Abstract:Immigration policy is back on the American public’s radar screen. The fields of immigration — a civil-law subject — and criminal law — a public- law subject — are quite distinct in both litigation practice and law school curricula. The distinction is becoming increasingly problematic as the subjects continue to intertwine in very practical ways: federal criminal prosecution is now routinely used as part of border enforcement strategy, and interior immigration enforcement is done largely in cooperation with state and local policing. The Department of Justice (DOJ), under a new administration whose goal is to expand and accelerate removal of non- citizens, is taking advantage of this historical division. Intending to have its cake and eat it too, the Trump administration wants to retain the civil aspects of immigration law that most benefit the government (primarily that a non-citizen has no Sixth Amendment right to an attorney at the government’s expense in deportation proceedings), while retaining the aspects of criminal law where the government holds all the cards (namely the coercive aspect of plea bargains that can include waivers of most of the defendant’s substantive and procedural rights). By combining the greatest pro-government interests of both fields, prosecutors are best positioned to reach the current administration’s goal to deport as many immigrants as possible. Although the Authors do not comment on the propriety of this goal, we do take issue with the government’s illegitimate means of achieving it by including waivers of immigration relief and challenges to deportability in criminal plea agreements. This Article focuses on DOJ’s inclusion of waivers of immigration relief in plea agreements for non-citizen federal defendants and proposes some challenges to these waivers. Federal district and appellate judges, immigration judges (IJs), and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members will find below legal grounds to decline to accept these waivers. Such tools are critical to combat this new federal immigration waiver propensity — which is especially disturbing in light of Attorney General Sessions’ April 11, 2017 Memorandum requiring federal prosecutors to substantially broaden immigration prosecutions, and limiting discretion on whom not to deport. The government seeks waivers of critical rights without giving non-citizen defendants access to the tools and knowledge to make fully informed decisions. In Part I, we review the language of immigration waivers, which widely varies by jurisdiction, and include an appended chart tracking waivers from each U.S. Attorney’s Office that presently requests waivers as part of their standard plea agreements. In Part II, we briefly describe how removal orders are imposed by immigration judges, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers, and by federal district court judges, and discuss the effect these waivers will have in those proceedings. The Authors also include a discussion of the potential grounds of relief from removal, such as asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture in conjunction with challenging the grounds for the deportation. Finally, we spend some time on the renewed use of a 1994 judicial removal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1228. In Part III, we identify five methods for challenging these waivers. We first urge immigrants to demand hearings and to challenge the factual statements contained in the plea waivers. Next, we question the constitutionality of the judicial removal statute. Moving on, we suggest that defense attorneys who advise clients to sign these waivers may be providing ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, we note that ethics rules regarding competency prohibit most criminal defense attorneys from advising their clients regarding what immigration rights they are ceding, and similarly, prohibit prosecutors from seeking such waivers. Finally, we argue that public policy and international law obligations may prohibit enforcement of these waivers.

Recreational cannabis legalization and immigration enforcement: a state-level analysis of arrests and deportations in the United States, 2009–2020

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Cannabis Use Following Legalization in US States With Medical Cannabis Laws

A tale of two cities: Racialized arrests following decriminalization and recreational legalization of cannabis

Assessing the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use: the US experience

Drug prohibition and the criminalization of immigrants: The compounding of drug war disparities in the United States deportation regime

Racial Disparities in the Enforcement of Marijuana Violations in the US

Gender Differences in Cannabis Outcomes After Recreational Cannabis Legalization: A United States Repeated Cross-sectional Study, 2008–2017

Assessing the Impact of Recreational Cannabis Legalization on Cannabis Use Disorder and Admissions to Treatment in the United States

Overpoliced and Underrepresented: Perspectives on Cannabis Legalization From Members of Racialized Communities in Canada

Policing Pot: State-Level Cannabis Arrests Increase Perceived Risks and Costs but Not Use

Association of Recreational Cannabis Laws in Colorado and Washington State With Changes in Traffic Fatalities, 2005-2017

Crimmigrating Narratives: Examining Third-Party Observations of US Detained Immigration Court

Is Legal Status a Marker for Recidivism? Examining the Reoffending Patterns of Previously Incarcerated Immigrants

Cannabis legalization by states reduces illegal growing on US national forests

An Estimate of the Level and Determinants of Illicit Drug Use among Unauthorized Latino Immigrant Arrestees in California

Protecting Postville? The impact of deportation and immigration on crime

Recreational cannabis legalization and pediatric exposures in Massachusetts, United States

The association between recreational cannabis commercialization and cannabis exposures reported to the US National Poison Data System

Immigration, Sanctuary Policies, and Public Safety

Immigration Defense Waivers in Federal Criminal Plea Agreements

The Legalization of Cannabis and the Question of Reparations