“Crimmigration” Advisal in Public Defense Offices: An Exploration of Major Immigrant-Receiving Cities in the United States

• In Event: The Criminalization-to-Deportation Pipeline: Community Responses, Advocacy, and Resistance

Abstract

Over the past forty years, categories of deportable criminal convictions have been expanded to include a broad range of offenses, many of them minor and non-violent, with determinative consequences for documented and undocumented immigrants alike. Yet until relatively recently, criminal lawyers were not required to advise their clients on the immigration consequences of potential guilty pleas. In the 2010 decision Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that criminal defenders must advise non-citizen clients if a plea carries a risk of deportation, in order to satisfy the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel. While institutionalized “crimmigration” advisal in public defense offices has been shown to play a key role in mitigating the expansive and racially unequal impacts of criminal deportation, there is evidence of varied and inadequate implementation throughout the United States. Through interviews with criminal defenders, immigration lawyers, and legal advocates, this pilot study examines the extent, impacts, and limitations of crimmigration advisal in public defense offices in seven major immigrant-receiving municipalities. Findings begin the first systematic evaluation of the level to which Padilla is being applied and institutionalized around the country, and how to improve access to justice for immigrants affected by the criminal legal system.

Authors

• Sarah Tosh, Rutgers University - Camden

• Lorena Avila Jaimes, Rutgers University - Newark