Seeing “Down the Line”: Anticipating and Preventing the Collateral Consequences of Deportation via Affirmative and Defensive Legal Processes in the United States

• In Event: Global Struggles, Local Practices: Cause Lawyering in Crises of Democracy

Abstract

How do immigration attorneys’ strategies vary based on their non-citizen clients’ entry into the U.S. humanitarian process? Using 73 semi-structured interviews across four metropolitan areas (2019–2021), we compare attorneys handling paper-based applications for clients with less imminent deportation risk (affirmative attorneys) versus those advocating in court for clients facing immediate deportation (defensive attorneys). We examine their differing perceptions of the law, particularly regarding bureaucratic delay and its unequal consequences for clients’ claims to legal relief.
Our findings highlight the disparate ways of curating immigrants’ stories in legal contexts. Affirmative attorneys rely on written narratives, working within a system that favors “strong” cases. They focus on preventing deportation before it arises, seeking long-term relief, and advising clients to avoid complications while awaiting decisions. In contrast, defensive attorneys navigate the criminalizing nature of immigration court, using delay as a tool to establish legal equities and craft more compelling cases. Yet, this strategy risks further criminalizing their clients. These differences shape how attorneys and adjudicators construct immigrant narratives, reinforcing inequalities based on perceived threat, deservingness, and procedural delays. By anticipating legal obstacles, attorneys influence the stakes and outcomes of their clients’ cases across separate immigration legal processes.

Authors

• Christopher Levesque, Kenyon College

• Lilly Yu, RTI International