Abolishing ICE
Hayley, Undergraduate Student (UM-Dearborn) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was formed as part of post-September 11th, 2001 legislation. ICE falls under the Department of Homeland Security and initially focused on combatting terrorism and human and drug trafficking. However, ICE is now synonymous with immigration raids, home invasions, and the tearing apart of families that have lived in the United States for decades. The fact that ICE is blanketed under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implies that immigrants should be viewed as a threat to national security. We cannot turn a blind eye to how ICE has terrorized and continues to terrorize undocumented immigrants. In order to prevent ICE from preying on vulnerable undocumented immigrants, we must abolish ICE. We are familiar with the heartbreaking stories and the startling images of migrant children being detained and separated from their parents. In regard to this issue, the Indivisible Project’s policy director, Angela Padilla stated that, “ICE is terrorizing American communities right now. They’re going into schools, entering hospitals, conducting massive raids, and separating children from parents every day” (McElwee, 2018). As of mid-June 2018, the federal government was responsible for separating and detaining more than 2,000 children, housing them in cages in temporary facilities that were set up along the border. Children were detained at the border longer than the 72 hours allowed by law, and then proceeded to transfer the children to the Department of Health and Human Services, which kept then housed the children away from their parents in ‘tent cities.’ While children are separated from their families, they are detained in overcrowded facilities that fail to meet basic health and safety standards. This includes children being detained in cells with only enough room to stand, children are given inadequate amounts of food and water, and are denied hygienic products like soap and water. Along with this, children are often left to care for themselves and other children due to the fact that adult supervision was absent in many cases. It is worth noting that the separation of children from their families was intentionally planned as United States Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, stated while serving as United States Attorney General that, “If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law” (American Oversight, 2020). ICE cannot continue to treat undocumented immigrants this way. One solution to this problem is to abolish ICE. It is inhumane and cruel to mass terrorize, detain, and deport, people for committing the civil violation, not a criminal act, of living in the United States without having documentation. Along with this, ICE has transformed into an agency that focuses on deporting immigrants rather than focusing on terrorism and trafficking like it was intended to. New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, wrote that, “I believe we need to protect families who need help, and ICE isn’t doing that. It has become a deportation force. We need to separate immigration issues and criminal justice. We need to abolish ICE, start over and build something that actually works.” Abolishing ICE has gained a lot of traction among different immigrant-rights groups that were disturbed by the Trump administration’s harsh deportation process. Several immigration-rights groups including the Indivisible Project and the Center for Popular Democracy have called for the defunding of ICE. Along with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, there are a number of other politicians including United States Representatives like, Mark Pocan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Senator Elizabeth Warren who have all been vocal supporters of abolishing ICE. The abolishment of ICE will eliminate the President’s ability to use an unchecked power to conduct raids with the sole intention of deporting undocumented immigrants. With the abolishment of ICE, there are well-equipped agencies like the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that will continue to investigate issues like gang violence, organized crime, drug trafficking, and human trafficking. While we should have secure borders that protect the United States from threats to our safety and security, it is shameful to direct and allow ICE to prey upon families who have likely come to the United States because they were in imminent danger. There is no reason to detain and separate children from their families, nor is there a reason from detaining undocumented immigrants in unsafe conditions. There needs to be a way to foster a humane immigration system that doesn’t imprison people with no criminal record, and that treats every person with respect. References:
0 Comments
Detaining Immigrants for Profit
Domanik, Undergraduate Student (UM-Dearborn) Here in the United States we have a problem. This problem is known as the prison industrial complex, or the accelerated use of incarceration and exponential increase of our U.S prison population. With the recent increase in legislation targeting immigration in our government, mass incarceration has also been the main solution to dealing with undocumented immigrants. Detention centers and jails have been piling up as they hold suspected illegal immigrants there to wait for trial and often deportation. The current system of incarceration is overall an inefficient and poor solution to the complex issue of immigration and needs reform. Not only is it harmful to the individuals who have to be detained in several ways, but it is also not cost effective and leads to poorly made facilities. Diving a bit deeper into the issue, one thing that contributes to the overall poor quality of these detention centers is the privatization of detainment facilities across the country. Privatization