DOCSLIB.ORG

Revving up the Deportation Machinery: Enforcement and Pushback Under Trump

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REVVING UP THE DEPORTATION MACHINERY Enforcement and Pushback under Trump By Randy Capps, Muzaffar Chishti, Julia Gelatt, Jessica Bolter, and Ariel G. Ruiz Soto REVVING UP THE DEPORTATION MACHINERY Enforcement and Pushback under Trump By Randy Capps, Muzaffar Chishti, Julia Gelatt, Jessica Bolter, and Ariel G. Ruiz Soto May 2018 Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for contributing to the research for this report. ICE leaders in Washington, DC, and staff at seven field offices gave generously of their time, experience, and expertise. They also responded to Migration Policy Institute (MPI) Freedom of Information Act data requests in a timely fashion, and ICE experts met with MPI researchers to help them better understand the data. Thanks also go to the more than 120 elected officials, law enforcement officials, immigrant service providers, immigration defense attorneys, former immigration judges, community leaders, community organizers, and advocates who met with MPI researchers across the study sites. They shared generously of their time in describing their work and responses to urgent new needs they face in carrying out their varied missions. The authors are grateful too for the cooperation and interviews they were able to have with the networks of Mexican, Honduran, and Salvadoran consulates that are assisting their nationals in communities around the United States. The authors appreciate the time that three external immigration policy experts devoted to reviewing and giving comments on the first draft of the report, as well as that of MPI colleagues Michael Fix, Doris Meissner, and Mark Greenberg, who provided advice throughout the research and writing and served as internal reviewers. All contributed immensely to the final shape of the report. The authors want to especially recognize Michelle Mittelstadt, MPI’s Director of Communications, whose ability to help hone and organize the presentation of massive amounts of material is unique and invaluable. They are deeply grateful to her for the skill and commitment she gave. Also at MPI, Sarah Pierce reviewed legal material in the report, and Faye Hipsman helped plan the study and conduct the Los Angeles and Houston site visits. Former MPI interns Jonathan Beeler and Jennifer Schulz analyzed the ICE data on arrests and detainers. Finally, for their generous support for this work and for MPI, the authors are deeply grateful to the Russell Sage Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Unbound Philanthropy, and the ILGWU Heritage Fund. © 2018 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. Design and Layout: Sara Staedicke, MPI Cover Image: Josh Denmark/DHS No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org. Information for reproducing excerpts from this report can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copy.php. Inquiries can also be directed to: Permissions Department, Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, or by contacting [email protected]. Suggested citation: Capps, Randy, Muzaffar Chishti, Julia Gelatt, Jessica Bolter, and Ariel G. Ruiz Soto. 2018. Revving Up the Deportation Machinery: Enforcement and Pushback under Trump. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................1 A. Findings: The First Year of Interior Enforcement under Trump ............................................1 B. Responses by States, Localities, Consulates, and Immigrant Communities .......................4 C. A Heightened Climate of Fear ...................................................................................................5 I. Introduction ..........................................................................................6 A. Purpose of the Report ..................................................................................................................8 B. Research Methods .........................................................................................................................9 II. Continuity and Change in Federal Immigration Enforcement: From Clinton to Trump ..................................................................... 11 A. The Legislative Framework in the Clinton Administration .................................................11 B. September 11 and Immigration Enforcement in the Bush Administration .....................12 C. Expanded Interior Enforcement During the Early Obama Years.......................................14 D. Narrowing of Enforcement During the Latter Obama Years .............................................16 E. A New Era of Immigration Enforcement under Trump .....................................................19 III. By the Numbers: ICE Arrest, Detainer, and Removal Activity ....... 24 A. An Increase in ICE Arrests .........................................................................................................24 B. Varying Cooperation Affects Arrest Trends by ICE Field Office .......................................26 C. ICE Arrests by Gender and Origin Country .........................................................................29 D. Trends in Use of Detainers at the County Level ..................................................................29 E. Trends in Removals from the Interior United States ...........................................................37 IV. Changing ICE Arrest Patterns: New Targets, New Locations ........ 38 A. At-Large Arrests: A Growing Share of Overall Arrests .......................................................39 B. Intensifying Arrests in Jurisdictions that Limit ICE Cooperation ......................................39 C. Arrests in Courthouses and Near Sensitive Locations .......................................................40 D. Arrests of Immigrants with Criminal Convictions ...............................................................42 E. Collateral Arrests of Immigrants without Criminal Convictions ......................................43 F. Arrests by the Local Police for Traffic Violations ..................................................................44 G. Expanding the Ability to Target Based on Contact Information .......................................44 H. Arrests of Individuals Checking in with ICE for Regular Appointments .........................45 I. Enforcement Against Those with Special Status: DACA Recipients, Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Unaccompanied Children ....................................................................47 V. Reduction in Use of Prosecutorial Discretion After Arrest ........... 51 A. Increased Detention of People in Removal Proceedings ....................................................53 B. Pursuing Cases All the Way to Deportation ..........................................................................53 C. Deporting People with Old Removal Orders .......................................................................54 D. Limiting Options to Review ICE Enforcement Decisions ...................................................55 VI. Responses by States, Localities, Consulates, and Immigrant Communities ...................................................................................... 56 A. Responses of States and Localities to ICE’s Changed Enforcement Activities ...............57 B. Consulates Across United States Expand Outreach, Services, and Protection ..............61 C. Increased Representation for Detained Immigrants ...........................................................64 D. Visiting Programs for ICE Detainees .......................................................................................64 E. Community Rapid Response Teams .........................................................................................65 F. Efforts to Stop New ICE Detention Facilities .......................................................................66 VII. Impact of the New Enforcement Climate on Immigrant Communities ...................................................................................... 66 A. Limited Mobility Outside the Home .......................................................................................67 B. Declines in Crime and Domestic Violence Reporting .........................................................68 C. Declines in Health and Human Services Program Participation .......................................69 D. School Enrollment, Attendance, and Participation in Educational Activities ...................70 VIII. Conclusions ........................................................................................ 71 Appendices ................................................................................................ 74 Appendix A. Detailed Description of ICE Enforcement Activities ............................................74 Appendix B. Variations in Enforcement Cooperation with ICE among the Study Sites .......77 Appendix C. ICE At-Large Operations Using Fugitive Operations Teams ...............................86 Works Cited .............................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Houston Division

