Migration Policy and Crimes: Removal by Criminal Offenses and Rights under the Current Argentine Migration Law

Abstract In this paper I present some doctoral research findings related to the implementation of the argentine migration policy through the Judiciary: the cases of removal by criminal offenses. Thus, I employ the records reviewed for the research, which removal order was based on a criminal offense and I distingue two different regimes for removals: “newcomer” and “resident”. Then, I list the cases founded and certain details (years of incarceration, existence of family, date of entrance, etc.) that allow me to analyze the balance between the criminal sanction and the removal, and the rights of the migrant (e.g. to family reunification, etc.). Finally, I conclude that the removal once the sentence is served is a sanction that undermines the non bis in idem principle and that in almost every case the person involved was treated as a “newcomer”, banning this way a judicial revision.

摘要 本文呈现了与阿根廷通过司法体系实施移民政策相关的部分博士研究成果，核心聚焦于基于刑事犯罪的移民驱逐案件。为此，本文采用了本研究梳理的相关案卷材料，这些案卷中的驱逐决定均以刑事犯罪为依据，并区分了两类不同的驱逐规制模式：“新入境者”与“常住居民”。随后，本文罗列了已立案的案件及若干关键细节（如监禁年限、家庭状况、入境日期等），借此分析刑事处罚与驱逐之间的平衡关系，以及移民所享有的各项权利（例如家庭团聚权等）。最终本文得出结论：在服刑完毕后实施的驱逐行为，是一种违反一事不再理（non bis in idem）原则的制裁手段；且在绝大多数案例中，相关人员均被视作“新入境者”，由此剥夺了其申请司法审查的权利。