In the Child’s Best Interest?, finds that forced removal of legal permanent resident parents (or green card holders) convicted of relatively minor crimes can lead to psychological harm, behavioral changes, and disruptions in the health and education of tens of thousands of citizen children.
The report, based primarily on new analysis of data provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is a joint project of the International Human Rights Law Clinic and the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; and the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of California, Davis, School of Law.
Drastic revisions to U.S. immigration laws in 1996 have led to large numbers of deported legal permanent residents (LPRs) who now make up nearly 10 percent of immigrants deported from the U.S. More than 68 percent of this group is deported for minor crimes, including driving under the influence, simple assault, and non-violent drug offenses.
The revised immigration laws now severely restrict the ability of judges to consider the impact of deportation on children.
In the Child’s Best Interest? recommends restoring judicial discretion in all cases involving the deportation of LPRs with U.S. citizen children.
“As Congress considers immigration reform, it’s time to focus on how the current system tears apart families and threatens the health and education of tens of thousands of children,” said Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at Berkeley Law’s Warren Institute. “This report makes a strong case for restoring judicial discretion so immigration judges can weigh the best interests of children when deciding whether to deport a parent.”
The report found that, in the decade between April 1997 and August 2007, the U.S. deported nearly 88,000 legal permanent residents for mostly minor criminal convictions. These deported legal residents had lived in the U.S. an average of 10 years, and more half of them had at least one child living at home. Approximately 50 percent of the children were under the age of 5 when their parent was deported.
In 1996, Congress also significantly broadened the category of crimes considered an “aggravated felony.” Although this category initially included only the most serious offenses, it now includes non-violent theft and drug offenses, forgery, and other minor offenses, many of which may not even be felonies under criminal law. Lawful permanent residents convicted of an aggravated felony are now subject to mandatory deportation and other severe immigration consequences.
“Parents who are deported on the basis of criminal convictions are being punished twice for the same mistakes,” said Raha Jorjani, clinical professor at the Immigration Law Clinic at UC Davis. “Even after successfully completing their sentences, they are subject to penalties within the immigration system—and at risk of losing their families. It’s often the children in these families that suffer the most. This nation should take into consideration the impact on families of uprooting individuals with such strong ties to the U.S.”
Families interviewed for the study reported negative health impacts, such as increased depression, sleeplessness, and anxiety. Children also reported plummeting grades, increased behavioral problems, and the urge to drop out of school to help support the family.
The study compares U.S. immigration policy to international standards that more adequately address potential family separations in deportation hearings.
“The rights to health and education are firmly entrenched in international human rights law, and nearly every major human rights treaty recognizes the need for special protection of children,” said Laurel Fletcher, director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at Berkeley Law. “The U.S. should consider revising its policy to mirror European human rights standards, which permit judges to balance a nation’s security interest with the best interests of the child when considering deporting a parent.”
In the Child’s Best Interest? makes a number of recommendations to U.S. policymakers, which include:
• restoring judicial discretion in cases involving the deportation of legal permanent residents who have U.S. citizen chil¬dren;
• establishing clear judicial guidelines in family deportation cases;
• reverting to the pre-1996 definition of “aggravated felony”;
• collecting data on U.S. citizen children of deported LPR parent to gain fuller understanding of impact of deportation laws.
Co-authors of the study include J.D. candidates and research analysts at UC Berkeley School of Law and UC Davis School of Law.
International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law: The International Human Rights Law Clinic (IHRLC) implements innovative human rights projects to advance the struggle for justice on behalf of individuals and marginalized communities through research, advocacy, and policy development. The clinic employs an interdisciplinary model that leverages the intellectual capital of the university to provide innovative solutions to emerging human rights issues and develops collaborative partnerships with researchers, scholars, and human rights activists worldwide. Students are integral to all phases of the IHRLC’s work and acquire unparalleled experience employing strategies to address the most urgent human rights issues of our day. For more information, visit:www.humanrightsclinic.org.
Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity (Warren Institute) is a multi- disciplinary, collaborative venture to produce research, policy reforms, and curricular innovation on issues of racial and ethnic justice in California and the nation. The institute’s mission is to engage the most difficult topics in a wide range of legal and policy subject areas, providing valuable intellectual capital to public and private sector leaders, the media, and the general public, while advancing scholarly understanding. Central to its methods are concerted efforts to build bridges connecting research, civic action, and policy debate so that each informs the other, while preserving the independence, quality and credibility of the academic enterprise. For more information, please visit: www.warreninstitute.org.
Immigration Law Clinic, University of California, Davis, School of Law: The Immigration Law Clinic (ILC) provides legal representation to indigent non-citizens in removal proceedings before U.S. Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The ILC provides this necessary service to Northern California’s low-income immigrant communities while enabling students to gain practical, real-world experience. ILC students take on all major aspects of litigation, including interviewing clients and witnesses, preparing legal briefs, drafting pleadings and motions, and arguing complex legal issues. The ILC regularly conducts naturalization and other workshops in the community. Responding to the impact of increased collaboration between criminal and immigration enforcement agencies, the ILC has been at the forefront of indigent detention and deportation defense. For more information, please visit:www.law.ucdavis.edu.
Source: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law