have a green card, your U. They can also be asked to reimburse any agencies from which the immigrant received public assistance. If that doesn't work out, you might find yourself in deportation proceedings, or unable to reenter the U. If you are facing deportation removal due to one of the above-mentioned reasons or for any other reason, consider speaking with an immigration attorney as soon as possible.

Browse All Immigration Topics ». The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. Opinion on Border Security Spending February Views on Amount of Legal Immigration October Illegally June Institutions in America February Views on Amount of Legal Immigration February Illegally as Children October Temporarily Block Entry into the U.

February Muslim Immigration Ban February Illegal Immigrants and Tuition Rate February Sanctuary Cities February Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants October Acceptance of Refugees from Syria in Texas October Banning Muslims from Entering U.

June Approval Of "Sanctuary Cities" February Texas Accepting Refugees from Syria February Citizens from Entering the U. Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants November Birthright Citizenship Repeal Support November Sanctuary Cities November Support Repeal of Part of 14th Amendment September Support Arizona Immigration Law September The White House did not return a call seeking clarification.

The due process clause absolutely applies. Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within miles km of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing. The president buckled to the pressure on Wednesday, issuing an executive order that ended the separations.