The Contradiction of Crimmigation

APA Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy 17 (2):6-9 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This essay argues that we should find Crimmigration, which is the collapsing of immigration law with criminal law, morally problematic for three reasons. First, it denies those who are facing criminal penalties important constitutional protections. Second, it doubly punishes those who have already served their criminal sentence with an added punishment that should be considered cruel and unusual (i.e., indefinite imprisonment or exile). Third, when the tactics aimed at protecting and serving local communities get usurped by the federal government for immigration enforcement purposes, they often undermine these original aims or get used in ways that conflict with the U.S. Constitution. These concerns should prompt us therefore either to reject the government’s plenary power over immigration or require the federal government to be more consistent about maintaining the separation between criminal law and immigration law.

Author's Profile

José Jorge Mendoza
University of Washington

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-05-02

Downloads
606 (#24,943)

6 months
66 (#60,988)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?