By Tony Payan, José Iván Rodríguez-Sánchez

Irregular migration at the U.S.-Mexico border has emerged as a defining political issue in the 21st century. One challenge has been the U.S. government’s ongoing struggle to manage surges in border arrivals. Streamlining asylum processing — deporting those who do not qualify and resettling those who do — could help reduce political tensions. Migration patterns also fluctuate for reasons beyond U.S. control. Encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border reached record highs in 2023 before dropping sharply in 2024, a trend seen repeatedly over the past 15 years.

An increasing number of Americans view immigration as a long-term issue that requires stronger measures. Diverging views on immigration have contributed to deep divisions within the American electorate, with candidates advocating for stricter policies gaining support. President Donald Trump, for example, has linked irregular migration with risks to national security, public safety, and the economy. In both of his presidential campaigns, he pledged swift action on immigration, with mass deportation of undocumented migrants being a cornerstone of his second term program.

This brief explores the impacts of Trump’s immigration policy, with particular attention to the economic and social costs of large-scale deportations.

Houston, TX: Baker Institute for Public Policy, 2025. 15p.

By Elana Fogel, Kate Evans

Traffic stops are the most common form of police-initiated contact with members of the public. The sheer volume of traffic stops combined with their use as a pretext to surveil Black and Latiné communities has generated substantial scholarship and movements for police reform. Yet this commentary assumes that the subjects of traffic stops are U.S. citizens. At the same time, scholarship on the intersection of criminal and immigration law and the convergence of their enforcement methods focuses on traffic stops as the immediate entry point for removal proceedings. This Article addresses the gap in literature by describing the experience of noncitizens who endure frequent traffic stops that result in neither immediate criminal nor immigration proceedings but nonetheless produce significant legal and nonlegal consequences-consequences that are likely to grow under a second Trump administration.

This Article frames the experience of traffic stops for noncitizens as a form of "slow deportation." It describes how the use of traffic stops to police noncitizens extends the system of racialized social control to immigrant communities with the effect of surveilling both race and status. It surveys scholarship across disciplines, racial categories, and citizenship status and uses our clients' stories to map the cumulative, compounding, and subterranean harms of traffic stops that culminate in the emotional, social, and sometimes legal exclusion of noncitizens and families. The Article concludes by proposing new approaches to counseling, policy reform, and coalition building informed by the lens of slow deportation.

Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Series No. 2025-18,

By Sana Singh

For years, countless immigrant Californians have been calling attention to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) discriminatory practices that assist in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) deportation efforts. CDCR staff identify individuals in their custody, whom CDCR assumes to be born outside of the U.S., report them to ICE, and deny them valuable rehabilitation, education, and credit-earning opportunities. In 2022, the ACLU of Northern California filed a major public records request seeking communications between CDCR and ICE. Over the past several months, the ACLU of Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, and Root & Rebound have analyzed over 2,500 CDCR records and emails between August and September 2022. Step by step, the team pieced together a more detailed view than ever before into how CDCR voluntarily goes to horrifying lengths to illegally discriminate against Californians born outside the U.S. and against anyone CDCR officers unilaterally perceive or assume to be born outside the U.S. Dozens of previously unseen emails show how California’s largest public agency is using public resources to operate a system of double punishment that rips apart immigrant and refugee families and communities, in direct conflict with California’s values of equality, fairness, and justice. In their zeal to collude with ICE, CDCR is not only targeting people who have served their time and are set to return home for detention and deportation but is also sweeping up U.S. citizens and Green Card holders, relying on racist assumptions and ignoring their own records. CDCR’s practices are also increasingly out of step with the rest of California and statewide officials’ own commitments to their constituents. Many counties across California, including Los Angeles, San Joaquin, Santa Cruz, Humboldt, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, have already stopped facilitating transfers of people to ICE after they have served their time in jail or prison. Governor Newsom has recently called on California to “be in the homecoming business,” and CDCR Secretary Macomber has stated his intentions to “create a space focused on preparing individuals for successful returns to the community.” CDCR’s practices raise urgent legal and policy questions and implicate the fundamental rights of numerous Californians in CDCR custody, adding further to the agency’s deeply troubling record of medical abuse and neglect, warehousing of people in long-term solitary confinement, racist and antisemitic social media comments, and forced sterilizations, among other concerning practices. The human costs of CDCR’s collusion with ICE are severe, as revealed in disturbing email records in the report that follows. By proactively offering people up to ICE, CDCR has engineered a two-tiered system of justice that brings trauma to those in their custody The emails reviewed by the investigative team and described below are communications from August and September 2022. Despite the narrow timeframe of these records, the records we have received paint a disturbing picture. In just the two months the below communications span, CDCR transferred over 200 people from CDCR facilities to ICE custody. What follows is a description of the practices that CDCR uses to collude with ICE, and examples of discrimination, indiscretion, resource mismanagement, and anti-immigrant behavior by department staff, as revealed in disturbing email records. We conclude with a summary of the harms caused and the need for legislative action. and to their loved ones. The impact of such discriminatory practices is felt widely in California, which is home to the largest immigrant population in the country. In 2021, over a quarter of Californians were foreign-born and almost half of the children in the state had at least one immigrant parent. In 2023, California lawmakers can take immediate action to hold CDCR accountable to the state’s values and laws. AB 1306 authored by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, otherwise known as the HOME Act, harmonizes state immigration policy with existing, broadly-supported criminal justice reforms, ensuring immigrant Californians who earn their release from state prison through these measures are not transferred to ICE. The legislation offers a simple fix to one form of CDCR’s discrimination against immigrants and refugees and takes important strides toward enacting equal treatment for all who call California home

