Removal of Central American Gang Members: How Immigration Laws Fail to Reflect Global Reality Note 63 University of Miami Law Review 2008-2009

About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

63 U. Miami L. Rev. 301 (2008-2009)
Removal of Central American Gang Members: How Immigration Laws Fail to Reflect Global Reality

handle is hein.journals/umialr63 and id is 303 raw text is:

NOTES

Removal of Central American Gang Members:
How Immigration Laws Fail To
Reflect Global Reality

FREDDY FUNESt

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 301
II. THE UNITED STATES' CURRENT POLICY OF CENTRAL AMERICAN REMOVAL .... 303
A. The Central American Gangs' History and Organization ............... 304
B. The United States Removes Gang Members to Central America ......... 306
C. Central America Cannot Cope with the Removals ..................... 310
III. THE EFFECTS OF THE REMOVAL POLICY ................................. 313
A. Uncontrolled Gang Violence ....................................... 314
B. Harm to the United States ......................................... 317
IV. CURRENT LAW CANNOT MITIGATE THE PROBLEM .............................. 322
A. Continuation of the Same Policy, and Courts' Refusal To Grant Asylum.. 322
B. Creating Incentives for Illegal Immigration .......................... 329
V. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ................................................. 330
A. Current Efforts To Help the Central American Nations ................ 330
B. Amending the Immigration Laws ................................... 332
V I. CONCLUSION ........................................................ 337

I. INTRODUCTION

To combat illegal immigration, the United States removes violent,
criminal aliens to their home countries.' In 1996, Congress expanded the
offenses that constitute an aggravated felony and eliminated relief
from removal of such crimes.' These laws had radical effects on the

t Executive Editor of the University of Miami Law Review. I dedicate this note to my
parents, Miriam and Jesus, whose diligence, bravery, and kindness I can never match. I thank
Professor Abraham for his input. I am also grateful for the editing help of Jarrod Martin and
Jenniifer Maurer. Special thankS to 1- Me-~ --Aric an -.iti Sts.-
..lllllIl ~lt~l~l op~l . tli~llh t Ilr~llbnld Ł IQUIUWIL (11U lbtlll OLabtlZ .
1. Before April 1, 1997, the United States deported aliens physically present in the United
States. After April 1, 1997, an alien may be either deportable or inadmissible when physically
inside the United States. The word removed captures removal of an alien on deportation and
inadmissibility grounds. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (2000). I use removed for any removal,
whether based on deportation or inadmissibility, that occurred after April 1, 1997. However,
most people still use deportation in the wider sense. Thus, some quotations might use
deported or deportation, when, in reality, the proper legal terms are removed and
removal.
2. Specifically, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
132, 110 Stat. 1214, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, changed the immigration laws.