has been happening in the criminal justice system for quite a while, in terms of incarceration. Private companies end up creating a contract with the government so they can run the facilities. This creates multiple down sides. The main downside is that most private companies first priority is to make money. This leaves facilities hiring poorly trained staff, having insufficient resources, and poor access to health care in order to maximize profit. Another reason why incarceration of immigrants in detention centers is an inappropriate solution is the psychosocial and other harmful effects they can have on the occupants. Incarceration in general carries with it more of a chance for the development of substance abuse and mental health issues. The poor condition of the facilities as well as occasional abuse that goes on are definitely factors that do not help. Many immigrants who are coming to the U.S are even more at risk, because they have already experienced at least some form of trauma. This is due to the fact that many immigrants are women and children who are leaving their country of origin, because of violence. Drug induced violence, gang violence, and wars are some of the main reasons, all possible trauma inducing environments to be in. Overall, people agree that immigration policies need reform. What is not agreed upon is how to fix it. A solution to this complex problem is pretty hard to come up with considering there are so many directions one could go. For instance, if you are an individual who believes that detention centers are the best way to handle immigrants crossing the borders illegally then we must decide a better way to handle the detention of these immigrants. How do we fix the poor quality facilities? How do we make sure all of the right health resources are provided? Not being able to be around your family, especially those who come from collectivist cultures can be extremely stressing as well. A possible solution that was suggested by DeLaPerriere (2020) was electronic monitoring. This would allow immigrants to be home with their family while they are awaiting trial. This would also avoid the incriminating feeling of being locked up, especially considering that held in these detention centers are documented and undocumented individuals alike. It is also more cost effective and allows the immigrants to be in a better environment in general with access to basic human necessities. There is of course the argument that incarceration should not be something undocumented immigrants are subjected to at all. After all, crossing borders illegally is not an offense that technically should be able to be punished by incarceration. The violation is a simple civil infraction which is similar to a speeding ticket in terms of level of offense. A possible solution that goes down this road of logic could be creating a system in which undocumented immigrants caught will be on a parole of sorts were a parole officer keeps an eye on them for a certain amount of time to make sure that they are a contributing factor to our society. Meaning that they get a job, pay taxes, and do not get involved in crime. In this scenario proper resources could also be given to immigrants to help them better live life here in the U.S. This could be community centers that focus on teaching english, basic career skills, or help provide short term financial assistance. The solutions offered here are only two of possible thousands that could be created. Of course some are better than others and even then we must somewhat agree on a solution which will be hard given how subjective the situation of immigration can be. What is certain, however, is that in order to make any improvements in this issue in our criminal justice system we must work together as a nation. After all this is a national problem. It will be difficult to agree on what to do, but something needs to be done. Immigrants here in the U.S. are people too and deserve better treatment then what they are currently being given. Our own indecisiveness on what to do on this topic is not only hurting the immigrants who want asylum and a better life for them and their families, but Americans who are often caught up in the crossfire that this situation causes. References
Xenophobia and Discriminatory Immigration Policy
Mariam, Undergraduate Student (UM-Dearborn) The United States is a country that was built on the backs of hard working immigrants. Despite this, the US has a long history of xenophobia, or the fear or hatred of immigrants. Early American xenophobia directed towards the Irish immigrants, who were targeted by an anti-Catholic immigrant party that described Irish families as enemies to the country’s democracy. Next came Chinese immigrants, whom the governor of California blamed for social and economic problems plaguing the state in 1876. Later, the Chinese Exclusion Act made Chinese immigration to the US nearly impossible for 61 years. In response to Italians and Europeans from certain regions migrating to America, discriminatory national origin quotas were established in the 1890s to prevent a greater influx of their arrival. Xenophobic rhetoric wrongly spurs on the idea that immigrants are a threat to the citizens of a country, which drives the fear of the citizens and evokes certain actions by both ordinary citizens, politicians, and government authorities. Xenophobia is dangerous because it can drive violence against a group of foreigners, as well as discriminatory immigration policies that negatively affect the lives of immigrants. Policies that push for border closures, refusal of entry for refugees, and mass deportation have the effect of separating immigrant families and keeping them in harm's way. Recent immigration policies have been aimed at restricting specific groups of immigrants from the US. These groups are referred to as the “undesirable immigrants” and are feared or hated