Sessions Information

  • May 7, 2019
    9:00 am - 10:15 am
    Session Type: Works-in-Progress
    Session Capacity: N/A
    Location: N/A
    Room: Nob Hill 5
    Floor: Sixth Floor

    Addiction-Informed Immigration Reform

    Rebecca Sharpless, University of Miami

    Immigration law fails to align with the contemporary understanding of substance addiction as a medical condition. The Immigration and Nationality Act regards noncitizens who suffer from drug or alcohol substance use disorder as immoral and undesirable. Addiction is a ground of exclusion and deportation and can prevent the “good moral character” needed for certain immigration applications. Substance use disorder can lead to criminal behavior that lands noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, in removal proceedings with no defense. The time has come for immigration law to catch up to today’s understanding of addiction. The damage done by failing to contemporize the law extends beyond the harms of unwarranted family separation due to the deportation or exclusion of people who suffer from substance use disorder. Holding noncitizens to an archaic standard threatens our civic and political identity as a diverse and democratic country. The bigger the gap between contemporary mores and immigration law and policy, the harder it is for U.S. citizens to develop a civic and political identity that is free of ethnic and racial animus. Double standards for citizens and noncitizens create cognitive dissonance, leaving society vulnerable to discriminatory or stereotypical views to justify the differential treatment. This phenomenon not only harms noncitizens but thwarts the formation of a national civic and political identity free of ethnic and racial bias. This article proposes and explains the legislative reforms necessary to remedy the current state of immigration law’s treatment of substance use disorder.

     

    Constitutionally Unaccountable: Privatized Immigration Detention

    Danielle Jefferis, University of Denver

    For-profit immigration detention is one of this nation’s fastest growing industries. More than two-thirds of the roughly 45,000 people in the custody of federal immigration authorities find themselves at one point or another in a private prison contracting with the federal government. Conditions of confinement in many of these facilities are dismal. Yet, the spaces are largely unregulated.

    A substantial body of law has developed in the United States regarding the constitutional limits of incarceration. The availability of constitutional tort remedies imposes some measure of accountability on prison officials and corrections systems. The Constitution affords no tort remedy, however, for people who suffer from untreated serious medical conditions, risks to their safety, and violence while incarcerated in for-profit immigration prisons. Indeed, the spaces are constitutionally unaccountable. This article is the first to expose and examine the absence of a constitutional tort remedy for the people behind the walls of for-profit immigration prisons.

    Drawing on previous work showing the conditions in today’s immigration detention facilities are inherently carceral, this article uses what I call the “civil detention fallacy” to demonstrate that when it comes to conditions of confinement there is no meaningful difference between criminal incarceration and immigration confinement. Therefore, the same values that form the foundation of our constitutional jurisprudence regulating criminal incarceration—namely, dignity, the inherently governmental function of incarceration, and the need for transparency and accountability—must allow for a constitutional tort remedy for people whose rights are violated in for-profit immigration prisons.


Session Speakers
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Works-in-Progress Presenter

University of Miami School of Law
Works-in-Progress Presenter

Session Fees

Fees information is not available at this time.