Rearrests of Noncitizens Subsequent to Immigration Removal From the United States

• Date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/1057567720975453
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Original Articles

Original Article

Rearrests of Noncitizens

Subsequent to Immigration

Removal From the United States

Jennifer S. Wong

1

and Laura J. Hickman

2

Abstract

Deportation or removal from the United States for criminal justice–involved noncitizens has been

described as analogous to incapacitation. A common assertion is that if immigration authorities

remove these noncitizens from the United States, future criminal justice involvement will be averted.

The present study explores the hypothesized incapacitation effect of immigration removal and tests

whether a record of prior removal predicts postremoval rearrest patterns. The sample consists of

521 foreign-born males with a verified immigration removal from the United States, following

transfer into federal immigration custody from Los Angeles County Jail in 2002. California rearrests

after the date of verified U.S. removal were tracked through 2011. Results indicate that 48% of the

sample was rearrested at least once and 22% had three or more postremoval arrests. These findings

do not support the hypothesis that deportation equates to permanent incapacitation. The study also

found that a record of prior removal did not predict postremoval rearrest likelihood or frequency.

As a single longitudinal study and the first of its kind, these results alone cannot inform responsible

policy recommendations. The study does, however, highlight directions for further research and the

pressing need for access to individual-level immigration data for empirical study and public distri-

bution of results.

Keywords

longitudinal research, recidivism, incapacitation, federal law, unauthorized immigrants

Deportation or removal from the United States for criminal justice–involved noncitizens has been

described as analogous to incapacitation (Coleman & Kocher, 2011; Miles & Cox, 2014; Warner,

2005). For example, Warner (2005) refers to this as “incapacitation by removal” (p. 75). In the

corrections literature, incapacitation as a strategy for crime reduction focuses on preventing crimes

by physically isolating offenders from the community, typically through methods of incarceration

(Greenwood, 1982; Visher, 1987). In other words, while offenders are in jail or prison they are

1

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

2

Portland State University, OR, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jennifer S. Wong, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Blvd., Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6.

Email: jenwong@sfu.ca

International CriminalJustice Review

ª2020 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1057567720975453

journals.sagepub.com/home/icj

2022, Vol. 32(1)

–

88 106

prevented from committing further crimes in the community, thus contributing to a reduction in the

offenses that would have occurred had they remained free from custody (Greenwood, 1982; Zimring

& Hawkins, 1995; note that some degree of replacement of certain crime types by other individuals

is expected, Visher, 1987). With respect to removable noncitizens (those often referred to as undo-

cumented, unauthorized, or illegal immigrants

1

), the strategy of selective incapacitation can be

conceptualized through the use of deportation from the United States. If criminally involved non-

citizens are removed from the country, they are akin to individuals locked in prison, in that they are

no longer available to recidivate in the community. In other words, Paige (2011) observes that

deportation “could be considered a form of incapacitation that operates by removing the offender

from society” (p. 181).

If deportation is the equivalent of permanent incapacitation, it follows that removed individuals

should not be rearrested for new criminal offenses within the United States (Phillip, 2015). We refer

to this expectation as the “incapacitation hypothesis.” While much research has focused on inca-

pacitation with respect to incarceration (e.g., Piquero & Blumstein, 2007), the hypothesis offered in

the context of removable noncitize ns has not been tested empirically. To date, little study has

focused on the recidivism of removable noncitizens identified within a criminal justice population

in general (Hines & Peri, 2019; Stowell et al., 2013), and even less is known about the subgroup that

is taken into federal custody. In fact, outside of limited descriptive summary reports issued by

federal agencies, we could identify little published literature empirically describing what happens

after criminal justice–involved noncitizens are transferred from jail or prison into federal immigra-

tion custody.

The present study seeks to contribute empirical knowledge in this area through a long-term study

of rearrests of noncitizens postremoval from the country. The sample consists of male removable

noncitizens (1) released directly into the custody of federal immigration from LA County Jail, who

(2) had a documented date of verified removal from the United States within 3 years. The study has

three goals: First, to describe the characteristics of those who were removed from the country and

their subsequent rearrests within the state of California—specifically, rearrests occurring in the state

of California after the verified date of immigration removal. Second, the study seeks to test whether

a history of prior removal from the country represents a significant risk factor for repeat arrest

following a subsequent removal, relative to those with no prior record of removal. Third, the study

provides an opportunity to establish a baseline of the rate of rearrests after verified removal, in the

context of a specific population, to provide a source of comparison for future research examining

trends in rearrests after removal.

Prior removal from the country is of interest for two reasons. First, as discussed in detail in a

subsequent section, previous research finds prior removal to be associated with repeat arrest postjail

release within this population (Hickman & Suttorp, 2010; Hickman et al., 2016). Second, a record of

prior removal is identified in federal immigration policy and in political discussions as an indicator

of increased public safety risk (Office of Detention and Removal, 2003; Raymond et al., 2004;

Warner, 2005). To develop the necessary background for the present study, we begin by providing a

brief overview of issues related to federal immigration law enforcement and the removal process,

2

followed by a discussion of prior studies relevant to the topic at hand.

Removable Status and Recent Interior Federal Immigration Enforcement Efforts

Federal immigration processes change over time in policy, practice, and legal scope, and it is

beyond the scope of the current study to document these changes over time and compare with

processes currently in place. We proceed with describing the process in place during the time period

relevant for the data contained in the present study (2002–2011).

89

Wong and Hickman