By Jacqueline Pacvilon, Neil Agarwal, Rosie Wang ,, April Pierina , Hernandez Luperdi

Having legal representation helps ensure due process and is associated with more positive case outcomes for people facing deportation. In 2022, the Midwest Immigrant Defenders Alliance (MIDA) was formed by four organizations to provide legal representation for people in the Chicago immigration court whose cases begin in immigration detention: The National Immigrant Justice Center, The Resurrection Project, The Immigration Project, and the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender. These organizations developed a collaborative model to provide legal representation on a merits-blind basis, which ensures equity in access to representation. A larger share of people on the Chicago detained docket are being represented one year into the MIDA program, despite an increasing number of cases before the court. In this report, the Vera Institute of Justice evaluates the impact of MIDA and this model of universal representation during the coalition’s first year.

Key Takeaway:

Cases with representation have historically fared much better in immigration court. One year after MIDA’s formation, a larger share of people on the Chicago detained docket have representation, despite an increasing number of cases before the court. This model ensures equity and has resulted in many MIDA clients establishing a right to remain in the United States.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2024. 35p.

By David Hausman

Prioritization by criminality, in which noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes are deported ahead of those with little or no criminal history, is the most consequential principle governing who is deported from the interior of the United States. This Article argues that, intuitive as prioritization by criminality may appear, it is only rarely justifiable. I show, empirically, that the interior immigration-enforcement system is successful at such prioritization. Being convicted of a crime makes deportation at least a hundred times more likely. And I show that center left attempts to reduce deportations over the last decade have sharpened this prioritization: both sanctuary policies and President Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program, which caused the two largest reductions in interior immigration enforcement in the last decade, prioritized deportations by criminality. Because well under one percent of undocumented noncitizens are deported in any given year, some principle for prioritizing deportations is needed (to the extent that deportations continue at all), but criminality should not be the primary principle. First, the crime-control rationales for punishing noncitizens more severely than citizens convicted of the same crime are surprisingly weak. Second, the immigration-policy rationale for prioritization by criminality is strongest among recent entrants to the United States. The longer a noncitizen has lived in the United States, and the stronger his or her ties here, the less deportation resembles a retroactive admission decision and the more it resembles punishment. Finally, the relationship between ties and criminality is asymmetric: there are better arguments for deporting people with weak  ties and no convictions than for deporting people with strong ties and serious convictions. If noncitizens convicted of crimes were mostly recent entrants, then the current prioritization might make sense. But the limited existing evidence on deportees’ ties to the United States suggests that prioritization by criminality leads the government to target people with deep roots in this country. The result is that interior immigration enforcement functions more as a method of social control of long-term noncitizen residents than as a tool of immigration policy. 

THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 110:973 2022