Skip to main content

Legal Attitudes of Immigrant Detainees

Emily Ryo, Associate Professor of Law & Sociology
University of Southern California Gould School of Law

In my recent article, Legal Attitudes of Immigrant Detainees, I explore a topic that is difficult yet important to investigate: the legal attitudes of immigrant detainees.  By legal attitudes, I mean people’s views and beliefs about the law and legal authorities.  Why study immigrants’ legal attitudes?  One practical reason is that studies show that people’s legal attitudes often have wide ranging behavioral consequences—from their willingness to report crimes to their decisions regarding whether to obey the law.  In addition, detainees’ legal attitudes may have significant implications for both domestic and international governance and the rule of law.  All detainees must either be deported to their countries of origin or released back into their communities in the United States after an intensive period of confinement that requires them to navigate the U.S. legal system and to interact with legal authorities on a sustained basis.  Immigrant detainees thus have the potential to widely disseminate expressions of deference and trust, or cynicism and delegitimating beliefs, about the U.S. legal system and authorities—not only within the United States, but also around the world.

My study addresses two key questions using original survey data on 434 long-term immigrant detainees in the Central District of California (Rodriguez Survey).  How do immigrant detainees perceive obligations to obey the law generally, and U.S. immigration authorities in particular?  What is the relationship between detainees’ procedural justice judgments and their perceived obligations to obey?  Procedural justice refers to people’s judgments about fairness in interpersonal treatment (for example, whether they felt they were treated with dignity, care, and concern).  My study analyzes detainees’ perceptions of procedural justice in detention, both in relation to their own personal treatment and the treatment of other detainees.

My findings offer a unique window into the world of immigrant detainees.  First, the majority of detainees in the study (83 percent) reported a felt obligation to obey the law, and they did so at a significantly higher rate than other U.S. sample populations (see Figure 1).  I also find that the detainees’ perceived obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities is significantly related to their perceptions of fair treatment in detention, controlling for a variety of instrumental and detainee background factors.  That is, detainees who reported being treated with respect and as human beings in detention were more likely to express a felt sense of obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities.  Conversely, detainees who reported having personally experienced or witnessed others experience insults, humiliation, or threats from the guards or facility staff, were less likely to express a felt sense of obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities.    

My study provides a foundation for testing the potential causal relationship between detainees’ procedural justice judgments and their perceived obligations to obey U.S. immigration authorities.  More broadly, this study highlights the importance of developing a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the potentially far-reaching effects of enforcement policies against noncitizens.  These are critical and pressing tasks for future research—now more than ever—in light of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation plan, which is expected to greatly expand the use of immigration detention as an enforcement tool in the United States.  

Figure 1. Percentage of Respondents Who Agree/Disagree with the Statement, “People Should Obey the Law Even If It Goes Against What They Think Is Right”
 
Notes: Figure adapted from Papachristos, Meares, & Fagan (2012:427). *Data collected in collaboration with Caitlin Patler. 




Popular posts from this blog

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University


“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…

Submit Your Papers to Law & Society Review!

Rebecca L. Sandefur

 The Law and Society Association and the whole field of law and society research owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Jeannine Bell, Susan Sterett, and Margot Young, for their work as Editors of Law & Society Review.As incoming Editor, I am grateful to them for their stewardship of the journal, their generous support of authors and aspiring authors, and their innovations to the Review, including this blog.
The incoming Editorial Board has begun receiving new manuscripts as they are submitted. Jon Gould, Robert Lawless, Elizabeth Mertz, Jennifer Robbennolt and Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve have generously agreed to serve in this role. Together with participation from the Editorial Advisory Board -- a group deeply appreciated and too numerous to list here -- these scholars’ contributions expand the expertise of the journal’s editorial office across disciplines, methods, theoretical traditions, and regions of the world. Danielle McClellan continues to steady the ship …

TASER Technology and Police Officers’ Understanding and Use of Force

Michael Sierra-Arévalo
Rutgers University-Newark

The TASER--a weapon that uses electric current to incapacitate a subject by causing complete neuromuscular incapacitation--is ubiquitous among U.S. police officers. Spurred by pressure to reduce the lethality of police force, this force technology it is now used by more than 17,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Proponents of TASERs are quick to point out that research shows that most TASER deployments do not result in serious injury or death, and that TASERs provide officers with a useful, less-than-lethal alternative to their firearms. TASER critics, in turn, emphasize that even if TASERs are rarely lethal, 50,000 volts cause excruciating pain, fear, and psychological distress. They further emphasize that the TASER, like any weapon, can still be misused by police officers.

Though a large body of research examines police force, little is known about how officers make their use-of-force decisions in light of this new, less-than-lethal t…