Proportionality is conspicuously absent from the legal framework for immigration sanctions. Immigration law relies on one sanction - deportation - as the ubiquitous penalty for any immigration violation. Neither the gravity of the violation nor the harm that results bears on whether deportation is the consequence for an immigration violation. Immigration law stands alone in the legal landscape in this respect. Criminal punishment incorporates proportionality when imposing sentences that are graduated based on the gravity of the offense; contract and tort law provide for damages that are graduated based on the harm to others or to society.
This Article represents the first and fundamental step in a larger project of articulating a proposed remedial scheme that would align immigration law with the broader landscape of legal sanctions. It traces for the first time the history of immigration sanctions and offers a historical perspective on alternatives to the recent arrival of deportation as the central immigration sanction. It then proposes a new approach to remedying violations of immigration law, constructing a system of graduated sanctions grounded in criminal law and aligning immigration remedies with the tenets of U.S. immigration law.
This Article represents the first and fundamental step in a larger project of articulating a proposed remedial scheme that would align immigration law with the broader landscape of legal sanctions. It traces for the first time the history of immigration sanctions and offers a historical perspective on alternatives to the recent arrival of deportation as the central immigration sanction. It then proposes a new approach to remedying violations of immigration law, constructing a system of graduated sanctions grounded in criminal law and aligning immigration remedies with the tenets of U.S. immigration law.
