Over the past two decades, the U.S. federal government has sought to increase its capacity to find, apprehend, and deport noncitizens residing in the United States who have violated federal immigration laws. One way the federal government has done this is by partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies on immigration enforcement efforts. The present study analyzes the records of all 1,964,756 interior removals between fiscal years 2003 and 2015 to examine how, if at all, the types of criminal convictions leading to removal from the U.S. interior have changed during this period of heightened coordination between law enforcement agencies and whether there are differences by gender and region of origin in the types of convictions leading to removal. Findings show that as coordination between law enforcement agencies intensified, the proportion of individuals removed from the U.S. interior with either no criminal convictions or with a driving-related conviction as their most serious conviction increased. Findings also show that the proportion of individuals removed with no criminal convictions was greater for women than for men and that the share of individuals removed with a driving-related conviction as their most serious conviction was greater for Latin Americans than for individuals from all other regions. Given renewed investment in these types of law enforcement partnerships under the Trump administration, the patterns presented in this article may foreshadow trends to come.
ArmentaA. (2017). Protect, serve, and deport: The rise of policing as immigration enforcement (1st ed.). Oakland: University of California Press.
5.
BaumJ.JonesR.BerryC. (2010). In the child’s best interest? The consequences of losing a lawful immigrant parent to deportation. Berkeley: International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, School of Law.
6.
CantorG.NoferiM.MartínezD. (2015). Enforcement overdrive: A comprehensive assessment of ICE’s Criminal Alien Program. Washington, DC: American Immigration Council.
7.
CappsR.CastañedaR. M.ChaudryA.SantosR. (2007). Paying the price: The impact of immigration raids on America’s children. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
8.
CappsR.RosenblumM. R.ChishtiM.RodriguezC. (2011). Delegation and divergence: 287(g) state and local immigration enforcement. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
9.
ColemanM. (2012). The “local” migration state: The site-specific devolution of immigration enforcement in the U.S. south. Law & Policy34, 159-190.
10.
ColemanM.KocherA. (2011). Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant Incapacitation in the US, post 9/11. The Geographical Journal, 177, 228-237.
11.
Department of Homeland Security. (2015). FY 2015 ICE immigration removals. Washington, DC: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
12.
GardnerT. G.IIKohliA. (2009). The C.A.P. effect: Racial profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID No. 3168885). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
HaganJ.CastroB.RodriguezN. (2009). The effects of U.S. deportation policies on immigrant families and communities: Cross-border perspectives Panel 3: Families and global migration. North Carolina Law Review, 88, 1799-1824.
15.
HarwoodE. (1986). In liberty’s shadow: Illegal aliens and immigration law enforcement (1st ed.). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution.
16.
HernandezC. C. G. (2014). Immigration detention as punishment Part III: removal and detention. Immigration and Nationality Law Review, 35, 385-454.
17.
HomanT. (2013). Border security oversight: Identifying and responding to current threats. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=740037
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2018). Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act. Retrieved from https://www.ice.gov/287g
21.
LaschC. N. (2008). Enforcing the limits of the executive’s authority to issue immigration detainers immigration law. William Mitchell Law Review, 35, 164-196.
22.
MeissnerD.KerwinD. M.ChishtiM.BergeronC. (2013). Immigration enforcement in the United States: The rise of a formidable machinery. Migration Policy Institute.
23.
MenjivarC.BejaranoC. L. (2004). Latino immigrants’ perceptions of crime and police authorities in the United States: A case study from the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 27, 120-148.
24.
MoinesterM. (2018). Beyond the border and into the heartland: Spatial patterning of U.S. immigration detention. Demography, 55, 1147-1193.
NguyenM. T.GillH. (2010). The 287(g) program: The costs and consequences of local immigration enforcement in North Carolina communities. Chapel Hill, NC: The Latino Migration Project. Retrieved from https://isa.unc.edu/files/2012/06/287g_report_final.pdf
RughJ. S.HallM. (2016). Deporting the American dream: Immigration enforcement and Latino foreclosures. Sociological Science, 3, 1053-1076.
31.
SatinskyS.HuA.HellerJ.FarhangL. (2013). Family unity, family health: How family-focused immigration reform will mean better health for children and families. Oakland, CA: Human Impact Partners.
32.
SchmalzbauerL. (2014). The last best place? Gender, family, and migration in the new West (1 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. (2017, May15). Despite hiring, immigration court backlog and wait times climb. Retrieved from https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/468/