because of their foreign ethnicity, cultures and religion. For example, immigrants are collectively accused of being either criminals, drug traffickers, or terrorists in order to drive citizens’ fear and hatred against them. People use the negative stereotypes to attack immigrants and push legislators and federal governments to come up with restrictive immigration policies. More recently, executive orders targeting to block certain groups of immigrants, particularly from Mexico and some Muslim countries, have continued to embed xenophobia within the law. This may have the ability to affect how citizens perceive immigrants from those nations. One of the solutions to the problem of xenophobia is to reduce the negative stereotypes about immigrants in order for the citizens to perceive them as fellow human beings with dignity. When prominent politicians and the government repeatedly attacks an entire nationality or country by labelling them as criminals, citizens will follow suit and attack or discriminate against the foreigners. Additionally, scholars argue that discrimination is perpetrated by an “unjust system of laws and policies” which can be changed to have policies that eliminate discrimination (Pacock and Chan 2018). The media, including social media, also plays a major role in spreading misinformation and discriminatory rhetoric about certain groups of people which plays a role in shaping public discourse. Following the 9/11 attacks, American media was filled with discriminatory rhetoric that accompanied the “war on terror” campaign directly, which increased prejudiced attitudes towards migrants, and international xenophobia (Pacock and Chan 2018). The media can therefore play a critical role in changing the narrative about immigrants and therefore be used to combat negative stereotypes. Ultimately, there is a long history of xenophobia in the US, which is a current and key immigration problem. The fear and hatred of foreigners in the US has been perpetrated by unjust laws and policies that pitch “native” Americans against immigrants from foreign nations. Xenophobia falsely creates the notion that immigrants are dangerous and a threat to the security and welfare of nationals, which drives fear and evokes discriminatory actions against them. These immigrants from the “undesirable” countries such as Mexico and Muslim countries are linked with crimes and other social vices so that they can be unfairly targeted and removed from a nation that supposedly prides itself in being a melting pot of all cultures and religions. References: 1. Anderson-Nathe, Ben, and Kiaras Gharabaghi. 2017. “Trending rightward: Nationalism, xenophobia, and the 2016 politics of fear.” Child & Youth Services 38(1):1–3. 2. Lee, Erika. 2019. “Trump’s xenophobia is an American tradition — but it doesn’t have to be.” Washington Post. 3. Pacock, Nicola, and Clara Chan. 2018. “Refugees, Racism and Xenophobia: What works to reduce discrimination? - Our World.” Our World . Retrieved February 8, 2021 (https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/refugees-racism-and-xenophobia-what-works-to-reduce-discrimination). There Is No Justice in Detention
Waad, Undergraduate Student (UM-Dearborn) Migrant detention centers are keeping humans in “cages” and forcing them to live in inhumane conditions in a country that is supposed to provide relief and opportunity. Although some of those migrants may have come to the United States “illegally,” most come seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Instead, most end up transported to detention centers. Many of these detention centers are overcrowded and understaffed. They are often unsanitary and lack adequate medical care. There have been outbreaks of the flu and other illnesses. Conditions and care, in some cases, are of a lesser quality than that of prisons and jails—all for those who have been convicted of no crime. Such conditions are not just reserved for adults. Under the Trump administration upwards of 4,000 children were separated from their parents at the border since. Many were not reunited with their parents for days, weeks, months, or even longer. The government must be held accountable. Strict rules and regulations requiring proper sanitation, proper living environments, and necessities must be enacted and enforced. No matter their status, if they are on American land, they must be treated as human. Litigation challenging existing policy and holds the government accountable for its wrongdoing is one of the first and most important steps in working towards a humane detention system. Officials who have allowed these heinous conditions to continue must be relieved from their positions, criminally prosecuted, or both. Moreover, the separation of families must be prohibited. The media also has an important role to play in addressing the injustices of detention. If more people are made aware, then more people will voice their anger and work towards pushing for a change. Immigration detention is cruel and inhumane and should not be allowed in a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all. References: 1. Anti-Defamation League, n.d. “Why Are Families Being Separated and Detained at the Border?” Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved February 9, 2021 (https://www.adl.org/education/educator-resources/lesson-plans/why-are-families-being-separated-and-detained-at-the). 2. American Oversight, 2021. “Conditions in Migrant Detention Centers.” American Oversight. Retrieved February 9, 2021 (https://www.americanoversight.org/investigation/conditions-in-migrant-detention-centers). 3. Sukin, Lauren. 2019. “The United States Treats Migrants Worse Than Prisoners of War.” Foreign Policy. Retrieved February 9, 2021 (https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/26/the-united-states-treats-migrants-worse-than-prisoners-of-war/). President Biden: Championing Immigration Reform?
