Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Outside Justice pp 45–65Cite as

Removal Roulette: Secure Communities and Immigration Enforcement in the United States (2008–2012)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Secure Communities (SComm) is a federal immigration enforcement program in the United States. The program enjoys support as a nationwide, neutral, and rational vehicle for enforcement. Yet place may make a difference in SComm enforcement outcomes. SComm figures reveal a divergence between places where removals target serious criminals versus places where removals cast a more universal net. Moreover, rates of removals vary greatly by location. Such divergence suggests that stated SComm priorities function less as a dam (as intended) and more as a water mill, whereby federal authorities place as many removable immigrants into removal proceedings as capacity allows. Uneven enforcement can propel a “removal roulette” whereby deportation can hinge on an immigrant detainee’s location and the type of offense committed. The resulting life as provisional existence means trying to stay out of trouble by erring on the side of caution at all times.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    SComm statistics sometimes change slightly over time due to successive updates to arrest and removal data. General trends remain relatively unchanged, especially for enforcement activities completed in the distant past.

  2. 2.

    Delaware and South Dakota have very low removal activity to be included in the targeted enforcement group, each reporting single digit SComm removals per month. Massachusetts is also not included among the targeted enforcement states. Although the percent of top priority removals (as a share of total removals in the state) remains high compared to the national average, the percent of removals for noncriminal offenses falls far above the average.

  3. 3.

    Table 2 excludes South Carolina, which reports top priority removal figures similar to the universal enforcement group. However, the percent of removals for noncriminal offenses in South Carolina falls below the average in the targeted enforcement group.

  4. 4.

    Wyoming and Mississippi are excluded due to small or imprecise population estimates.

References

  • American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Five-year estimates (2006–2010): Citizenship status in the United States. Retrieved August 15,2012, from http://factfinder2.census.gov

