The Experts below are selected from a list of 21 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
José D. Villalobos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Challenges and Opportunities in U.S. Immigrant Detention Policy Reform: Addressing the Need for Legally Enforceable Standards to Protect Human Rights
2011Co-Authors: José D. VillalobosAbstract:In recent years, immigrant rights advocates have criticized certain policies of the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) system of immigration detention, including the widespread use of private contractors, the lack of proper oversight, the grouping of violent criminals and non-violent undocumented immigrants (particularly minority women and children) in holding cells, and the neglect of detained immigrants in need of medical attention. In reviewing these developments, I contend that the Obama administration must take more substantive steps towards reforming the existing system, particularly by instituting legally enforceable standards with penalties for performance failures, moving away from private contractors, and applying effective rulemaking for better long-term management and monitoring of U.S. detention facilities.
-
Promises and Human Rights: The Obama Administration on Immigrant Detention Policy Reform
2011Co-Authors: José D. VillalobosAbstract:This article evaluates the Obama administration's efforts towards reforming U.S. immigration detention policies. Over the past decade, immigrant rights advocates have increasingly criticized certain policies of the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) system of immigration detention, including the widespread use of private contractors, lack of proper oversight, grouping of violent criminals and non-violent undocumented immigrants (particularly minority women and children) in holding cells, and neglect of detained immigrants in need of medical attention. In reviewing these developments, I contend that the Obama administration must take substantive steps towards reforming the existing system, particularly by instituting legally enforceable standards with penalties for performance failures, moving away from privatization, and applying more effective rulemaking for better management and monitoring of U.S. detention facilities.
Omar Martinez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
TheImpactofLocalImmigrationEnforcementPolicies ontheHealthofImmigrantHispanics/Latinosinthe UnitedStates
2014Co-Authors: Scott D. Rhodes, Lilli Mann, Florence M. Simán, Jorge Alonzo, Mario Downs, Emma Lawlor, Omar Martinez, Christina J. Sun, Beth A. ReboussinAbstract:Federal immigration Enforcement policies have been increasingly delegated to state and local jurisdictions, leading to increased Enforcement activities by local police. This shift has resulted largely from the implementation of 2 federal initiatives: section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Secure Communities program. Section 287(g) authorizes Immigration and Custom Enforcement to enter into agreements with state and local law Enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law during their regular, daily law Enforcement activities. The original intention was to “target and remove undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering.” 1 Added to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1996, section 287(g) was not widely used in its first decade, but its use accelerated in the mid- to late 2000s. 2,3
-
Immigration Policy and Access to Health Services
Journal of immigrant and minority health, 2013Co-Authors: Omar MartinezAbstract:Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), added in 1996, authorizes the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) to enter into agreements with state and local law Enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law during their regular, daily law-Enforcement activity (www.ice.gov/287g). The original intent was to “target and remove undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering.” Nationally, over 72 jurisdictions have implemented section 287(g) agreements in 23 states. More than 1,240 active 287(g) officers have been trained and certified, and since 2006, federal funding to facilitate 287(g) agreements has increased dramatically every year, growing from $5 million allocated in 2006 to more than $68 million in 2010 [1]. The section 287(g) program is criticized for its unintended impact on individual rights and liberties. According to reports, local officials are misusing their authority to enforce federal immigration law given to them through the program, by focusing more on minor offenses (such as traffic violations) rather than serious crimes [2]. It also has been associated with ethnic profiling and discrimination in traffic stops and through the use of checkpoints in heavily Latino enclaves (Figure 1) [3]. The section 287(g) program is one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives with local authorities. However, unlike other U.S. ICE initiatives, which limit local law Enforcement immigration, Section 287(g) has a direct impact within communities. Local law-Enforcement agents, such as police officers, are deputized to enforce immigration laws in their jurisdiction and without regard to civil or criminal misbehavior or suspicion [4]. Figure 1 Police set up a checkpoint in front of Latino-owned grocery store. Winston-Salem, North Carolina, U.S. (2012) Little is known about how the 287(g) program has affected willingness to seek public health services among Latino immigrants. However, based on previous research on immigration policies and access to health services [5-7], there is legitimate concern that people who are potentially subject to 287(g) Enforcement, whether documented or undocumented, may refrain from seeking vital services, including medical, from any local government or private agency – even agencies unrelated to law Enforcement – for fear of exposing themselves or their family members to legal sanctions or harassment. Although funding increases may be leveling off in the future, some jurisdictions are still considering whether to adopt 287(g) programs. Furthermore, other jurisdictions that have adopted 287(g) are considering whether to drop their participation, based on a concern that the burdens and costs may outweigh the perceived benefits to the community or its leaders. Timely information about the 287(g) program’s impact on public health concerns could critically inform these ongoing community participation decisions. Documenting the experiences of the 287(g) program could help inform similar debates nationally regarding local Enforcement of federal immigration laws. Finally, a better understanding of whether and how immigration Enforcement affects ability to seeking public health services could help to mitigate public health harms under ongoing Enforcement programs.
Beth A. Reboussin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
TheImpactofLocalImmigrationEnforcementPolicies ontheHealthofImmigrantHispanics/Latinosinthe UnitedStates
2014Co-Authors: Scott D. Rhodes, Lilli Mann, Florence M. Simán, Jorge Alonzo, Mario Downs, Emma Lawlor, Omar Martinez, Christina J. Sun, Beth A. ReboussinAbstract:Federal immigration Enforcement policies have been increasingly delegated to state and local jurisdictions, leading to increased Enforcement activities by local police. This shift has resulted largely from the implementation of 2 federal initiatives: section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Secure Communities program. Section 287(g) authorizes Immigration and Custom Enforcement to enter into agreements with state and local law Enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law during their regular, daily law Enforcement activities. The original intention was to “target and remove undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering.” 1 Added to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1996, section 287(g) was not widely used in its first decade, but its use accelerated in the mid- to late 2000s. 2,3
Brian Owsley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Spies in the Skies: Dirtboxes and Airplane Electronic Surveillance
Michigan Law Review First Impressions, 2015Co-Authors: Brian OwsleyAbstract:Electronic surveillance in the digital age is essentially a cat-and-mouse game between governmental agencies that are developing new techniques and technologies for surveillance, juxtaposed against privacy rights advocates who voice concerns about such technologies. In November 2014, there was a discovery of a new twist on a relatively old theme. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Marshals Service was running a surveillance program employing devices—dirtboxes—that gather all cell phone numbers in the surrounding area.1 Other federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, Immigration and Custom Enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security, are also documented to have used dirtboxes.2 These dirtboxes are manufactured by
Scott D. Rhodes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
TheImpactofLocalImmigrationEnforcementPolicies ontheHealthofImmigrantHispanics/Latinosinthe UnitedStates
2014Co-Authors: Scott D. Rhodes, Lilli Mann, Florence M. Simán, Jorge Alonzo, Mario Downs, Emma Lawlor, Omar Martinez, Christina J. Sun, Beth A. ReboussinAbstract:Federal immigration Enforcement policies have been increasingly delegated to state and local jurisdictions, leading to increased Enforcement activities by local police. This shift has resulted largely from the implementation of 2 federal initiatives: section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Secure Communities program. Section 287(g) authorizes Immigration and Custom Enforcement to enter into agreements with state and local law Enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law during their regular, daily law Enforcement activities. The original intention was to “target and remove undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering.” 1 Added to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1996, section 287(g) was not widely used in its first decade, but its use accelerated in the mid- to late 2000s. 2,3
