William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
Abstract
If the Trump administration’s goal is to remove between fifteen and twenty million undocumented individuals, then it would be far more effective to reduce the incentive of American companies and employers to hire undocumented individuals. Therefore, from a prosecutorial perspective, the federal government should consider whether seeking to charge and prosecute individuals is the most effective approach, or whether they should redirect their effort to the individual’s employer.
In addition to employers engaging in criminal immigration offenses, for several years now, the federal government has notably ignored the action of one person engaged in the smuggling of over 100,000 undocumented individuals: Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Perhaps his status as a politician insulates him from criminal liability. However, the evidence of his commission of these offenses is striking. Part I of this Article will address this assertion against Governor Abbott, to demonstrate the role that prosecutorial discretion plays in who gets charged and convicted of criminal immigration offenses.
In Part II, the Article explains various criminal immigration offenses, including the charge for illegally hiring or employing undocumented workers. Part III provides data for the frequency of prosecutions for the specific charges for employing undocumented individuals, and considers how the federal government seldom files such charges against companies or individuals. Finally, in Part IV, the Article outlines the role prosecutorial discretion plays in federal prosecutions, especially of immigration offenses.
This abstract has been adapted from the author's introduction.