  • Armenta, A. (2012). From sheriff’s deputies to immigration officers: Screening immigrant status in a Tennessee jail. Law and Policy, 34(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosniak, L. (2012). Arguing for amnesty. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 1–11. doi:10.1177/1743872111423181. Online First version.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotherton, D., & Kretsedemas, P. (Eds.). (2008). Keeping out the other: A critical introduction to immigration enforcement today. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calavita, K. (2007). Immigration, social control, and punishment in the industrial era. In M. Bosworth & J. Flavin (Eds.), Race, gender, and punishment: From colonialism to the War on Terror (pp. 117–133). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capps, R., Rosenblum, M. R., Rodríguez, C., & Chishti, M. (2011). Delegation and divergence: A study of 287(g) state and local immigration enforcement. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, M. (2007). Immigration geopolitics beyond the Mexico-US border. Antipode, 39(1), 54–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, M. (2012a). Immigrant Il-legality: Geopolitical and legal borders in the US, 1882-Present. Geopolitics, 17(2), 402–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, M. (2012b). The ‘local’ migration state: The site-specific devolution of immigration enforcement in the U.S. south. Law and Policy, 34(2), 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutin, S. B. (1998). From refugees to immigrants: The legalization strategies of Salvadoran immigrants and activists. International Migration Review, 32(4), 901–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutin, S. B. (2000). Legalizing moves: Salvadoran immigrants’ struggle for U.S. residency. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Genova, N. P. (2002). Migrant ‘illegality’ and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 419–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, S. H., Lewis, P. G., Provine, D. M., & Varsanyi, M. W. (2009). On the frontier of local law enforcement: Local police and federal immigration law. Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance, 13, 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellermann, A. (2009). States against migrants: Deportation in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellermann, A. (2010). Undocumented migrants and resistance in the liberal state. Politics and Society, 38(3), 408–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, A., & McDevitt, J. (2010). Identifying and measuring racial profiling by the police. Sociology Compass, 4(1), 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filindra, A., Blanding, D., & Coll, C. G. (2011). The power of context: State-level policies and politics and the educational performance of the children of immigrants in the United States. Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 407–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fix, M. (Ed.). (1991). The paper curtain: Employer sanctions’ implementation, impact, and reform. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2nd Vintage Books ed.). New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • García, A. S. (2012). Return to sender? A comparative analysis of immigrant communities in ‘attrition through enforcement’ destinations. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35 1–22. doi:10.1080/01419870.2012.692801. Online First version.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, P., Romero, M., Rubio-Goldsmith, R., Escobedo, M., & Khoury, L. (2009). Ethno-racial profiling and state violence in a Southwest Barrio. Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 34(1), 93–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guterbock, T. M., Vickerman, M., Walker, K. E., Koper, C. S., Taylor, B., & Carter, T. (2010). Evaluation of Prince William County’s illegal immigration enforcement policy. Charlottesville, VA: Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J. M. (1994). Deciding to be legal: A Maya community in Houston. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J., & Phillips, S. (2008). Border blunders: The unanticipated human and economic costs of the U.S. approach to immigration control, 1986–2007. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(1), 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J. M., Rodriguez, N., & Castro, B. (2011). Social effects of mass deportations by the United States government, 2000–10. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(8), 1374–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. L., & Lloyd, S. E. (2012). Illegality at work: Deportability and the productive new era of immigration enforcement. Antipode, 44(2), 365–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, J. M. (1998). State effects on labor exploitation: The INS and undocumented immigrants at the Mexico-United States border. Critique of Anthropology, 18(2), 157–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104(01), 40–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inda, J. X. (2006a). Targeting immigrants: Government, technology, and ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inda, J. X. (2006b). Border prophylaxis: Technology, illegality, and the government of immigration. Cultural Dynamics, 18(2), 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. R. (2010). How racial profiling in America became the law of the land: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce and Whren v. United States and the need for truly rebellious lawyering. Georgetown Law Journal, 98(4), 1005–1077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanstroom, D. (2000). Deportation, social control, and punishment: Some thoughts about why hard laws make bad cases. Harvard Law Review, 113(8), 1890–1935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanstroom, D. (2007). Deportation nation: Outsiders in American history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, L. C., & Holmes, J. S. (2009). A rare examination of typically unobservable factors in US asylum decisions. Journal of Refugee Studies, 22(2), 224–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A., Markowitz, P. L., & Chavez, L. (2011). Secure communities by the numbers: An analysis of demographics and due process. Berkeley, CA: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute of Law and Social Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leerkes, A., Leach, M., & Bachmeier, J. (2011). Borders behind the border: An exploration of state-level differences in migration control and their effects on US migration patterns. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(1), 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lofstrom, M., Bohn, S., & Raphael, S. (2011). Lessons from the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (Eds.). (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menjívar, C., & Abrego, L. J. (2012). Legal violence: Immigration law and the lives of Central American immigrants. The American Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Money, J. (1999). Fences and neighbors: The political geography of immigration control. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motomura, H. (2011). The discretion that matters: Federal immigration enforcement, state and local Arrests, and the civil-criminal line. UCLA Law Review, 58(6), 1819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngai, M. M. (2004). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, K. (2011, March). Do local anti-immigrant laws slow demographic change? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrado, E. A. (2012). Immigration enforcement policies, the economic recession, and the size of local Mexican immigrant populations. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 641(1), 16–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. V. (2011). Unauthorized immigrant population: National and state trends, 2010. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Online First version.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedroza, J. (2012). Mass exodus from Oklahoma? Immigrants and Latinos stay and weather a state of capture. The Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies, 4(1), 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham, H., & Pham, V. (2012). Measuring the climate for immigrants: A state-by-state analysis. In G. J. Chin & C. Hessick (Eds.), Illegals in the backyard: State and local regulation of immigration policy. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramji-Nogales, J., Schoenholtz, A. I., & Schrag, P. G. (2007). Refugee roulette: Disparities in asylum adjudication. Stanford Law Review, 60(2), 295–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, G., & Riley, K. J. (2004). Assessing racial profiling more credibly. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, C. M. (2008). The significance of the local in immigration regulation. Michigan Law Review, 106(4), 567–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M. (2006). Racial profiling and immigration law enforcement: Rounding up of usual suspects in the Latino community. Critical Sociology, 32(2–3), 447–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblum, M. R., & Kandel, W. A. (2011). Interior immigration enforcement: Programs targeting criminal aliens. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottman, A. J., Fariss, C. J., & Poe, S. C. (2009). The path to asylum in the US and the determinants for who gets in and why. International Migration Review, 43(1), 3–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf, J. P. (2011). Doing time: Crimmigration and the perils of haste. UCLA Law Review, 58(6), 1705.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2012). Secure Communities statistics (through June 2012). Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDHS, Office of Inspector General. (2011). Supervision of aliens commensurate with risk, OIG-1181 (Revised). Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, M. (2002). Detained: Immigration laws and the expanding I.N.S. jail complex. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, T. K. (2012). 287(g) and the politics of interior immigration control in the United States: Explaining local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(5), 737–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuthnow, R. W. (2010). Remaking the heartland: Middle America since the 1950s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology Department MC2047, Stanford University, Main Quad 450 Serra Mall, Building 120, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Juan Manuel Pedroza

Authors
  1. Juan Manuel Pedroza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Manuel Pedroza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Sociology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Tenth Ave 899, New York, 10019, New York, USA

    David C Brotherton

  2. , Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Tenth Ave 899, New York, 10019, New York, USA

    Daniel L Stageman

  3. , Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Tenth Ave 899, New York, 10019, New York, USA

    Shirley P Leyro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pedroza, J.M. (2013). Removal Roulette: Secure Communities and Immigration Enforcement in the United States (2008–2012). In: Brotherton, D., Stageman, D., Leyro, S. (eds) Outside Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6648-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation