How Far Is Too Far:
The Criminalization of "Immigrant"
(cont'd)
By Joanna Lui, Editor-in-Chief

But my point isn’t to reiterate the injustice of internment during World War II. My point is that government policy and public discourse are often worded in such a way that takes advantage of public fears to step on civil liberties. It is during times of war, whether it’s the war on terror or any other war, that it becomes harder to see beyond the pretexts and recognize the broader costs of these actions and to then criticize them. And in the very criminalization of these populations, it becomes that much harder for them to speak up for themselves or for them to garner support and sympathy for their plight. We can draw a lot of parallels about what’s going on now in the case of immigrant detention policies.

Immigration detention is not something new, and people can argue over whether or not it is a right or a just thing to do but that’s a whole other issue. What has changed is the pretext for it, the scope of immigration detention and removal that is occurring and the lack of criticism about it. In 2001, it was reported that since the 1996 passage of the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act", the number of immigrants being detained nationwide had more than tripled, and were estimated to top off at 24,000 by the end of 2001; this was before 9/11. It has since been reported that there was actually a total of 188,000 people who were detained in 2001, many of whom continue to be detained and many more who are being rounded up every day.

The IIRAIRA was passed on a wave of anti-immigration sentiment and over fears of terrorist activity after the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center. Its provisions include the expansion of exportable offenses to those with a prison sentence of 12 months or more, with no distinction made for the severity of the crime; the allowance of expedited removal with limited or no judicial review; increased funding for fraud and violation investigations (note: this has meant funding being taken away from immigrant services) and more stringent requirements for proof of persecution in order to qualify for asylum, for which the burden of proof is on the asylum seeker.

In addition, detainees are often held in correctional facilities, e.g. prisons and the Human Rights Watch has documented significant civil rights and human rights abuses occurring in these situations. What is particularly troublesome is the ability for the INS to immediately detain and put through deportation proceedings any non-citizens who have been given a sentence of 12 months or longer, regardless of how long they actually served and the nature of their crime. Since these are civil proceedings, the government is not required to provide legal counsel and the majority of people put through detention proceedings eventually wind up being deported; once deported they cannot return.

IIRAIRA also provides the INS with the power to take people into detention immediately after their release from prison, so they have to serve their sentence and then go back to prison while awaiting their deportation proceedings. These people have already paid their "dues to society" as specified by their judgments. And since the principle of double jeopardy does not allow for them to be punished again for their crime, what then are they being punished for? Why are we taking away their civil liberties by detaining them? It seems that the only crime they’ve committed is being an immigrant.

<~ prev | next ~>