NCJ Number
186641
Journal
Boston College Law Review Volume: 41 Issue: 4 Dated: July 2000 Pages: 771-788
Date Published
2000
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This dialogue between the author and a critic explores arguments for and against the current system for deportation of lawful permanent resident noncitizens due to prior criminal conduct, with emphasis on the idea, rooted in history, that deportation is an unconstitutional punishment for criminal offenses.
Abstract
Recent changes in immigration law have resulted in a large increase in the number of lawful permanent resident noncitizens deported due to prior criminal conduct. Deportation now is often a virtually automatic consequence of conviction for an increasingly minor array of crimes. Current statutory law allows permanent resident noncitizens to be deported for crimes that were not grounds for deportation when they were committed; no possibility may exist of mercy or humanitarian relief. The author argues that deportation as a punishment embodies a host of contestable assumptions about the meaning of permanent or other long-term residence in the United States. It also seems strongly to undermine family unity and stability in the service of law enforcement goals. This approach is also inconsistent with proportionality. In addition, the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel does not exist in deportation proceedings and is generally not required as a matter of due process. The critic argues that the most basic justification for the laws was that Congress wanted to maintain credibility and legitimacy by crafting deportation systems that were tough and efficient to maintain respect for the rule of law. The author concludes that it is wrong to deprive people of the right to counsel or subject them to retroactive sanctions or incarceration without the right to bail due to fear of some abstract symbolic consequence that might flow from recognizing the reality of what is being done to them. Footnotes