How the Trump Administration’s Quota Policy Transformed Immigration Judging

IF 5.9 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE American Political Science Review Pub Date : 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1017/s0003055423001028
ELISE N. BLASINGAME, CHRISTINA L. BOYD, ROBERTO F. CARLOS, JOSEPH T. ORNSTEIN
{"title":"How the Trump Administration’s Quota Policy Transformed Immigration Judging","authors":"ELISE N. BLASINGAME, CHRISTINA L. BOYD, ROBERTO F. CARLOS, JOSEPH T. ORNSTEIN","doi":"10.1017/s0003055423001028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Trump administration implemented a controversial performance quota policy for immigration judges in October 2018. The policy’s political motivations were clear: to pressure immigration judges to order more immigration removals and deportations as quickly as possible. Previous attempts by U.S. presidents to control immigration judges were ineffective, but this quota policy was different because it credibly threatened judges’ job security and promotion opportunities if they failed to follow the policy. Our analysis of hundreds of thousands of judicial decisions before and after the policy’s implementation demonstrates that the quota policy successfully led immigration judges to issue more immigration removal orders (both in absentia and merits orders). The post-policy change in behavior was strongest among those judges who were less inclined, pre-policy, to issue immigration removal decisions. These findings have important implications for immigration judge independence, due process protections for noncitizens, and presidential efforts to control the federal bureaucracy.","PeriodicalId":48451,"journal":{"name":"American Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423001028","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Trump administration implemented a controversial performance quota policy for immigration judges in October 2018. The policy’s political motivations were clear: to pressure immigration judges to order more immigration removals and deportations as quickly as possible. Previous attempts by U.S. presidents to control immigration judges were ineffective, but this quota policy was different because it credibly threatened judges’ job security and promotion opportunities if they failed to follow the policy. Our analysis of hundreds of thousands of judicial decisions before and after the policy’s implementation demonstrates that the quota policy successfully led immigration judges to issue more immigration removal orders (both in absentia and merits orders). The post-policy change in behavior was strongest among those judges who were less inclined, pre-policy, to issue immigration removal decisions. These findings have important implications for immigration judge independence, due process protections for noncitizens, and presidential efforts to control the federal bureaucracy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
特朗普政府的配额政策如何改变了移民审判
特朗普政府于2018年10月对移民法官实施了一项有争议的绩效配额政策。这项政策的政治动机很明显:向移民法官施压,要求他们尽快下令遣返更多的移民。以往美国总统试图控制移民法官的努力都是无效的,但这次的配额政策不同,因为它确实威胁到法官的工作保障和晋升机会,如果他们不遵守政策。我们对该政策实施前后数十万个司法判决的分析表明,配额政策成功地导致移民法官发布了更多的移民遣返令(包括缺席令和案情令)。在那些在政策出台前不太倾向于发布移民遣返决定的法官中,政策出台后行为变化最为明显。这些发现对移民法官的独立性、对非公民的正当程序保护以及总统控制联邦官僚机构的努力具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
119
期刊介绍: American Political Science Review is political science''s premier scholarly research journal, providing peer-reviewed articles and review essays from subfields throughout the discipline. Areas covered include political theory, American politics, public policy, public administration, comparative politics, and international relations. APSR has published continuously since 1906. American Political Science Review is sold ONLY as part of a joint subscription with Perspectives on Politics and PS: Political Science & Politics.
期刊最新文献
Senate Countermajoritarianism Conditional Enfranchisement: How Partisanship Determines Support for Noncitizen Voting Rights Leaders but Not Authorities? Gender, Veterans, and Messages about National Security – ERRATUM Crediting Invisible Work: Congress and the Lawmaking Productivity Metric (LawProM) The Apocalypse from Below: The Dangerous Idea of the End of the World, the Politics of the Oppressed, and Anti-Anti-Apocalypticism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1