By: Kim Voss, Fabiana Silva & Irene Bloemraad

Activists do not just ‘name’ problems faced by migrants; they ‘frame’ them, constructing a particular meaning of the social world. Activists in the United States are especially likely to use rights language. Some appeal to human rights; others call on the history and resonance of civil rights. Those who contest immigrant inclusion often instead evoke ‘American values’. Are these competing frames persuasive? Drawing on a survey experiment of California voters, we examine whether these frames affect support for undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens in need. We find that although respondents agree that food insecurity, sexual harassment, and inadequate health care violate the human rights of citizens and noncitizens equally, a human rights frame does not equalize support for government action to address the situation. Indeed, overall, respondents are much less supportive of government action for undocumented immigrants than citizens; neither rights nor value frames mitigate this inequality. The civil rights frame, relative to the American values frame, actually decreases respondents’ support for government action, for citizens and noncitizens alike. The type of hardship also matters: in scenarios concerning sexual harassment, legal status is not a barrier to claims-making. These findings reveal some limits of rights language for mobilization around immigration.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46:4, 791-819, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2018.1556463

Edited by Carin Kuoni and Laura Raicovich

There have been few times in US American history when the very concept of freedom of speech—its promise and its contradictions—has been under greater scrutiny. Guided by acclaimed artist, filmmaker, and activist Amar Kanwar, the Vera List Center for Art and Politics at The New School convened a series of public seminars on freedom of speech with the participation of some of the most original thinkers and artists on the topic. Structured as an open curriculum, each seminar examined a particular aspect of freedom of speech, reflecting on and informed by recent debates around hate speech, censorship, sexism, and racism in the US and elsewhere. Studies into Darkness emerges from these seminars as a collection of newly commissioned texts, artist projects, and resources that delve into the intricacies of free speech. Providing a practical and historical guide to free speech discourse and in-depth investigations that extend far beyond the current moment, and featuring poetic responses to the crises present in contemporary culture and society around expression, this publication provocatively questions whether true communication is ever attainable.

Amherst, MA: Amherst College Press, 2022. 390p.

Edited by Emre Bayamlioğlu, Irina Baraliuc, Liisa Janssens, and Mireille Hildebrandt

Profiling the European citizen: why today's democracy needs to look harder at the negative potential of new technology than at its positive potential.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press,    148p.

By Nancy Rodriguez, Amalia Mejia, Rebecca Tublitz  

In this policy brief, we first outline the landscape of immigration policies across SJC sites. Next, we illustrate, across four SJC sites, the detainer trends as well as the immigration policies of the respective jurisdictions. In conclusion, we discuss the implications for criminal justice policy and reform, focusing on undocumented immigrants and Latino/as.

Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine. Department of Criminology, Law and Society2023. 18p.

By The United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office Western District of Kentucky Civil Division

Following a comprehensive investigation, the Justice Department announced today that the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) and the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (Louisville Metro) engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law. The Department also announced that it has entered into an agreement in principle with Louisville Metro and LMPD, which have committed to resolving the department’s findings through a court-enforceable consent decree with an independent monitor, rather than contested litigation. Specifically, the Justice Department finds that LMPD:

• Uses excessive force, including unjustified neck restraints and the unreasonable use of police dogs and tasers;

• Conducts searches based on invalid warrants;

• Unlawfully executes search warrants without knocking and announcing;

• Unlawfully stops, searches, detains, and arrests people during street enforcement activities, including traffic and pedestrian stops;

• Unlawfully discriminates against Black people in its enforcement activities;

• Violates the rights of people engaged in protected free speech critical of policing; and

• Along with Louisville Metro, discriminates against people with behavioral health disabilities when responding to them in crisis.

The Department also identified deficiencies in LMPD’s response to and investigation of domestic violence and sexual assault, including its responses to allegations that LMPD officers engaged in sexual misconduct or domestic violence. Deficiencies in policies, training, supervision, and accountability contribute to LMPD and Louisville Metro’s unlawful conduct.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 2023. 90p.

By The United States Commission on Civil Rights

This Statutory Enforcement Report examines the civil rights and constitutional concerns that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) “raised with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component [agencies] over the treatment of adult and minor [immigrant] detainees [who are being] held under federal law in detention centers across the country.” Specifically, this report analyzes the constitutional issues surrounding DHS’s treatment of detained immigrants as well as other selected federal agencies’ efforts to comply with established Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), and the federal standards for detaining unaccompanied minor children.

It is within the Commission’s mandate to examine, study, and report upon civil rights violations inconsistent with the federal civil rights laws, the United States Constitution and the federal standards applicable to all persons within the United States and its territories. By statute, the Commission is authorized to examine federal policies and procedures that have a detrimental effect on the equal protection of law guaranteed to all persons under the Constitution. With regard to immigration, in 1980, the Commission released a report entitled The Tarnished Golden Door: Civil Rights Issues in Immigration that examined the civil rights issues surrounding the enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States. That report identified numerous issues surrounding the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) administration and enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. Since the Commission published that 1980 report, however, federal immigration laws and their enforcement practices have undergone numerous, sweeping changes.

Washington, DC: The Commission, 2015. 276p.