Ibrahim, Graduate Student (UM-Dearborn) President Biden isn’t the almighty immigration reformer he claims to be, just look at his past record. President Biden needs to talk less and do more if he is truly going to change United States policies and opinions on immigration and enact reform. During the 2020 Presidential Debate, then candidate Joe Biden stated and I quote “To compare [Obama] to what this guy (Trump) is doing is close to immoral” (Boehm 2019). More than five million people were deported from the United States during Obama/Biden administration. In 2012, alone, 419,384 people were deported, holding as the record for most people deported in a single year. Compare that to former President Trump, who never deported more than 260,000 people in a single year. Many argue that those deported under the Obama/Biden administration were convicted criminals, whereas the Trump Administration used deportation indiscriminately. Some may claim that, for this reason, Trump’s deportations were worse. Still, deportation is deportation—as if one is actually better or different from the other. It remains to be seen how President Biden will distinguish this administration’s immigration policies from those of the Obama/Biden administration. His immigration record is not as progressive as some might think. Biden supported the 2012 pilot program called the Criminal Alien Removal Initiative, which allowed for individuals suspected of being immigrants to be detained, finger printed and if found to be undocumented arrested and deported. President Biden also supported President George W. Bush’s backed Secure Fence Act of 2006, which cost the tax payers $2.6 billion dollars. Ironically enough the Secure Fence Act is was somewhat similar to Trump’s Border Wall initiative. My point isn’t to argue who was or wasn’t the real “Deporter and Chief.” It is that, regardless of who you are or who is in office, our immigration policy is and will continue to be broken until we can come to a true consensus on what “we” all want. Politicians often tell the masses who support them what they want to hear. At the end of the day, we have at least one viable option: a clear, concise, expedited pathway to citizenship. If we can follow directions in order to put together a piece of furniture from Ikea, I think we can create a roadmap to citizenship. We have the means, the motivation and hopefully the technology to do this. So why can’t it be done? Immigration is personal for many. It is for me. My mother is Mexican and my father is Lebanese. My father immigrated here when he was in his mid 20’s, while my mother was born in the United States. However, at some point and time long before I was born, my mother’s family also immigrated to the United States. Immigration reform is not about politics—it is about people. When will the talking stop and the action start? References: 1. Boehm, Eric. “Actually, Joe Biden and the Obama Administration Deported More People Than Trump.” Reason.com, Reason, 28 June 2019, (reason.com/2019/06/27/actually-joe-biden-and-the-obama-administration-deported-more-people-than-trump/). 2. Budryk, Zack. “Deportations Lower under Trump Administration than Obama: Report.” TheHill, The Hill, 18 Nov. 2019, (thehill.com/latino/470900-deportations-lower-under-trump-than-obama-report). 3. K, Ranjini. “Barack Obama Deported More People in His First Term than Trump.” Partly True, 1 Sept. 2020, (www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/8930b4ea). Using Prevention Through Deterrence Funds to Create Jobs for Americans (Legal and Not) Lena, Undergraduate Student (UM-Dearborn) Prevention Through Deterrence has used 13.5 billion dollars a year to keep “illegal” migrants out since the nineties. But we still have triple the migrants living here since the implementation of the policy. Instead of wasting precious American dollars on a plan that isn’t working, let’s use PDT funds to create jobs for citizens and migrants already living in the U.S. For the low price of 13.5 billion dollars per year, the United States is successfully killing thousands of desperate migrants from Latin America. Despite countless economic hurdles, the United States has still managed prioritization for border security plans such as Prevention Through Deterrence (PDT), whose hefty price has still allowed eleven million unauthorized migrants to settle in the U.S. In response to Californians fed up with southern migrants sneaking into their state, PDT was created as the solution in 1994. Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) based the policy on small-scale projects that increased security around sections of the border. The success of the smaller operations led the INS to create the Prevention Through Deterrence policy to magnify border security around urban sectors of the border to detain and stop migrants from entering. For the many rural areas left unsecured on the border, Mother Nature played as large a role as the billions of dollars thrown at PDT. PDT relies on leaving only the rough natural terrains of the border unsecured by man because the U.S. believes the dangers of Mother Nature can convince migrants against crossing. PDT seems like a sound enough plan to throw billions of dollars at yearly to keep out migrants - except the policy hasn’t exactly done its job. With the fall of the Peso in the eighties, along with the many other economic problems in Mexico and Central America, migrants have become desperate enough to risk their lives to cross the dangerous terrains for economic security. Along the way, thousands have died and gone missing. What’s more, since the implementation of PDT, we have about eleven million migrants living in the U.S. Even worse than these migrants risking their lives is that after arrival, they are faced with horribly low-paying jobs that leave numerous unauthorized migrants in the “low-income” and “poor” category. Interestingly, a PewResearch poll revealed 21% of the U.S. population believe undocumented migrants take American jobs. What they don’t realize is that undocumented migrants actually take the jobs that Americans do not want - agricultural, construction, and manufacturing jobs - that Americans know pay too little for the labor required. So we all see the problem here, right? The United States is spending billions of dollars per year on a policy meant to keep undocumented migrants out. But instead, we have more undocumented migrants living here than before the implementation of the policy. As many migrants of Latin American origin are in need of finding jobs, they willingly cross dangerous terrains only to find low-wage positions, and a population hostile to their existence for taking these unwanted jobs. The billions of dollars PDT uses per year can be better allocated towards job creation in the United States. Instead of wasting American funds on ineffective border enforcement, the United States can take the yearly PDT funds to support meaningful job creation not only for the migrants already entering and living in the country, but also for American citizens. A win-win situation for both sides. For Americans hostile towards undocumented migrants “stealing” American jobs, utilizing PDT funds will supplement Americans with more job opportunities. Money will no longer be spent on a policy meant to keep out migrants who are coming in regardless. For migrants already living in the country and future migrants PDT is not stopping, the new jobs offer more opportunities. To pinpoint the exact cost of creating a job in the United States is difficult, but a blog post published by the World Bank estimates the average cost of creating a single job runs in the high tens-of-thousands range. With 13.5 billion dollars given to PDT per year, imagine how many jobs can be created, instead of supplying the funds toward an ineffective and inhumane policy. It’s time to prevent Prevention through Deterrence and its detrimental consequences. The United States needs to make better use of precious American resources supplying an unsuccessful policy and aim to use the money to provide jobs for everyone living here. References: 1. AJ+. 2 016. “Why Walls Won’t Secure the U.S.-Mexico Border.” YouTube . Retrieved August 25, 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch/Yh3fez9CyXg ). 2. Andreas, Peter. 2009. Border Games: Policing the U.S -Mexico Divide . 2nd ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 3. Fortuny, Karina, Randy Capps, Jeffrey S. Passel. 2007. “The Characteristics of Unauthorized Immigrants in California, Los Angeles, and the United States.” The Urban Institute, March. 4. Kielty, Matt, Bethel Habte, and Latif Nasser. 2018. “Border Patrol Trilogy.” Radiolab. 5. Robalino, David. 2018. “How Much Does It Cost to Create a Job?” World Bank Blogs. Retrieved February 12, 2021 (https://blogs.worldbank.org/jobs/how-much-does-it-cost-create-job). Undocumented Migration Project. 6. “Background” Retrieved Feb 11. 2021 (https://www.undocumentedmigrationproject.org/background). Asylum or Trespassing?
