Dongjae Jung - Profile on Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Dongjae Jung

Punishing Immigrants: Policy, Politics, and Injustice edited by Charis E.Kubrin, Majorie S.Zatz, and RamiroMartínez, Jr., eds. New York: New York University Press, 2012. 276 pp. $21.60 (paper)

Governance, 2014

The Federal-Local Nexus in Immigration Enforcement Policy An Evaluation of the Secure Communities Program

Doctoral Dissertation

This study analyzes how current U.S. immigration enforcement policy has been carried out, specifi... more This study analyzes how current U.S. immigration enforcement policy has been carried out, specifically under the implementation of the Secure Communities (S-Comm) program. Paying special attention to the enforcement-only policy hysteria and immigration patchwork trend since the 2000s, this study has the following research questions: (1) whether S-Comm has faithfully implemented enforcement actions for removing "dangerous" criminal noncitizens; (2) how counties with different immigration perspectives have responded to such an immigration enforcement program; and (3) whether the implementation of S-Comm has really made local communities safer as in the program goal.

For analysis, 541 counties were selected, and their noncitizen enforcement results under S-Comm were analyzed with 5 time points, covering a 13-month period (Dec. 2011 - Jan. 2013) with longitudinal data analyses. In spite of the rosy advertisement of this program, analysis of S-Comm showed a very different picture. Unlike the federal immigration agency's promise of targeting dangerous criminal noncitizens, 1 in 4 noncitizen removals were for noncriminal violations, and more than half of noncitizen deportations were for misdemeanor charges and immigration violations in the name of "criminal aliens." Based on latent class analysis, three distinct subgroups of counties having different immigration enforcement policy perspectives were extracted, and there have been huge local variations over time on two key intergovernmental enforcement actions under the implementation of S-Comm: immigration detainer issuances and noncitizen deportations. Finally, unlike the federal immigration agency's "immigrant-crime nexus" assumption for legitimating the implementation of S-Comm, no significant and meaningful associations between these two factors were found. With serious conflicts and debates among policy actors on the implementation of S-Comm, this program was finally terminated in November 2014; although, the essence of the policy continues under a different name.

A series of results from this study indicate that the current enforcement-only policy approach has been wrongfully implemented, and fundamental reconsideration of immigration policy should be made. Enforcement-focused immigration policy could not solve fundamental immigration-related problems, including why noncitizens immigrate and how they should be dealt with as humans. More rational and humane approaches to dealing with immigration should be discussed at the national and local levels.

A blog posting for the Journal of Race, Ethnicity, & Politics, Apr 19, 2015

Who Are Really “Dangerous” Noncitizens Under Intergovernmental Immigration Enforcement Framework? Evidence from the Implementation of the Secure Communities Program

Using the federal immigration agency’s noncitizen deportation data under the Secure Communities (... more Using the federal immigration agency’s noncitizen deportation data under the Secure Communities (S-Comm) program during a recent 25 months (May 2011 - May 2013), this study empirically estimates trajectories of deportation outcomes over time, and whether this program has faithfully followed the stated goal. Considering deportation outcomes in terms of the three levels of criminality, one in four noncitizen deportations from the 541 jurisdictions in the study were for noncriminal or immigration violations. Additionally, over half of noncitizens deported from these localities during the same period were removed with Level 3 (minor charges) and noncriminal convictions. Multilevel modeling analysis for estimating deportation trajectory changes indicates that deportations based on Level 1 convictions were relatively low but have increased over time, while deportations based on Level 3 and noncriminal convictions have reverse trajectories - a very high deportation rate at the initial status, but declining over time. Such enforcement outcomes indicate that the policy goal of S-Comm - making communities safer via removing dangerous noncitizens - has failed to be implemented through mass criminalization and deportation of noncitizens with many misdemeanor charges or immigration violations. A clearer and publicly-recognized policy consensus about immigrant “criminality” and “dangerousness” and consequent immigration enforcement policy implementation is required.

How Current U.S. Immigration Enforcement Machine Has Been Carried Out Under Immigration Patchwork Trend: Analysis on the Relationship Between Issuing Immigration Detainers and Deportation Numbers Using Longitudinal Growth Curve Modeling

The Misapplied U.S. Federal Immigration Enforcement Policy for Removing the Dangerous Noncitizens under Immigration Patchwork Trend

Removal of “Worst of the Worst” Noncitizens from Communities: An Evaluation of Program Outcome of the Secure Communities Framework

This study attempts to critically and empirically analyze how the Secure Communities program as t... more This study attempts to critically and empirically analyze how the Secure Communities program as the key enforcement tool under the Obama administration has faithfully followed the stated program goal of targeting and removing the worst of the worst noncitizens in local communities for public safety and national security. By using ICE’s monthly enforcement (deportation) data during the last 5 years (October 2008 - November 2013), I found that Secure Communities has produced biased enforcement outcomes that do not fulfill the program’s promise, with more than half of noncitizens removed being those who commit misdemeanors or noncriminal convictions. Most noncriminal removals are related to immigration violations, and those with noncriminal convictions fall into the trap of deportation under the language of “criminal” and “dangerous” noncitizens. Regarding enforcement performance, there are considerable local variations in terms of which localities have high removal performance, and which localities have higher deportation rates of noncitizens with level 1, level 3, or noncriminal convictions. Activation orders (periods) and geographical contexts also made local variations on noncitizen enforcement performance. In addition to inter-locality enforcement variation, intra-locality enforcement changes over time are also found.