San Francisco: ACLU of Northern California, 2023. 22p.

By Asad L. Asad

Drawing on in-depth interviews with 50 Latin American immigrants in Dallas, Texas, this article uncovers systematic distinctions in how immigrants holding different legal statuses perceive the threat of deportation. Undocumented immigrants recognize the precarity of their legal status, but they sometimes feel that their existence off the radar of the US immigration regime promotes their long-term presence in the country. Meanwhile, documented immigrants perceive stability in their legal status, but they sometimes view their existence on the radar of the US immigration regime as disadvantageous to their long-term presence in the country. The article offers the concept of system embeddedness—individuals' perceived legibility to institutions that maintain formal records—as a mechanism through which perceived visibility to the US immigration regime entails feelings of risk, and perceived invisibility feelings of safety. In this way, the punitive character of the US immigration regime can overwhelm its integrative functions, chilling immigrants out of opportunities for material and social well-being through legalization and legal status. More broadly, system embeddedness illuminates how perceived visibility to a record-keeping body that combines punitive and integrative goals represents a mechanism of legal stratification for subordinated populations—even absent prior punitive experiences with other social control institutions that might otherwise be thought to trigger their system avoidance.

Law & Society Review, Volume 54, Number 1 (2020): 133–167

By Peter William Walsh and Mihnea Cuibus

This briefing examines the deportation, removal, and voluntary departure of people without the right to be in the UK. It presents statistics on the numbers and characteristics of people who are removed from the UK or who leave voluntarily.

Key Points Returns from the UK remained low compared to historical levels but returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2023 Enforced returns have declined sharply over the long run Voluntary returns increased significantly after the pandemic, following several years of decline Around 41% of those who submitted an asylum application between 2010 and 2020, and were refused, had been returned from the UK by June 2022 Around 1.3% of people who arrived by small boat from 2018 to June 2023 were returned from the UK during that period In the year ending 30 September 2023, the top nationalities among returnees were Albanian (20%), Indian (15%), and Brazilian (12%) In the year ending 30 September 2023, 16% of all people removed from the UK were foreign national offenders, and 53% of returned FNOs were EU citizens EU citizens made up a majority of people refused entry at the UK border after 2021 \

Oxford, UK: The Migration Observatory

COMPAS (Centre on Migration, Policy and Society)

University of Oxford2024. 15p.