Victoria, Graduate Student (UM-Dearborn) For years individuals of all nationalities were able to come to the U.S border and seek asylum in hopes for a better life. Under the previous administration, however, the immigration system went left. Through executive orders, rule changes, and hiring, President Trump promoted immigration policies and practices that, among other things, excluded immigrants based on country of origin (e.g. the “Muslim Ban”), reduced refugee quotas, and increased roadblocks to legal immigration. In particular, the Trump administration dramatically altered U.S asylum policy and practice. As Sarah Pierce stresses, “the Trump administration waged an attack on the asylum system, rolling out a series of policies that effectively cut off access to asylum at the southern US border.” It should not be a hard process to enter into another county and seek asylum. Many around the world would do almost anything to live in the United States, desperate to escape the violence in their own country. Yet, not everyone has money to pay for a passport or visa to access another country—and that’s even if one meets entrance eligibility requirements. Migrants often travel thousands of miles to seek asylum in the United States just to be turned away with what seems like a total lack of consideration for the lives they have left behind and the pain that they have endured. The Border Patrol needs to be retrained on dealing with asylum seekers in a more humane way. As Doris Meissner points out, “The new reality is flows across the Southwest border that have changed from primarily Mexican young men seeking economic opportunity to more complex, mixed flows of predominantly Central Americans, especially families. Some are escaping poverty; others seek protection from violence that may make them eligible for asylum.” Individuals seeking asylum should not be treated like criminals, thrown in cages or forced into facilities that are overpacked to the point where people are forced to sleep on the floor because there are not enough beds. Asylum seekers should not be denied the opportunity to seek relief or be deported because there is “no room for them,” because there is room for anyone to live in this country. The United States should support safe and legal immigration policies that strengthen migrants’ ability to seek asylum. References: 1. Karas, T. and Campbell, M. 10 US immigration issues to watch in 2020. https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01-03/10-us-immigration-issues-watch-2020 Accessed 13 February 2021. Published 03 January 2020. 2. Meissner, Doris. Asylum Reform, Not Troops, Is the Solution to Current Border Reality . https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/asylum-reform-not-troops-solution-current-border -reality . Accessed 13 February 2021. Published November 2018. Us vs. Them: Criminalizing Immigrants
Anonymous, Undergraduate Student (UM-Dearborn) Is it surprising that there are laws in place to specifically govern the behavior and participation of immigrants in US society? Probably not. However, it may come as a surprise to learn that while being in the U.S illegally is not a crime in itself, many local, state, and federal laws criminalize immigrants. This leads to the increased policing of immigrant communities and the increased politicization of immigrant lives. The only solution to the problem is to change the policies and regulations. As Ackerman and Furman (2014) explain, “The criminalization of immigration and political strategies thus serve as a pacification strategy that not only deflects attention from the real source of economic or social problems, but it also labels immigrants as an economic and social threat.” Immigration is a federal matter, but states and local jurisdictions have passed a number of anti-immigrant laws over the years that severely limit immigrants’ ability to participate in everyday life. The separation of “us” and “them” is contributing to a deep divide in America. We are all human beings in the end. Why is the United States so mean to immigrants when this country is built on immigrants' backs? They made this country. Why are immigrants looked at as a threat is a real question? While not wanting to allow a large number of immigrants into the country at a time may be an understandable concern, why deport someone to a country they may not even know just because they don't have the proper paperwork? Especially when getting that paperwork (i.e. visas, green cards, naturalization) takes a long time as it is. While changing federal immigration policy may be challenging, the decriminalization of immigrants at the state and local level—including the elimination of discriminatory anti-immigrant policies—is a step in the right direction. References: 1. Ackerman, Alissa R., and Rich Furman. 2014. The Criminalization of Immigration: Contexts and Consequences. NC: Carolina Academic Press. Photo by Marten Bjork on Unsplash Reforming Carceral Education
"You must understand, my dear: On the stroke of twelve, the spell will be broken and everything will be as it was before" Audrea Dakho, M.S. in Criminology & Criminal Justice (UM-Dearborn '20) Criminal justice has often been described as a pendulum; the back-and-forth swing, teetering between humanistic-centered approaches of rehabilitation to zero tolerance styles of punitive punishment. Recently, proponents of criminal justice reform have gained tremendous momentum with numerous legislative decisions aimed at combating the ghastly beast of we currently refer to as the "Prison Industrial Complex." Advocates of reform have gnashed through the barbed wires of draconian intolerance in the form of "Clean Slate" packages, removal of “check the box” criminal history exclusions, and even decriminalization of marijuana. One of the most stunning consequences of this enthusiastic and unapologetic movement has been the reinstatement of Pell Grant eligibility to currently incarcerated individuals. In 1994, current President and then-senator Joe Biden authored the catastrophic Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which ultimately cast a lethal blow to any incarcerated individual hoping to obtain a college degree. Nearly twenty-six years after this bill was signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton, congress passed legislation allowing for the reinstatement of Pell Grants to currently incarcerated hopefuls after promising results from the Second Chance Pell Grant Pilot Study in 2015. Although this is a significant feat in the eyes of many who push for restoring human dignity and compassion to those tucked away in federal and state correctional facilities, we must remember, as unfortunate as it may be, that we are simply bidding time until the next wave of merciless and capricious punishments geared at marginalized populations regain their hold. In order to escape this cycle, we need to take a serious look at how education is currently being offered in carceral spaces. Because of the Pell pilot initiative, many colleges and universities were given the opportunity to explore the dire needs of those currently incarcerated. Although there are a multitude of complications that bar students from success--like arbitrary admissions requirements, accessibility, the constant restructuring of course content tailored to adult-style learners, and the dire need for flexibility--much can be done to improve these hardships. To begin, expanding Pell Grant access beyond those who are five years or less from their release dates could cause an entire shift in the entire ecosystem inside of prison walls. Were more incarcerated individuals afforded the opportunity to pursue a higher education, they could influence the culture within the prison and even serve as tutors to those incoming students or, frankly, anyone incarcerated aspiring to expand their intellectual capabilities. Even more, introducing more tenured and seasoned professors within carceral spaces instead of a heavy reliance on often underpaid and overworked lecturers and graduate students would not only expand the comprehension of the students, but also diversify the perceptions of these professors on how to more effectively teach complex material. Unfortunately, none of this can comfortably take place without involvement from all stakeholders, including the Department of Corrections (DOC). Because of the finicky and obscure protocols of DOCs, many colleges and universities are left to the whim of a colossal machine who ultimately slaps the label of “security threat” as a justification for denying various aspects of these postsecondary programs. Animosity from correctional staff adds to the difficulties of the process--sometimes professors are not even allowed into the facility to teach for the day. Most faculty do not dare speak out against the inconsistent and erratic protocols that seemingly change from hour to hour out of fear that any complaint may damage--or even shut down--a program. Building honest bridges between correctional facilities and colleges and universities must also include those incarcerated students. These programs cannot run smoothly if there is no trust between the three. Most importantly, however, is the need for comprehensive re-entry services upon release. Recidivism rates seem to be valued above all else when it comes to assessing the efficacy of a given correctional program. Wrap-around services to see individuals through upon reentering society could safeguard against critics who believe postsecondary education does little to assist those who will one day return to society. With over 1.5 million individuals incarcerated within state and federal correctional facilities, there is a drastic need to reexamine what is and is not working. Higher education in prison cannot exist in a vacuum, but instead must be looked at in a holistic fashion to understand how these issues are not unrelated, singular events. Addressing the gargantuan challenges of systemic racism, classism, and capitalism are at the forefront of criminal justice reform. If we do not address the larger issues at hand, we are ultimately only slapping a band-aid on a stab wound and hoping for the best. We do not have much time before the pendulum swings, the clock strikes twelve, and the infection of moral panic catapults us back to tough on crime policies that strip away human decency. Improvements must be made now in order to assure that postsecondary education in prison remains wholly intact for the long haul. The time to act is now. References: 1. Acaroglu, L. (2016, August 2). Problem Solving Desperately Needs Systems Thinking. Retrieved from https://medium.com/disruptive-design/problem-solving-desperately needs-systems-thinking-607d34e4fc80 2. Harris, J. (1994). 