U.S. government programs to identify and deport criminal aliens were detailed in an exhaustive report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.
The Department of Homeland Security has four programs that deal with criminal aliens, which are discussed in the report.
“While consensus exists on the overarching goal to identify and remove serious criminal aliens, these programs have generated controversy,” CRS said, on grounds that “the programs may have adverse impacts on police-community relations, may result in racial profiling, and may result in the detention of people who have not been convicted of criminal offenses and may not be subject to removal.”
CRS estimated that the number of noncitizens incarcerated in federal and state prisons and local jails – “a subset of all criminal aliens” – was 173,000 in 2009.
See “Interior Immigration Enforcement: Programs Targeting Criminal Aliens,” October 21, 2011.
The New York Times reported today that DHS “will begin a review on Thursday of all deportation cases before the immigration courts… with the goal of speeding deportations of convicted criminals and halting those of many illegal immigrants with no criminal record.” See “U.S. to Review Cases Seeking Deportations” by Julia Preston, New York Times, November 17.
Some other new Congressional Research Service reports obtained by Secrecy News are linked below (all pdf). Pursuant to congressional policy, CRS has been prohibited from making them directly available to the public.
“Military Retirement Reform: A Review of Proposals and Options for Congress,” November 17, 2011
“FY2012 Appropriations Overview: Status of Discretionary Appropriations Legislation,” November 10, 2011
“U.S. Natural Gas Exports: New Opportunities, Uncertain Outcomes,” November 4, 2011
“Legislative Branch Agency Appointments: History, Processes, and Recent Proposals,” November 1, 2011
“Economic Growth and the Unemployment Rate,” October 28, 2011
“Presidential Policy Directive 8 and the National Preparedness System: Background and Issues for Congress,” October 21, 2011
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.