Should federal jurisdiction over unaccompanied foreign-born children who come into contact with immigration authority be restructured?
Currently, the INS has consolidated children’s programs under its Office of Field Operations-Detention and Removal Branch, a department intrinsically tied to the INS’ law enforcement function. Since the Detention and Removal Branch assumed jurisdiction over children’s programming within INS, enforcement concerns have consistently outweighed adjudication and physical custody of children newcomers. This pattern of negligence is evidenced in the agency’s deportation functions, budgetary concerns, and administrative and logistical priorities. For example, the INS Juvenile Affairs Divisions is the center office that oversees juvenile and family detention and shelter care, located in Washington D.C.; while the direct supervision is implemented through juvenile coordinators of each of the three INS regional and 33 INS district offices across the country. The decentralized structure gives local agencies tremendous autonomy with inconsistent practice and little accountability. Moreover, these d
Related Questions
- Is there a duty owed by a local authority to those claiming to be asylum seeking children who are detained at an immigration detention (removal) centre?
- Should federal jurisdiction over unaccompanied foreign-born children who come into contact with immigration authority be restructured?
- How and why has the State of Alabama be given the authority to enforce federal immigration law?