1032. Sentencing Enhancement-"Three Strikes" Law. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1032-sentencing-enhancement three-strikes-law 3. Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2020, March 24). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2020. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html Stuntz, W. J. (2013). The collapse of American criminal justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 4. United States Department of Education. Federal Pell Grants. (2019, July 01). Retrieved from https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/types/grants-scholarships/pell Photo by Andrew Schultz on Unsplash Is the Asylum Bar Too High?
Ali, Undergraduate Student (UM-Dearborn) Over the past decade there has been an alliance forming between immigration and criminal law. However, this binding of alliances suggests that the criminalization of immigration is becoming a prevalent practice now more than ever. Immigration law cannot exist without interfering with criminal law because immigrants are required to comply with the law or they risk deportation. This basically means that any crime committed by an immigrant risks their immigration status of being jeopardized as well. The issue I would like to bring to light here is the fact that immigrants are pushed into a vulnerable position of facing deportation. This is very important and needs to be addressed because innocent immigrants who adhere to the law could still be criminalized by government officials and law enforcement. To give a perspective of how widespread this problem is, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested about 143,000 aliens and removed more than 167,000 in 2019” (Appel & Morse 2020). Each year, the U.S. asylum system offers protection to thousands of persecuted individuals. However, in addition to the zero-tolerance policy that generated family separation, other measures taken by the Trump administration have narrowed the criteria for asylum eligibility. Ultimately, immigrants who have a visa, non-immigrant visa or green card, and/or are in the process of seeking citizenship through naturalization must be extremely cautious as to not step out of line with the criminal justice system. One immediate and effective solution to this problem would be to start with the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS could equip the asylum system with the means to do its work effectively by changing how the asylum processing takes place at the U.S/Mexico border. Asylum officers could conduct a screening interview to determine if an applicant has a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum. Those who pass the interview shall then be allowed to enter into the United States where they can apply for asylum before an immigration judge. This would lessen the chances of innocent immigrants risking their status by making some kind of mistake with the criminal justice system. Immigrants would be more successful in establishing their desired status in the U.S. if they properly follow the process of the criteria given by the asylum system. As far as a long term solution goes, the U.S. should help Central America by fostering a more stable economic system. As Meissner and Pierce (2019) summarize, “Until Central Americans can experience political stability and citizen security in their home countries, political turmoil, gang violence, corruption, increased climate, agricultural challenges, and weak economies will drive people to seek better life prospects. Migration is one of the answers to which they will invariably turn.” These solutions are definitely easier said than done. But in order to help immigrants from wounding up in a vulnerable position of being deported there must be a concrete foundation that is willing to protect them and hear them out before denying them and sending them on their way. References: 1. Doris Meissner, Sarah Pierce. 2019. “Policy Solutions to Address Crisis at Border Exist, But Require Will and Staying Power to Execute.” Migrationpolicy.org. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/policy-solutions-address-crisis-border-exist-require-will-staying-power 2. Morse, Appel. 2020. “What Is Crimmigration?” Appel & Morse. https://www.appelmorse.com/blog/2020/june/what-is-crimmigration-/ |
Details
About
CrimBytes is a space for student musings on crime, media, and culture. ArchivesCategories |