1 Introduction The interaction between immigration and criminal law is among the most complex and technical fields

of law presently. At the middle of criminal law and immigration law, is the immigrant. Whether looking for admission or trying to avoid a deportation, or in relation to any crime, the rights of undocumented immigrants are of considerable importance. Violations of those rights leads to a great concern, when the undocumented immigrants are have committed criminal offence, or where the offense is worsened by the immigration status. Indeed, as noted by Guild and Minderhoud (2006). Criminal law and immigration law have customarily been viewed slightly separately by judicial and governing institutions. In addition, whereas criminal law is under the powers of the states, immigration law is normally under the powers of the federal administration. With considerable and constant interactions, hard questions arises, such as, what degree does criminal law impact immigration law? Do their functions in influencing immigration continue to overlap? This paper will critically examine the interaction of criminal law and immigration law. In most cases, the most crucial issue that face noncitizen (undocumented immigrants) defendants charged with committing a crime is whether when convicted and sentenced for the crime, will result in some certain provisions contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), that will lead in his deportation from the US. Usually noncitizen defendants do not understand how critical this matter is until it turns out to be too late. The present provisions of immigration law make the consequences for committing a crime to be very severe. Noncitizens, who are convicted of seemingly minor offences such as theft, can face devastating consequences. The moment they are convicted and sentenced, noncitizens could face such severe consequences such as direct deportation, being permanently barred from returning to the US and a

2 likely indefinite detention by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities, regardless of the duration he has lived in the US, the family ties he has, or if he is legally in the US. In addition, the most of the noncitizen offenders are not represent during their immigration proceedings. As pointed out by Guild and Minderhoud (2006) many of them are kept in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the course of their proceedings. When noncitizen commits crime, an aggravated crime he may be deported. As explained by Guild and Minderhoud (2006) the effect of an aggravated crime conviction differ for those staying in the US both legally and illegally. For legal immigrants, an aggravated crime conviction is basis for deportation Guild and Minderhoud (2006). Therefore, any person who has been legally living in the US will be put in deportation proceedings and arraigned with deportation if the person is convicted of a crime that is classified as aggravated offense. This implies that legally permanent citizens for example those with green cards and refuges will certainly face deportation if found guilty of an aggravated offense. Nonetheless, the immigration laws stipulates for a special process referred to expedited removal of aggravated offenses. Any un-documented person who is not legally residing in the US and who has been convicted of aggravated rime can be expeditiously deported. Supposing the ICE officers execute the option to apply this process, the individual will not be given a hearing before the immigration judge; instead the ICE in this case issues an unreviewable instruction of deportation, and the individual will not be given any type of relief from deportation. The result of this continued focus on criminal immigration enforcement, taken by the criminal justice system in relation to immigration has been under examined.

3 Immigration and criminal law experts have provided varying interpretation regarding the criminal justice system and its relationship to immigration enforcement. As observed by Eagly (2010) on the, on the criminal law side, law experts have taken an antiformalist analytic position, where they focus on the disjuncture existing between the criminal system and the criminal laws doctrinal principles. Experts have written on the way the actuality of procedural protections. Scholars in this field of law have stressed race and class inequality in the criminal justice system, but have failed to give noncitizens defendants any form special attention on the basis of their alienage. So that their literature highlights the key disadvantage faced by noncitizen defendants, for example cultural barriers and language difficulties, which could result in them more exposed to abuse. Nonetheless, their circumstance is not doctrinally or systematically differentiated from those of other minority groups in this imperfect criminal justice system. On the immigration law side, literature in this field puts a lot of emphasis in the inverse of criminal law, and its highly concerned by the manner in which noncitizens are treated by the immigration system. But, it is formal about the criminal system. According to Eagly (2010) this approach is taken due to the increasing focus on the relation between criminal activities and immigration, and the effect of this relation on the immigration system, in the civil administrative bodies that determine the entry of immigrants in the US. Experts in immigration law assert that noncitizens are treated asymmetrically by criminal law. They add that, immigrants are more and more subjected to heavy burdens of criminal law. For instance, they are deported when convicted for a criminal offence, yet they are not given any benefits by criminal law, for example, they are not offered Miranda warnings, and jury trials.

4 Thus, the two literatures regarding criminal law and immigration law take opposing analytic and formative views. Yet, they are joined by a general assumption regarding the operational relations between criminal and immigration fields. The first common assumption is that what can be termed as doctrinal equality, meaning that noncitizens defendants share equal playing field as any other defendant in the criminal justice system. The second assumption is what can be termed as, institutional autonomy, meaning that criminal and immigration systems work as independent institutions with divergent adjudicatory approaches, players and sanctioning systems. Conclusion Criminal law and immigration law though having divergent views on the manner noncitizens are treated, they agree on two aspects of law; doctrinal equality and institutional autonomy. With immigration related crimes accounting for high percentage of federal crime, the issue of immigrants has attracted a lot of attention. Nonetheless, the interaction between immigration and criminal law is still complex and technical, and thus require critical examination to understand its interaction.

Reference Eagly, I (2010).Prosecuting Immigration; 104 NW. U. L. REV. 1281

6 Guild, E and Minderhoud, P (2006): (Edited). Immigration and Criminal Law in the European Union: The Legal Measures and Social Consequences of Criminal Law in Member States on Trafficking and Smuggling in Human Beings; Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy in Europe No.9.