The convergence of criminal prosecution and immigration consequences — a phenomenon legal scholars have termed "crimmigration" — represents one of the most consequential and underappreciated developments in American law. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) has long recognized that the failure to advise non-citizen clients of immigration consequences before entering a guilty plea constitutes constitutionally deficient representation. In Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that defense counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to advise a non-citizen client whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation. The Court rejected the argument that immigration consequences are merely "collateral" to a criminal conviction, recognizing that for many defendants, deportation is the functional equivalent of banishment or exile.

The INA contains an extensive list of criminal grounds of deportability and inadmissibility. Under 8 USC § 1227(a)(2), a lawful permanent resident may be removed for a conviction involving a crime of moral turpitude committed within five years of admission, any aggravated felony, a controlled substance offense, or a domestic violence offense. The term "aggravated felony," defined at 8 USC § 1101(a)(43), is notoriously broad and includes offenses that may not appear "aggravated" under state law, including theft offenses with a sentence of one year or more, fraud offenses, and drug trafficking. Because immigration courts have historically given the "aggravated felony" label an expansive reading, a state misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail can qualify as a federal aggravated felony if a sentence of 365 days or more is imposed.

NACDL has published extensive resources emphasizing that criminal defense attorneys must conduct individualized immigration consequence analysis before any disposition. This obligation requires understanding the difference between deportable and inadmissible offenses, the availability of cancellation of removal, and the distinction between a "conviction" under federal immigration law versus an adjudication under state law. Michigan's Delayed Sentence Act and Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, for example, may avoid a "conviction" for state purposes while still being classified as a conviction under INA § 101(a)(48)(A) if guilt was admitted. Attorney Maze's practice integrates this analysis into every non-citizen representation, ensuring that criminal defense strategy never sacrifices immigration safety without full informed consent.

The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office has increasingly cooperated with federal immigration authorities under various enforcement programs, making early and aggressive criminal defense intervention essential. Defendants who are subject to an ICE detainer face unique challenges at bond hearings, as courts may consider flight risk arguments premised on potential removal. Skilled defense counsel must be prepared to address these arguments and, where appropriate, to challenge the legal sufficiency of the detainer itself. The constitutional framework governing detainers was significantly clarified in Morales v Chadbourne, 793 F3d 208 (1st Cir 2015), which held that prolonged detention on an ICE detainer without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment — a principle that applies with equal force in the Sixth Circuit.