Why the Caged Bird Can’t Sing in a Jail Made of Gold; A Mixed Methods Analysis of The Efficacy of United States Indefinite Detention Practices, History, and Consequences on Migrant Case Outcomes

Abstract

The most recently released data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement reveals that, on January 29th, 2023, there are over 24,000 migrants being held in United States detention facilities: over 60% of whom have no criminal records, 80% having been booked into detention in January of 2023, and 100% of whom have no right to a defined or finite term within detention facilities (TRAC Immigration Quick Facts). Codified and sequentially expanded through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), and Supreme Court rulings, the process of indefinite detention was created and has been maintained over the years. Immigration detention is the administrative process by which non-citizens are confined and restricted in their freedoms. Non-citizens face detention either because their deportation orders are pending (mandatory detention), or because the country presumed to receive the non-citizens has denied their entry (“Analysis of Immigration Detention Policies”). Detention operates to uphold the right to due process, need to assess dangers to communities, and process deluges of immigration cases (“Analysis of Immigration Detention Policies”). The motivating question of this thesis is, to what extent does the administrative practice of indefinite detention impact migrants’ case outcomes? Moreover, how do the case outcomes (including affirm, deny, vacate, deport, remove and other results explained in the fourth section of this thesis) differ dependent on their custody status, due to the potential discrepancies in the execution of procedural due process or the coercion of deterrence policies in/from detention facilities? While previous studies have found how functions of indefinite detention, such as access – or a lack thereof – to legal representation, can vastly impact outcomes (Eagly & Shafer), research has yet to be conducted to understand how intrinsic indefinite detention is to a migrant’s case outcome. Because detention is a non-punitive and non-criminal process, de jure, the act of being detained should have no impact on one’s case outcome. De facto, reporting by the ACLU, the Innovative Law lab, among others, have found that significant barriers exist within the detention system that prohibits the full agency of migrants to defend themselves from removal proceedings. To understand the efficacy of indefinite detention policies and their operations within administrative proceedings, this thesis deploys a mixed methods analysis combining historical, philosophical, and quantitative analyses of detention centers. The quantitative analysis measures the significance of detention on actual case outcomes by analyzing the data of almost 2 million migrants. In detailing these components, policy recommendations and implications are shared in an effort to optimize migration and legal systems and reduce human suffering.