{"id":{"repo_id":"buffalo","oai_identifier":"oai:ubir.buffalo.edu:10477/80866"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/buffalo/oai:ubir.buffalo.edu:10477/80866","repository":{"repo_id":"buffalo","name":"Buffalo","base_url":"https://ubir.buffalo.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Immigration Detention: A Survey","abstract":"M.A.","abstract_html":"M.A.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Xu, Shengkai"],"institution":"State University of New York at Buffalo","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Nightingale, Carl","Transnational Studies - American Studies","Africana and American Studies"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-10-29T16:47:42Z","date_published":"2019-10-29T16:47:42Z","updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:05:25Z","subjects":["American studies","law"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Users of works found in University at Buffalo Institutional Repository (UBIR) are responsible for identifying and contacting the copyright owner for permission to reuse. University at Buffalo Libraries do not manage rights for copyright-protected works and cannot assist with permissions.","Copyright retained by author."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10477/80866","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Nightingale, Carl","Transnational Studies - American Studies","Africana and American Studies"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Xu, Shengkai"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2019-10-29T16:47:42Z","2019","2019-07-25 22:45:29"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["State University of New York at Buffalo"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis","Text"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["American studies","law"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Users of works found in University at Buffalo Institutional Repository (UBIR) are responsible for identifying and contacting the copyright owner for permission to reuse. University at Buffalo Libraries do not manage rights for copyright-protected works and cannot assist with permissions.","Copyright retained by author."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10477/80866"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["M.A.","Immigration detention is as old as immigration law. For more than a century, federal immigration authority has been empowered to keep noncitizens in custody. The rationale is that temporary confinement is “part of the means necessary to give effect to” exclusion and deportation. But would there ever be a point after which the detention of noncitizens becomes unnecessary or unjustified, and therefore the opportunity of release on bail must be afforded? The drawing of that fine line has incurred much debate. Some argue that the demarcation must account for the length of custody; others prefer not a yardstick, but to inquire detention’s purpose; still others believe that the power of drawing itself ought to be left unchecked. Those endorsing the last viewpoint are not without strong arguments. After all, noncitizens are not yet full members in the American polity; their presence is a matter of invitation. Furthermore, too much probing on government’s ability to detain hampers the exercise of its power to enforce removal. And finally, it is said that the Bill of Rights is a luxury. A luxury only for the time of peace, and a luxury that need not be fully extended to strangers, “criminal and terrorist aliens” in particular. Those defending civil liberties disagree. For the Bill of Rights constrain government’s conduct, and noncitizens are explicitly protected by multiple amendments. Moreover, a double standard sacrificing “their liberty” to enhance “our security” is inconsistent with our fundamental values. Last but not the least, boundaries between suppressing the civil liberty of aliens and suppressing the civil liberty of citizens are all too often unstable. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 authorized mandatory detention on various classes of aliens."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Immigration Detention: A Survey"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Nightingale, Carl","Transnational Studies - American Studies","Africana and American Studies"],"dc:creator":["Xu, Shengkai"],"dc:date":["2019-10-29T16:47:42Z","2019","2019-07-25 22:45:29"],"dc:description":["M.A.","Immigration detention is as old as immigration law. For more than a century, federal immigration authority has been empowered to keep noncitizens in custody. The rationale is that temporary confinement is “part of the means necessary to give effect to” exclusion and deportation. But would there ever be a point after which the detention of noncitizens becomes unnecessary or unjustified, and therefore the opportunity of release on bail must be afforded? The drawing of that fine line has incurred much debate. Some argue that the demarcation must account for the length of custody; others prefer not a yardstick, but to inquire detention’s purpose; still others believe that the power of drawing itself ought to be left unchecked. Those endorsing the last viewpoint are not without strong arguments. After all, noncitizens are not yet full members in the American polity; their presence is a matter of invitation. Furthermore, too much probing on government’s ability to detain hampers the exercise of its power to enforce removal. And finally, it is said that the Bill of Rights is a luxury. A luxury only for the time of peace, and a luxury that need not be fully extended to strangers, “criminal and terrorist aliens” in particular. Those defending civil liberties disagree. For the Bill of Rights constrain government’s conduct, and noncitizens are explicitly protected by multiple amendments. Moreover, a double standard sacrificing “their liberty” to enhance “our security” is inconsistent with our fundamental values. Last but not the least, boundaries between suppressing the civil liberty of aliens and suppressing the civil liberty of citizens are all too often unstable. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 authorized mandatory detention on various classes of aliens."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/10477/80866"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher":["State University of New York at Buffalo"],"dc:rights":["Users of works found in University at Buffalo Institutional Repository (UBIR) are responsible for identifying and contacting the copyright owner for permission to reuse. University at Buffalo Libraries do not manage rights for copyright-protected works and cannot assist with permissions.","Copyright retained by author."],"dc:subject":["American studies","law"],"dc:title":["Immigration Detention: A Survey"],"dc:type":["Thesis","Text"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:05:25Z"}