By Amnesty International

This briefing presents Amnesty International’s findings and observations from a week-long research trip to Tijuana, Mexico, in February 2025, whose purpose was to document the human rights impacts of changes to US migration and asylum policies since President Trump took office on 20 January 2025.1 In particular, it focuses on the end of applying for asylum at the US-Mexico border and the situation of asylum seekers in Mexico. This briefing does not provide detailed information about mass immigration arrests and detentions in the United States, nor an analysis of the discriminatory impacts of these measures. The cumulative effects and harms of the Trump administration’s punitive and discriminatory immigration and asylum measures are the subject of Amnesty International’s ongoing monitoring and analysis of the situation in the United States. During the trip to Tijuana, Amnesty International interviewed people seeking safety, met with legal, humanitarian and social service providers, local and international organizations, and visited shelters and spaces where migrants and asylum seekers are staying. The organization spoke with two Mexican men who had recently been deported from the United States to Mexico, as well as with 35 people seeking safety (almost half of whom were women) from Belarus, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Russia and Venezuela. Amnesty International interviewed local and international organizations operating in Tijuana including Al Otro Lado (AOL), Asylum Access México and Haitian Bridge Alliance. The organization also visited and spoke with those running migrant shelters, including Borderline Crisis Center, Casa de los Migrantes, Casa de los Pobres, El Rubi, Jardin de las Mariposas and Villa Haitiana. The interviews with Spanish-language speakers were conducted in Spanish, while interviews with non-Spanish speakers were conducted in English with interpretation assistance from staff of local organizations and other people seeking safety. Amnesty International requested meetings with the San Diego offices of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE declined the meeting request and CBP did not respond. The organization’s request to visit the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego was denied. Various individuals and organizations spoke to Amnesty International on the condition of anonymity. Their names have not been included in this report.  

London: Amnesty International, 2025. 24p.

By Jeremy Slack and Daniel E. Martınez

What happens after deportation? What contexts must Mexican deportees navigate and contend with after removal from the United States? This article explores the challenges for people post-removal in Mexico, particularly by drawing on fieldwork conducted in Tamaulipas, which is home to the Zetas drug trafficking organization and the infamous massacre of seventy-two migrants. We argue that incidental exposure to violence and crime began as an implicit aspect of immigration enforcement and has grown into one of the central tenets of current policy. We take a feminist geopolitical approach to connect the post-deportation experiences of migrants to the policies of deportation, incarceration, and punishment levied against them by the U.S. government. Migrants, particularly those apprehended through the Criminal Alien Program, have been returned to Tamaulipas in concentrated numbers despite its violent reputation. The processes of criminalization have led to a system that prioritizes punishment for migrants, meaning that we cannot extricate experiences that occur after removal from enforcement measures that create those situations. These practices are directly connected to the current wave of policies aimed at stopping asylum seekers, including “metering,” where people are made to wait at the border to apply for asylum at the port of entry, and the Remain in Mexico program (otherwise known as the Migrant Protection Protocols). We argue that enforcement is more complex than “prevention through deterrence” narratives and exposure to nonstate violence in Mexico has slowly become a more integral part of enforcement plans.

Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 2020

By The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington

The machinery of mass deportation, through which millions are separated from their families and communities, is hidden in plain sight. Each year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removes tens of thousands of people from the US on private charter flights operated out of airports across the country, including Boeing Field in King County. Reports have surfaced of egregious human rights abuses on some flights, and violations of immigrants' rights to due process are routine. Using the Freedom of Information Act, UW student researchers and the UW Center for Human Rights obtained ICE's national database tracking these flights, and are following the money to document the corporations and municipalities that profit from ICE Air's deportation flights.

