Immigration Lawbreaking: Understanding The Severity Of Us Consequences

The US has strict immigration laws, and the consequences of breaking them can be severe. Under the Trump administration, there was a crackdown on immigration, with the arrest of over 8,000 immigrants by federal agents. The Biden-Harris Administration was also criticized for abusing the humanitarian parole program and allowing 1.5 million migrants to enter the country. The current administration has revoked these policies and empowered law enforcement to protect Americans and enforce immigration laws. Breaking immigration laws can result in detention, deportation, and even criminal charges. For example, the Laken Riley Act eliminates due process for immigrants, including those who have been living and working legally in the US for years, and mandates indefinite detention for those accused of low-level crimes. The severity of the consequences for breaking immigration laws in the US varies depending on the specific circumstances and the discretion of the immigration officers.

Detention and deportation of non-citizens who pose no public safety risk

The US government has been criticised for its treatment of non-citizens who pose no public safety risk. The Laken Riley Act, for example, has been described as "misguided" by the American Immigration Council, who argue that the legislation "forces immigration officers to indefinitely detain and deport non-citizens who pose no public safety risk, without access to basic due process".

The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for enforcing immigration laws within the interior of the US to preserve national security and public safety. ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers manage all aspects of the immigration enforcement process, including the identification, arrest, detention and removal of non-citizens who are subject to removal or are unlawfully present in the US.

ERO officers prioritize their enforcement actions based on agency and department priorities, funding and capacity. They have the authority to arrest non-citizens who may present threats to national security or public safety, or who have broken US immigration laws. This includes people who have overstayed their visas or re-entered the US after deportation.

After a non-citizen is detained, they may go before a judge in immigration court during the deportation (removal) process. In some cases, a non-citizen may be subject to expedited removal without being able to attend a hearing. If a judge rules that deportation should proceed, ICE carries out the removal order.

ICE detains individuals as necessary, including to secure their presence for immigration proceedings and removal from the US. Officials make custody determinations on an individual basis, taking into account the person's immigration history, criminal record, family ties, and whether they may be a flight risk.

ICE also offers alternatives to detention, such as the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, which uses technology and case management to monitor cases where detention is not necessary or appropriate.

The use of monitoring programs for migrants

The US immigration system is a complex network of visas, humanitarian relief, pathways to permanent residency, and citizenship, as well as temporary status for people facing specific crises in their home countries. US immigration law is based on the following principles: the reunification of families, admitting immigrants with skills that are valuable to the US economy, humanitarian protections, and promoting diversity.

The law governing US immigration policy is called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The INA allows the United States to grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across various visa categories. The INA also sets no limit on the annual admission of US citizens' spouses, parents, and children under 21. In addition, each year, the president is required to consult with Congress and set an annual number of refugees to be admitted to the United States through the US Refugee Admissions Program.

Another example of a monitoring program for migrants is the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in partnership with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The SSP provides financial support to non-federal entities that provide humanitarian services and sheltering to noncitizen migrants following their release from short-term holding facilities. The program aims to support the safe, orderly, and humane release of migrants.

The US government also utilizes various surveillance technologies and databases to monitor migrants. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operates a biometric database known as the Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), which stores biometric data, including fingerprints, photographs, and other personal information of individuals encountered by immigration authorities. This system is used to identify and track individuals, including those who may have overstayed their visas or have prior deportation orders.

Additionally, the US government has been known to employ electronic monitoring devices, such as ankle bracelets, to track and monitor the whereabouts of certain migrants, especially those awaiting immigration hearings or facing deportation proceedings. These devices are typically used as an alternative to detention, allowing individuals to remain in the community while ensuring their compliance with release conditions.

The impact of immigration laws on children

Immigration laws in the US have a significant impact on children, especially those with undocumented parents or family members. There are an estimated 4.4 million US-citizen children under the age of 18 who live with at least one undocumented parent, and 6.1 million who live with an undocumented family member. These children are vulnerable to the consequences of immigration enforcement actions, including parental detention and deportation, which can have long-lasting effects on their physical, emotional, and economic well-being.

