Sovereign Bias, Crimmigration, and Risk

  • Robert KoulishEmail author


This chapter is part of a larger research project. It examines the proenforcement tilt of crimmigration with reference to sovereign bias. Sovereign bias alludes to how the nation-state wields extraordinary power over noncitizens at territorial borders and within boundaries. It favors politics over law, and the state over immigrants. It occurs where political actors have final say over legal matters, and governmental authority is nearly unconstrained by constitutional norms. As much as plenary powers have tempered in recent years, sovereign bias continues to drive an exceptional path for immigration at the intersection of law and crime. Following a brief examination of crimmigration enforcement and detention, the chapter documents sovereign bias in ICE’s risk classification assessment for detention, where secret computer algorithms are responsible for recommending the mass detention of hundreds of thousands of noncitizens without due process.


Control Detention Plenary powers Risk Securitization Sovereignty Technology 


  1. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson L (1997) Back to the future: congress attacks the right to judicial review of immigration proceedings. Conn Law Rev 12(1411):1412Google Scholar
  3. Department of Homeland Security (2012) Immigration enforcement actions. DHS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Department of Homeland Security (2013) Immigration Enforcement ActionsGoogle Scholar
  5. Department of Homeland Security (2014) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses, FiscalYear 2015 Congressional Justification, 81Google Scholar
  6. Hernández G, Cuauhtémoc C (2014) Immigration detention as punishment. UCLA Law Rev 61(5):13–41Google Scholar
  7. Koulish R, Noferi M (2015) Immigration detention in the risk classification assessment era. Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Legomsky SH (2007) The new path of immigration law: asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms. Immigr Nationality Law Rev 28:679Google Scholar
  9. Lydgate J (2010) Assembly-line justice: a review of operation streamline. Calif Law Policy Brief 481–544Google Scholar
  10. Meissner D, Kerwin D, Muzaffar C, Bergeron C (2013) Immigration enforcement in the United States: the rise of a formidable machinery. Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Mitsilegas V (2015) The criminalisation of migration in Europe: challenges for human rights and the rule of law. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morton J (2011) Morton memo exercising prosecutorial discretion.
  13. Noferi M, Koulish R (2014) The immigrant detention risk assessment. Georgetown Immig Law J 29:45Google Scholar
  14. Schriro D (2010) Improving conditions of confinement for criminal inmates and immigrant detainees. Am Crim Law Rev 47:1441Google Scholar
  15. Simon J (2007) Governing through crime. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Stumpf J (2006) The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. Am Univ Law Rev 56:367Google Scholar
  17. Waever O (1995) Securitization and desecuritization. In: Lipschutz R (ed) On security. Columbia University, New York, pp 46–86Google Scholar
  18. Welch M (2007) Moral panic, denial and human rights: scanning the spectrum from overreaction to under-reaction. Crime, social control and human rights: from moral panics to states of denial: essays in honour of Stanley Cohen 92–104Google Scholar


  1. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Pub. L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214Google Scholar
  2. Illegal Immigration reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Pub. L. No. 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009Google Scholar

U.S. Cases Cited

  1. Chae Chan Ping, 130 U.S. 581 (1889)Google Scholar
  2. Matter of Chairez-Castrejon, 26 I&N Dec. 349, 354 (BIA 2014)Google Scholar
  3. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. Fiallo v Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)Google Scholar
  5. Fong Yue Ting v U.S., 149 U.S. 698 (1893)Google Scholar
  6. Jean v Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985)Google Scholar
  7. Kleindienst v Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)Google Scholar
  8. Knauff v Schaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950)Google Scholar
  9. Matter of Silva-Trevino, 2008 BIA LEXIS 37, 2 (B.I.A. 2008)Google Scholar
  10. Nishimura Ekiu v U.S., 42 U.S. 631 (1892)Google Scholar
  11. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v Stranahan (214 U.S. 320 (1909)Google Scholar
  12. Omargharib, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24289 (4th Cir. Dec. 23, 2014)Google Scholar
  13. Olmstead v United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (Brandeis, J., dissenting)Google Scholar
  14. Orantes Hernandez v Thornburg, 919 F. 2d. 549 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. Plyler v Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)Google Scholar
  16. United States v. Royal 731 F.3d 333, 342 (4th Cir. 2013)Google Scholar
  17. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896)Google Scholar
  18. Zadvydas v. United States, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MLAW Programs and the Department of Government and PoliticsUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations