解除羁绊:免于审前移民拘留的欺骗性承诺

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
D. Gilman
{"title":"解除羁绊:免于审前移民拘留的欺骗性承诺","authors":"D. Gilman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2737416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Each year, the United States government detains more than 60,000 migrants who are eligible for release during immigration court proceedings that will determine their right to stay in the United States. Detention or release should be adjudicated through custody determination, or bond, proceedings focused on the question of whether a migrant poses a flight risk or danger to the community. Yet, because the proceedings skip the critical inquiry into the need for detention before setting monetary bond requirements for release that are difficult to fulfill, freedom remains elusive.Custody determination proceedings are a cornerstone in the U.S. immigration detention edifice but have received scarce attention. Furthermore, the public debate on mass incarceration, which could meaningfully inform the discussion, generally ignores the reality of expansive immigration detention, including for pre-trial detainees who might be released. This Article takes up the task of critiquing the role and functioning of immigration custody determination proceedings, in part by joining together the conversations taking place in the immigration and criminal pre-trial realms. In this Article, I assert that immigration custody determination proceedings fail to preserve and protect the constitutional presumption of liberty applicable to all persons facing detention without a criminal conviction. The proceedings result in automatic detention without meaningful individualized consideration or review. Furthermore, they adopt elements from the criminal pre-trial system that are ill-suited to the immigration setting while failing to incorporate lessons learned in the criminal justice setting. Important considerations in the criminal justice context, such as the inadvisability of emphasizing monetary bond, do not make their way into immigration custody determination proceedings, with negative results for liberty. Given these realities, the Article both proposes normative changes to immigration custody determination proceedings and calls for additional research in order to rationalize the process. These reforms would realign the system with the limited purposes of immigration detention in order to protect liberty and avoid the significant human and societal costs associated with detaining individuals who might safely be released.","PeriodicalId":46974,"journal":{"name":"Indiana Law Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Loose the Bonds: The Deceptive Promise of Freedom from Pre-Trial Immigration Detention\",\"authors\":\"D. Gilman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2737416\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Each year, the United States government detains more than 60,000 migrants who are eligible for release during immigration court proceedings that will determine their right to stay in the United States. Detention or release should be adjudicated through custody determination, or bond, proceedings focused on the question of whether a migrant poses a flight risk or danger to the community. Yet, because the proceedings skip the critical inquiry into the need for detention before setting monetary bond requirements for release that are difficult to fulfill, freedom remains elusive.Custody determination proceedings are a cornerstone in the U.S. immigration detention edifice but have received scarce attention. Furthermore, the public debate on mass incarceration, which could meaningfully inform the discussion, generally ignores the reality of expansive immigration detention, including for pre-trial detainees who might be released. This Article takes up the task of critiquing the role and functioning of immigration custody determination proceedings, in part by joining together the conversations taking place in the immigration and criminal pre-trial realms. In this Article, I assert that immigration custody determination proceedings fail to preserve and protect the constitutional presumption of liberty applicable to all persons facing detention without a criminal conviction. The proceedings result in automatic detention without meaningful individualized consideration or review. Furthermore, they adopt elements from the criminal pre-trial system that are ill-suited to the immigration setting while failing to incorporate lessons learned in the criminal justice setting. Important considerations in the criminal justice context, such as the inadvisability of emphasizing monetary bond, do not make their way into immigration custody determination proceedings, with negative results for liberty. Given these realities, the Article both proposes normative changes to immigration custody determination proceedings and calls for additional research in order to rationalize the process. These reforms would realign the system with the limited purposes of immigration detention in order to protect liberty and avoid the significant human and societal costs associated with detaining individuals who might safely be released.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indiana Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indiana Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2737416\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2737416","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

每年,美国政府都会拘留6万多名有资格在移民法庭程序中获释的移民,这些程序将决定他们是否有权留在美国。拘留或释放应通过拘留裁定或保释金裁决,诉讼的重点是移民是否有潜逃风险或对社区构成危险。然而,由于诉讼程序跳过了对拘留必要性的关键调查,然后才设定了难以实现的释放货币保释金要求,因此释放仍然难以实现。拘留裁定程序是美国移民拘留体系的基石,但很少受到关注。此外,关于大规模监禁的公开辩论可以为讨论提供有意义的信息,但通常忽略了广泛拘留移民的现实,包括可能被释放的审前被拘留者。本文通过将移民和刑事审前领域的对话结合在一起,承担了对移民拘留确定程序的作用和功能进行批评的任务。在这条中,我断言,移民拘留裁定程序未能维护和保护宪法关于自由的推定,这一推定适用于所有未被刑事定罪而面临拘留的人。诉讼程序导致自动拘留,而没有进行有意义的个别审议或审查。此外,它们采用了刑事审前制度中不适合移民环境的因素,同时未能将在刑事司法环境中吸取的经验教训纳入其中。刑事司法方面的重要考虑因素,例如强调货币担保的不可取性,没有纳入移民拘留确定程序,对自由产生负面影响。鉴于这些现实情况,该条既建议对移民拘留确定程序进行规范修改,又呼吁进行进一步研究,以使该程序合理化。这些改革将使这一制度与移民拘留的有限目的结合起来,以便保护自由,避免因拘留可能安全获释的个人而付出的重大人力和社会代价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To Loose the Bonds: The Deceptive Promise of Freedom from Pre-Trial Immigration Detention
Each year, the United States government detains more than 60,000 migrants who are eligible for release during immigration court proceedings that will determine their right to stay in the United States. Detention or release should be adjudicated through custody determination, or bond, proceedings focused on the question of whether a migrant poses a flight risk or danger to the community. Yet, because the proceedings skip the critical inquiry into the need for detention before setting monetary bond requirements for release that are difficult to fulfill, freedom remains elusive.Custody determination proceedings are a cornerstone in the U.S. immigration detention edifice but have received scarce attention. Furthermore, the public debate on mass incarceration, which could meaningfully inform the discussion, generally ignores the reality of expansive immigration detention, including for pre-trial detainees who might be released. This Article takes up the task of critiquing the role and functioning of immigration custody determination proceedings, in part by joining together the conversations taking place in the immigration and criminal pre-trial realms. In this Article, I assert that immigration custody determination proceedings fail to preserve and protect the constitutional presumption of liberty applicable to all persons facing detention without a criminal conviction. The proceedings result in automatic detention without meaningful individualized consideration or review. Furthermore, they adopt elements from the criminal pre-trial system that are ill-suited to the immigration setting while failing to incorporate lessons learned in the criminal justice setting. Important considerations in the criminal justice context, such as the inadvisability of emphasizing monetary bond, do not make their way into immigration custody determination proceedings, with negative results for liberty. Given these realities, the Article both proposes normative changes to immigration custody determination proceedings and calls for additional research in order to rationalize the process. These reforms would realign the system with the limited purposes of immigration detention in order to protect liberty and avoid the significant human and societal costs associated with detaining individuals who might safely be released.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1925, the Indiana Law Journal is a general-interest academic legal journal. The Indiana Law Journal is published quarterly by students of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law — Bloomington. The opportunity to become a member of the Journal is available to all students at the end of their first-year. Members are selected in one of two ways. First, students in the top of their class academically are automatically invited to become members. Second, a blind-graded writing competition is held to fill the remaining slots. This competition tests students" Bluebook skills and legal writing ability. Overall, approximately thirty-five offers are extended each year. Candidates who accept their offers make a two-year commitment to the Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信