Immigration enforcement actions can lead to family separation, with children being left without their parents or caregivers. This separation can cause severe psychological distress in children, resulting in anxiety, loss of appetite, sleep disturbances, withdrawal, aggressive behaviour, and a decline in educational achievement. Research suggests that the longer the separation lasts, the more pronounced these symptoms become. In some cases, children may end up in the child welfare system if their parents are unable to make alternative care arrangements before detention or deportation.

The threat of immigration enforcement actions can also negatively impact a child's health and development. Children may experience toxic stress when facing the sudden separation from their parents, which can have negative consequences for their brain development. They are also at a higher risk of developing chronic mental health conditions, such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as physical health issues such as cancer, stroke, diabetes, and heart disease.

Additionally, immigration enforcement can disrupt children's education. Large-scale raids by immigration authorities can lead to increased student absences and a decline in academic performance. Communities with local law enforcement agencies that collaborate with immigration authorities may experience a significant displacement of Hispanic students as families choose to leave or avoid moving to those areas.

The detention or deportation of a parent or primary provider can also result in economic instability for children and their families. Loss of income due to a parent's immigration-related arrest, detention, or deportation can lead to financial hardships, housing instability, and an increased risk of poverty for US-citizen children.

In conclusion, while US immigration laws aim to protect national security and public safety, they can have far-reaching consequences for children, including emotional, developmental, educational, and economic impacts. It is crucial to consider the best interests of the child and prioritize family unification when enforcing and reforming immigration policies.

The role of federal court orders in forbidding indefinite detention

The US Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of excessive bail without creating a right to bail in criminal cases. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires that laws imposing pretrial detention serve a compelling governmental interest.

In the US, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. Section 412 of the Patriot Act permits indefinite detention of immigrants. One of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla, whose ultimate prosecution and conviction have been highly controversial.

The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch. On November 29, 2011, the US Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the US government of its own citizens. This led to criticism that the right of habeas corpus had been undermined.

The House of Representatives and the Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011, and President Barack Obama signed it on December 31, 2011. The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."

On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf, and others, US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention section of the law likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. She issued a preliminary injunction preventing the US government from enforcing it.

In September 2012, the Obama administration called on the federal appeals court to reverse the "dangerous" ruling of the lower court, supporting the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and arguing that the rule was so vague that it could be used against US citizens and journalists. On July 17, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down the injunction against indefinite detention of US citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

In 2013, the House of Representatives and the Senate reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act after amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US citizens were defeated in both chambers. On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.

In addition to the above, a bill passed by the House in January 2025 eliminates due process for many immigrants, including some who have been living and working legally in the US for years. Under this law, they would be placed in indefinite detention if accused—not convicted—of low-level crimes like shoplifting.

The bill also mandates automatic detention for undocumented people and other non-citizens accused of low-level crimes, forcing federal agencies to divert resources away from enforcing immigration law against non-citizens who may pose a more serious threat. It places immense power in the hands of states to dictate federal immigration policy by allowing them to sue the federal government to force specific action, which could lead to alarming scenarios in which an individual federal court orders the federal government to make specific decisions.

The prioritisation of immigrants deemed to be public safety threats

US immigration agencies play a vital role in safeguarding the country against potential threats posed by immigrants. These agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, work in coordination with other federal, local, and international law enforcement entities to share intelligence and analyse vast amounts of information about travellers, cargo, and vessels in real time. This collaborative effort is designed to identify and intercept any individuals who may pose a danger to the public.

The US government has emphasised the need for rigorous vetting and screening procedures for all aliens seeking admission into the country. This includes enhanced information-gathering from countries of origin to ascertain whether individuals seeking visas or other benefits pose security or public safety threats. The government has also expressed its commitment to ensuring that admitted aliens do not advocate for or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to national security.

To further strengthen security, the US government has established Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs) across all states. These task forces aim to dismantle human smuggling and trafficking networks, with a particular focus on offences involving children. Additionally, the government has taken steps to identify and remove unregistered illegal aliens, treating non-compliance with legal obligations as a civil and criminal enforcement priority.

While the US government's focus on public safety is understandable, it is essential to balance security concerns with the nation's broader national interests. Immigration has played a significant role in the country's cultural, educational, and personal exchanges, contributing to its prosperity and power on the world stage. Therefore, addressing security concerns while maintaining a nuanced and balanced approach to immigration policy is crucial for the well-being of Americans and the nation's global standing.

Frequently asked questions