    Houston Division

    Case 4:16-cv-01414 Document 302 Filed on 04/28/17 in TXSD Page 1 of 193 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 28, 2017 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, et al., § On behalf of themselves and all others § similarly situated, § § Plaintiffs, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-1414 VS. § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM AND OPINION SETTING OUT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Introduction. 3 I. Findings of Fact. 8 A. Procedural Background. 8 B. The Evidence in the Record.. 10 1. The Parties. 10 2. The Fact Witnesses. 15 3. The Expert Witnesses. 18 4. Overview of the Factual and Legal Issues. 19 C. The Historical Development of Bail in the United States and in Harris County . 23 1. The Constitutionalization of Bail.. 23 2. Statutory and Judicial Bail Reform: Pretrial Services, Probable Cause Hearings, and “Meaningful” Alternatives to Secured Money Bail. 25 3. Bail at the Federal Level. 31 4. Bail under Texas Law. 35 5. Recent Distinctions Drawn Between Bail and Preventive Detention. 38 a. Washington, D.C... 38 b. New Mexico.. 40 c. New Jersey. 41 d. New Orleans.. 42 e. Maryland. 43 f. Alabama. 44 g. Calhoun, Georgia. 46 h. Conclusion. 49 1 Case 4:16-cv-01414 Document 302 Filed on 04/28/17 in TXSD Page 2 of 193 D. The Use of Bail in Harris County Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention. 50 1. The Statutory Framework. 50 2. Arrest and Booking.
  • Tracking the Biden Agenda on Immigration Enforcement

    Tracking the Biden Agenda on Immigration Enforcement

    SPECIAL REPORT TRACKING THE BIDEN AGENDA ON IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT by Jorge Loweree and Aaron Reichlin-Melnick About the American Immigration Council The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. Through its research and analysis, the American Immigration Council provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with information about how the immigration system works, the impact of policy proposals, and the crucial role that immigration plays in our communities and workplaces. Visit us at www.AmericanImmigrationCouncil.org and www.ImmigrationImpact.com. About the Authors Jorge Loweree is the Director of Policy at the American Immigration Council, where he directs the Council’s administrative and legislative advocacy and leads the Council’s efforts to provide lawmakers, policymakers, advocates, and the general public with accurate and timely information about the role of immigrants in the United States. Previously, Jorge spent ten years in a variety of positions with the U.S. House of Representatives, most recently as Senior Counsel for Immigration Law and Policy, working on a wide range of enforcement and benefits issues. Jorge holds a J.D. from the University of Colorado Law School and Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics from the Saint Mary’s University. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick is Policy Counsel at the American Immigration Council, where he works primarily on immigration court issues and the intersection of immigration law and policy.
  • Running Head: the TRAGEDY of DEPORTATION 1