Local Variation in U.S. Immigration Enforcement Policy

56th Western Social Science Association Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico. April 2-5, 2014

In the past decade, the direction of U.S. immigration policy has drastically changed toward local... more In the past decade, the direction of U.S. immigration policy has drastically changed toward local activism in the process of immigration policymaking and implementation. In spite of a serious legal debate on the constitutionality of local participation in immigration policy, based on the federal preemptive power principal, the number of immigration legislation initiatives at the state level drastically increased from 2005 through 2012. These initiatives include legislation related to law enforcement, education, employment, and social welfare. Counties and cities have also voiced for or against noncitizens. In spite of a lack of concrete data or statistics on local ordinances per year at the county or city level, many localities have shown their perspective or will on immigration-related phenomena via local ordinances, resolutions, or executive orders. Interestingly, there is some variance on the extent or level of local participation in immigration policy, according to federal-local partnerships or information-sharing programs on immigration enforcement policies.

Of several issues being debated on the relevancy or constitutionality of local involvement in immigration policy, one recent attention-grabbing issue has been the role of “immigration detainers” issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for catching targeted noncitizens at local jails or detention facilities. As a prominent “administrative” tool for the deportation of noncitizens under the current U.S. immigration system, the issuance of immigration detainers should be carefully implemented to comply with the U.S. federal immigration enforcement policy goal, which targets “risky” noncitizens who pose a threat to public safety and national/border security. However, recent studies in the social science field show that ICE has indiscriminately issued detainers to localities to catch noncitizens with low-level criminal or immigration violations or without any criminal history, unlike the stated goal of federal immigration agencies.

With this information in mind, this study attempts to empirically analyze how immigration detainers issued by ICE influence internal immigration enforcement policy at the local/county level. By using public data received from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and litigation from immigration policy studies and immigration rights groups, I will explore the following two issues: (1) How many immigration detainers have been issued and to what localities in the years 2007 through 2012, and does the policy of issuing detainers to localities meet the stated goal of targeting and removing noncitizens with risky criminal histories and violations. (2) As localities have different perspectives on immigrants and immigrant enforcement actions, they have different extents of participation in enforcement policy, via 287(g) agreements with ICE and the Secure Communities program which information is shared with ICE and the FBI. So, using quantitative research methods, this study will analyze how different levels or extents of local participation in immigration enforcement policy are related to issuing detainers and deportation performance at the local level. Some contextual factors, such as economic interests of localities on the participation in immigration enforcement policy (i.e., support from the federal government in the form of subsidies or grants on immigration enforcement policy) will also be considered.

Public Administration Review, Sep 2014

Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Oct 2014

Finding maladaptive trajectories of second-generation immigrants in the United States across early adulthood

Targeting Mexican national origin in internal immigration enforcement policy: Evidence from immigration court data

Federal-Local Immigration Enforcement Partnership Program’s Impact on Deportation of Noncriminal Immigrants: Is Secure Communities a “Dragnet” for Catching and Deporting Immigrants or A Relevant Tool for Targeting Criminal Aliens?

행정언어와 질적연구, Jan 1, 2011

We have historically witnessed paradigmatic shifts of public policy-making processes and public m... more We have historically witnessed paradigmatic shifts of public policy-making processes and public management, from traditional bureaucratic governance based on elitism and top-down rational policy-making, through marketization of government or "business-like" government in the 1990s with its emphasis on improving public performance and outcome-based policy-making, to democratic governance and management that is representative of a participative and bottom-up policy process that includes laypeople and other policy actors and stakeholders who have long been alienated from mainstream politics and policy. After the popularization of discourse on democratic governance, there have been similar but rather different focal point-based paradigms, including (1) the feminist theory of Camilla Stivers (2) the "New Public Service" discourse , which focuses on different roles of public managers such as increasing democratic citizenship and organizational humanism, not the "New Public Management"-style steering and leading actor in public sphere; and (3) the "complexity" theory or paradigm based on "self-organization" and "co-evolution" under the complex adaptive system . Each paradigm has different ontological, epistemological, and methodological perspectives and approaches for supporting and reinforcing its logic and working mechanisms under a continually changing policy environment, and each paradigm shows a mutually-exclusive and mutually-criticized tendency to other paradigms. These paradigms have, simultaneously, strengths and limitations in terms of the impacts of their logic, the persuasiveness for defending their dynamics, their adaptability under fast-changing policy contexts, and the

Public Administration Review, Jan 1, 2011