東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Immigration Detention: A Survey.

Xu, Shengkai.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Immigration Detention: A Survey.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Immigration Detention: A Survey./
Author:	Xu, Shengkai.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2019,
Description:	57 p.
Notes:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 81-05.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International81-05.
Subject:	American studies. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=22589408
ISBN:	9781088372753

Immigration Detention: A Survey.
Xu, Shengkai.

Immigration Detention: A Survey. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2019 - 57 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 81-05.

Thesis (M.A.)--State University of New York at Buffalo, 2019.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Immigration detention is as old as immigration law. For more than a century, federal immigration authority has been empowered to keep noncitizens in custody. The rationale is that temporary confinement is "part of the means necessary to give effect to" exclusion and deportation. But would there ever be a point after which the detention of noncitizens becomes unnecessary or unjustified, and therefore the opportunity of release on bail must be afforded? The drawing of that fine line has incurred much debate. Some argue that the demarcation must account for the length of custody; others prefer not a yardstick, but to inquire detention's purpose; still others believe that the power of drawing itself ought to be left unchecked.Those endorsing the last viewpoint are not without strong arguments. After all, noncitizens are not yet full members in the American polity; their presence is a matter of invitation. Furthermore, too much probing on government's ability to detain hampers the exercise of its power to enforce removal. And finally, it is said that the Bill of Rights is a luxury. A luxury only for the time of peace, and a luxury that need not be fully extended to strangers, "criminal and terrorist aliens" in particular.Those defending civil liberties disagree. For the Bill of Rights constrain government's conduct, and noncitizens are explicitly protected by multiple amendments. Moreover, a double standard sacrificing "their liberty" to enhance "our security" is inconsistent with our fundamental values. Last but not the least, boundaries between suppressing the civil liberty of aliens and suppressing the civil liberty of citizens are all too often unstable.The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 authorized mandatory detention on various classes of aliens. At the beginning of this century, two Supreme Court cases examined the constitutionality of two detention provisions. In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Court ruled mandatory detention after the removal period to be unconstitutional. But in Demore v. Kim, the Court upheld mandatory detention during the removal proceedings. This past decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in both the scope and the scale of noncitizens under immigration detention. Over the last two terms, the Supreme Court has twice upheld mandatory detention provisions on statutory grounds. Jennings v. Rodriguez concerns whether a time limit on mandatory detention can be inferred from the language of the statutes. Nielsen v. Preap concerns whether mandatory detention for removal proceedings is authorized any time after the noncitizen's release from his criminal custody. In both cases, the government prevailed.Sensible persons would agree that being in confinement for a prolonged time is depriving an individual's liberty. Whether the constitution permits such a deprivation to noncitizens is yet to be fully resolved as a matter of constitutional law. An as-applied challenge to the detention provisions is likely to reach the Court in the years to come. However, protecting civil liberties depends much more than the judicial process. Honest conversations, from a multitude of perspectives, are also essential. Therefore, this paper aims to facilitate such a dialogue, by familiarizing readers the relevant political theories, statutory laws, and judicial opinions. Chapter One introduces political theories to help locate the source and legitimacy of the exclusion power, and its ancillary aspect, detention. Chapter Two examines the statutory scheme of immigration detention that are currently "on the books" since 1996. Chapter Three traces the development of legal doctrines from case law. Chapter Four evaluates potential constitutional arguments against prolonged mandatory detention.

ISBN: 9781088372753Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122720
American studies.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Immigration

Immigration Detention: A Survey.
LDR:04995nmm a2200397 4500 001 2278226
005 20210611091954.5
008 220723s2019 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781088372753
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI22589408
035 $a AAI22589408
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Xu, Shengkai. $3 3556602
245 1 0 $a Immigration Detention: A Survey.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2019
300 $a 57 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 81-05.
500 $a Advisor: Nightingale, Carl H.
502 $a Thesis (M.A.)--State University of New York at Buffalo, 2019.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
506 $a This item must not be added to any third party search indexes.
520 $a Immigration detention is as old as immigration law. For more than a century, federal immigration authority has been empowered to keep noncitizens in custody. The rationale is that temporary confinement is "part of the means necessary to give effect to" exclusion and deportation. But would there ever be a point after which the detention of noncitizens becomes unnecessary or unjustified, and therefore the opportunity of release on bail must be afforded? The drawing of that fine line has incurred much debate. Some argue that the demarcation must account for the length of custody; others prefer not a yardstick, but to inquire detention's purpose; still others believe that the power of drawing itself ought to be left unchecked.Those endorsing the last viewpoint are not without strong arguments. After all, noncitizens are not yet full members in the American polity; their presence is a matter of invitation. Furthermore, too much probing on government's ability to detain hampers the exercise of its power to enforce removal. And finally, it is said that the Bill of Rights is a luxury. A luxury only for the time of peace, and a luxury that need not be fully extended to strangers, "criminal and terrorist aliens" in particular.Those defending civil liberties disagree. For the Bill of Rights constrain government's conduct, and noncitizens are explicitly protected by multiple amendments. Moreover, a double standard sacrificing "their liberty" to enhance "our security" is inconsistent with our fundamental values. Last but not the least, boundaries between suppressing the civil liberty of aliens and suppressing the civil liberty of citizens are all too often unstable.The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 authorized mandatory detention on various classes of aliens. At the beginning of this century, two Supreme Court cases examined the constitutionality of two detention provisions. In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Court ruled mandatory detention after the removal period to be unconstitutional. But in Demore v. Kim, the Court upheld mandatory detention during the removal proceedings. This past decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in both the scope and the scale of noncitizens under immigration detention. Over the last two terms, the Supreme Court has twice upheld mandatory detention provisions on statutory grounds. Jennings v. Rodriguez concerns whether a time limit on mandatory detention can be inferred from the language of the statutes. Nielsen v. Preap concerns whether mandatory detention for removal proceedings is authorized any time after the noncitizen's release from his criminal custody. In both cases, the government prevailed.Sensible persons would agree that being in confinement for a prolonged time is depriving an individual's liberty. Whether the constitution permits such a deprivation to noncitizens is yet to be fully resolved as a matter of constitutional law. An as-applied challenge to the detention provisions is likely to reach the Court in the years to come. However, protecting civil liberties depends much more than the judicial process. Honest conversations, from a multitude of perspectives, are also essential. Therefore, this paper aims to facilitate such a dialogue, by familiarizing readers the relevant political theories, statutory laws, and judicial opinions. Chapter One introduces political theories to help locate the source and legitimacy of the exclusion power, and its ancillary aspect, detention. Chapter Two examines the statutory scheme of immigration detention that are currently "on the books" since 1996. Chapter Three traces the development of legal doctrines from case law. Chapter Four evaluates potential constitutional arguments against prolonged mandatory detention.
590 $a School code: 0656.
650 4 $a American studies. $3 2122720
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Sociology. $3 516174
650 4 $a Public administration. $3 531287
650 4 $a Public policy. $3 532803
653 $a Immigration
653 $a Immigration detention
653 $a Opportunity of release
653 $a Length of custody
690 $a 0323
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0630
690 $a 0617
690 $a 0626
710 2 $a State University of New York at Buffalo. $b Transnational Studies - American Studies. $3 2104201
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 81-05.
790 $a 0656
791 $a M.A.
792 $a 2019
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=22589408