    Running Head: the TRAGEDY of DEPORTATION 1

    Running head: THE TRAGEDY OF DEPORTATION 1 The Tragedy of Deportation An Analysis of Jewish Survivor Testimony on Holocaust Train Deportations Connor Schonta A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2016 THE TRAGEDY OF DEPORTATION 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ David Snead, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Christopher Smith, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Mark Allen, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date THE TRAGEDY OF DEPORTATION 3 Abstract Over the course of World War II, trains carried three million Jews to extermination centers. The deportation journey was an integral aspect of the Nazis’ Final Solution and the cause of insufferable torment to Jewish deportees. While on the trains, Jews endured an onslaught of physical and psychological misery. Though most Jews were immediately killed upon arriving at the death camps, a small number were chosen to work, and an even smaller number survived through liberation. The basis of this study comes from the testimonies of those who survived, specifically in regard to their recorded experiences and memories of the deportation journey. This study first provides a brief account of how the Nazi regime moved from methods of emigration and ghettoization to systematic deportation and genocide. Then, the deportation journey will be studied in detail, focusing on three major themes of survivor testimony: the physical conditions, the psychological turmoil, and the chaos of arrival.
  • Secure Communities: a Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens Strategic Plan

    Secure Communities: a Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens Strategic Plan

    Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens Strategic Plan July 21, 2009 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICEFOIA.10.131.000023 Message from the Assistant Secretary U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is committed to protecting national security and upholding public safety by targeting criminal networks and terrorist organizations that seek to exploit vulnerabilities in our immigration system, in our financial networks, along our border, at federal facilities and elsewhere in order to do harm to the United States. As a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agency, ICE fully supports the Department’s goal of protecting our nation from dangerous people. Under Secretary Napolitano's guidance and leadership, ICE looks forward to leveraging the Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities) program to enhance collaboration among U.S. law enforcement agencies to protect the people of the United States from criminal aliens that pose the greatest threat to our communities. The Secure Communities program is improving information sharing and promoting stronger partnerships between federal, state, tribal and local law enforcement agencies. By enhancing the exchange of information among law enforcement agencies and others, the Secure Communities program advances the ICE mission to enforce immigration and customs laws, protect federal buildings and other key assets, and provide law enforcement support in times of national emergency. John Morton Assistant Secretary U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICEFOIA.10.131.000024 Message from the Acting Director I am proud to present the ICE Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities) updated Strategic Plan.
  • Process Evaluation of the Harris County Sheriff's Office Tele-Health

    Process Evaluation of the Harris County Sheriff's Office Tele-Health

    Process Evaluation of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office Tele-Health/CORE Pilot Program Final Report Submitted to Arnold Ventures October 2020 The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office or The Harris Center. This report was prepared in cooperation with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office and The Harris Center. Principal Investigators Ashley G. Blackburn, Ph.D. University of Houston – Downtown Lori L. Brusman-Lovins, Ph.D. Bowling Green State University Heather H. Goltz, Ph.D. University of Houston – Downtown Dana S. Smith, Ph.D. University of Houston – Downtown For inquiries, please contact: Ashley G. Blackburn, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Criminal Justice & Social Work Professor of Criminal Justice University of Houston - Downtown One Main Street Suite C-340M Houston, TX 77002 Tel. 713-222-5326; Fax 713-223-7409 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements The research team would like to thank Arnold Ventures for funding this process evaluation of the Harris County Sheriff Office’s (HCSO) Clinician and Officer Remote Evaluation (CORE) Program. Without support from the Arnold Ventures team, and especially Arnold Ventures Criminal Justice Manager Catie Bialick, the research team would have been unable to complete this important work. The research team would also like to thank HCSO and The Harris Center for Mental Health and IDD (The Harris Center) for their partnership in this effort. In particular, the research team acknowledges the support from members of the HCSO Crisis Intervention Team/Mental Health Unit. This project would not have been possible without the guidance of HCSO’s CORE Project Manager, Mr.
  • The Secure Communities Program: Unanswered Questions and Continuing Concerns

    The Secure Communities Program: Unanswered Questions and Continuing Concerns

    IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER SPECIAL REPORT AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL THE SECURE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND CONTINUING CONCERNS By Michele Waslin, Ph.D. (Updated) NOVEMBER 2011 THE SECURE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND CONTINUING CONCERNS UPDATED NOVEMBER 2011 MICHELE WASLIN, PH.D. ABOUT SPECIAL REPORTS ON IMMIGRATION The Immigration Policy Center’s Special Reports are our most in‐depth publication, providing detailed analyses of special topics in U.S. immigration policy. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Michele Waslin, Ph.D., is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center. ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER The Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003, is the policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy in U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policymakers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion‐makers, and the media. IPC is a non‐partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office. Visit our website at www.immigrationpolicy.org and our blog at www.immigrationimpact.com. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY What is Secure Communities? Secure Communities is a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program designed to identify immigrants in U.S. jails who are deportable under immigration law. Under Secure Communities, participating jails submit arrestees’ fingerprints not only to criminal databases, but to immigration databases as well, allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access to information on individuals held in jails.
  • Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2019

    Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2019

    Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2019 MIKE GUO SEPTEMBER 2020 INTRODUCTION • ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) engages in initiated 29 percent more intakes into immigration immigration enforcement actions to prevent unlawful detention, with detentions of aliens from Mexico entry into the United States and to apprehend and and the Northern Triangle of Central America repatriate aliens who have violated or failed to comply accounting for 82 percent of all detentions. with U.S. immigration laws. The primary responsibility • DHS performed 9.5 percent more removals in 2019 for the enforcement of immigration law within DHS than in 2018, with about 43 percent of removals rests with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and involving aliens who had a prior criminal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). CBP conviction. primarily enforces immigration laws along the borders and at ports of entry (POEs) and ICE is responsible for ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PROCESSES interior enforcement and most detention and removal operations. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Determinations of Inadmissibility (USCIS) adjudicates applications and petitions for All aliens seeking admission at a POE are subject to immigration and naturalization benefits. inspection. OFO officers conduct these inspections at designated POEs and at pre-clearance locations at The 2019 Immigration Enforcement Actions Annual Flow Report, certain foreign ports. Applicants for admission who are authored by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics determined to be inadmissible may be permitted to (OIS), presents information on DHS immigration voluntarily withdraw their application for admission enforcement actions during 2019.1 This includes and return to their home country, processed for determinations of inadmissibility by CBP Office of expedited removal, referred to an immigration judge Field Operations (OFO) officers, apprehensions by CBP (IJ) for removal proceedings, processed for a visa U.S.
  • A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J

    A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J

    Marquette Law Review Volume 100 Article 8 Issue 2 Winter 2016 A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience Karen J. Pita Loor Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Immigration Law Commons Repository Citation Karen J. Pita Loor, A Study on Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, and Rawlsian Civil Disobedience, 100 Marq. L. Rev. 565 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol100/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized editor of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 38800-mqt_100-2 Sheet No. 140 Side A 02/22/2017 09:25:38 LOOR-P.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 2/16/17 12:32 PM A STUDY ON IMMIGRANT ACTIVISM, SECURE COMMUNITIES, AND RAWLSIAN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE KAREN J. PITA LOOR ABSTRACT This Article explores the immigrant acts of protest during the Obama presidency in opposition to the Secure Communities (SCOMM) immigration enforcement program through the lens of philosopher John Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience and posits that this immigrant resistance contributed to that administration’s dismantling the federal program by progressively moving localities, and eventually whole states, to cease cooperation with SCOMM. The controversial SCOMM program is one of the most powerful tools of immigration enforcement in the new millennium because it transforms any contact with state and local law enforcement into a potential immigration investigation.
  • 10 Reasons Why Congress Should Defund ICE's Deportation Force

    10 Reasons Why Congress Should Defund ICE's Deportation Force

    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 1-1-2019 10 Reasons Why Congress Should Defund ICE’s Deportation Force Kari E. Hong Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Immigration Law Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons Recommended Citation Kari E. Hong. "10 Reasons Why Congress Should Defund ICE’s Deportation Force." NYU Review of Law & Social Change Harbinger 43, (2019). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 10 REASONS WHY CONGRESS SHOULD DEFUND ICE’S DEPORTATION FORCE KARI HONG¥ Calls to abolish ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency tasked with deportations, are growing.1 ICE consists of two agencies – Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which investigates transnational criminal matters, and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which deports non-citizens. The calls to abolish ICE focus on the latter, the ERO deportation force. Defenders proffer that the idea is silly,2 that abolition could harm public safety,3 or that advocates of abolition must first explain what, if anything, would replace the agency.4 Those reasons are not persuasive.
  • Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues

    Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues

    Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues Lisa M. Seghetti, Coordinator Section Research Manager (name redacted) Analyst in Domestic Security (name redacted) Analyst in Domestic Security (name redacted) Specialist in Immigration Policy September 28, 2005 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33106 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Border Security and the Southwest Border: Background, Legislation, and Issues Summary Border security has emerged as an area of public concern, particularly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Although recent public concerns pertaining to border security may be attributed to the threat of potential terrorists coming into the country, past concerns that centered around drug and human smuggling and the illegal entry of migrants remain important issues. As Congress passes legislation to enhance border security (e.g., P.L. 109-13) and the Administration puts into place procedures to tighten border enforcement, concerns over terrorists exploiting the porous southwest border continue to grow. The U.S. border with Mexico is some 2,000 miles long, with more than 800,000 people arriving from Mexico daily and more than 4 million commercial crossings annually. The United States and Mexico are linked together in various ways, including through trade, investment, migration, tourism, environment, and familial relationships. Mexico is the second most important trading partner of the United States and this trade is critical to many U.S. industries and border communities. In an effort to facilitate the legitimate flow of travel and trade, the governments of the United States and Mexico signed the U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership agreement.
  • The Denaturalization and Deportation of Nazi Criminals: Is It Constitutional

    The Denaturalization and Deportation of Nazi Criminals: Is It Constitutional

    Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review Volume 11 Number 1 Article 4 1-1-1989 The Denaturalization and Deportation of Nazi Criminals: Is It Constitutional Norine M. Winicki Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Norine M. Winicki, The Denaturalization and Deportation of Nazi Criminals: Is It Constitutional, 11 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 117 (1989). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol11/iss1/4 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS The Denaturalization and Deportation of Nazi Criminals: Is It Constitutional? I. INTRODUCTION On June 22, 1941, Adolf Hitler launched an invasion of the So- viet Union.1 Under the plan for this attack, known as Operation Bar- barossa, Russia was to become an eastern annex of the German Reich, helping to consolidate Hitler's plan of a master Aryan race. 2 Consequently, Operation Barbarossa had two objectives, the military conquest of the Soviet Union and the extermination of Soviet Jews.3 The group whose responsibility it was to effectuate the elimination of the Jews in Russia were mobile killing units of SS troops called 4 Einsatzgruppen. In carrying out Operation Barbarossa, Hitler and his army set out to conquer the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.5 In Latvia, the Einsatzgruppen formed the locals into the Arjs Kom- mando whose only purpose was to kill all the Jews of Latvia.6 In 1942, an Einsatzgruppe A report to Berlin stated, "'The number of Jews in Latvia in 1935 was 93,479-4.79 percent of the entire popula- tion ...
  • Expelled Nazis Paid Millions in Social Security

    Expelled Nazis Paid Millions in Social Security

    Expelled Nazis paid millions in Social Security By DAVID RISING, RANDY HERSCHAFT and RICHARD LARDNEROctober 19, 2014 9:17 PM OSIJEK, Croatia (AP) — Former Auschwitz guard Jakob Denzinger lived the American dream. His plastics company in the Rust Belt town of Akron, Ohio, thrived. By the late 1980s, he had acquired the trappings of success: a Cadillac DeVille and a Lincoln Town Car, a lakefront home, investments in oil and real estate. Then the Nazi hunters showed up. In 1989, as the U.S. government prepared to strip him of his citizenship, Denzinger packed a pair of suitcases and fled to Germany. Denzinger later settled in this pleasant town on the Drava River, where he lives comfortably, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. He collects a Social Security payment of about $1,500 each month, nearly twice the take-home pay of an average Croatian worker. Denzinger, 90, is among dozens of suspected Nazi war criminals and SS guards who collected millions of dollars in Social Security payments after being forced out of the United States, an Associated Press investigation found. The payments flowed through a legal loophole that has given the U.S. Justice Department leverage to persuade Nazi suspects to leave. If they agreed to go, or simply fled before deportation, they could keep their Social Security, according to interviews and internal government records. Like Denzinger, many lied about their Nazi pasts to get into the U.S. following World War II, and eventually became American citizens. Among those who benefited: —armed SS troops who guarded the Nazi network of camps where millions of Jews perished.