Seattle: The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington 2019

By Deborah M. Weissman, Angelina Godoy,  Havan M. Clark

Immigration enforcement has long served as an indicator of the prevailing visceral fears and loathing toward the Other. The foreign is always suspect. Foreigners in great numbers are especially suspicious. These developments are historically tied to the conventions of colonialism, expanded as a function of foreign policy, and to be sure, ideology.' By the mid-2010s, the Global South was characterized as "shithole countries,"  populated by people who were terrorists, rapists, murderers, and corrupt drug dealers. According to former President  Donald J. Trump, immigrants "aren't people. The[y] are animals, further describing them as "bad  thugs and gang members."  These representations have shaped a retributive agenda and have served to create a structure with roots in federal policies and branches in localities throughout the country through which to expel noncitizens. Deportation is a legal concept about which much has been written.' But it is more complicated. For noncitizens, forced expulsion is a lived experience occurring in time and space-an act against the body, mostly black and brown bodies. In this Article, we part ways with the well-established narratives of deportation and the punishment/non-punishment paradigm to conceive of deportation not only as a legal concept, but as a physical act-the final act-that is, the culmination of the immigration enforcement dragnet.  The physical removal of persons from the United States requires a complex system comprised of aviation networks and their various components, airports and airplanes, hangars and flight crews, and an array of physical restraints to intimidate, punish, or subdue deportees.'" We examine this infrastructure to illuminate the circumstances of expulsion and the egregious rights violations often suffered by deportees-violations that are almost always hidden from public view. Part I examines the full dimensions of deportation as a legal concept whereby courts readily admit the harms of expulsion while simultaneously deny its character as a form of punishment." The courts' construction of deportation as a nonpunitive sanction to which a range of constitutional procedural safeguards are not applicable serves to conceal the violence that occurs and distracts from the physical abuse and maltreatment associated with the final act. The legal treatment of deportation elides what, as Jacqueline Rose has written, is conveyed by "the technical term for the returning of migrants to their country of origin [that] is 'refoulement' (to push back or repulse) which also happens to be the French word for the psychoanalytic concept of repression. Part II then describes deportation as an act by which the body is seized and ultimately transported to airports and boarded onto airplanes''-sites previously not considered in the scheme of the immigration removal system's apparatus." It describes the heretofore hidden machinery of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Air's network of mass deportation and further describes the perils upon removal occasioned by ICE flights.' Part III examines the "legal" trajectories of forced expulsion. It demonstrates how hostility toward immigrants has given rise to an ever-expanding deportation apparatus by which growing numbers of immigrants, including those seeking shelter from persecution, are stripped of legal protections.  It chronicles the subversion of legal processes that result in a heightened risk of wrongful deportation and thus by which immigrants reach the point of the final act of removal." It also illuminates how the ICE Air machinery, which executes deportation orders arising within an unfair system, is complicit in the various legal violations by giving effect to such orders and further curtailing whatever rights remain at the moment of the final act of deportation  Part IV takes up concerns largely unaddressed in legal scholarship: the detailing of human rights abuses on airplanes and airports-sites that function as the terminal instrumentalities of banishment. It describes the physical and psychological abuses that deportees experience during the final act of removal to demonstrate the urgency of immigrant rights advocacy at these sites. It then identifies the violations of international human rights treaties committed by the United States.25 We do so mindful that invoking human rights law in an effort to reframe the discourse occurs at a time when the question of whether these norms have any relevancy in the United States is very much at issue.  The issue of the relevancy of human rights-or lack thereof-is not a new concern, to be sure. As Jack Goldsmith stated over two decades ago, "We can now better understand how and why the United States perpetuates the double standard. The explanation is not subtle. The United States declines to embrace international human rights law because it can."  However, as Part IV argues, immigrants' rights advocates have nonetheless seized on international norms that apply locally and globally to realize an expanded vision of justice when addressing the harms wrought by ICE Air's deportation machinery. The need to call attention to U.S. exceptionalism with regard to human rights requires that scholars and activists seek their implementation as a means to encourage a discourse of hope and an expectation of realization. Stated otherwise, "all theory must end in practice or come to nothing as theory."  Part V examines airports and airplanes as sites of resistance in the context of immigration federalism debates.  We build on the literature that has called attention to the importance of political geography and immigration devolution policies to underscore the importance of new forms of local activism as a means to assert immigrant rights. Even as growing numbers of localities craft policies to protect immigrants, forming a first wave of resistance to federal anti-immigrant policies, a second wave of subnational advocacy is emerging, seeking to contest both the mechanisms by which people are drawn into the system of immigration enforcement and the institutions which detain them. It is in this context that we identify the campaigns to disrupt the aviation deportation machinery, and the importance of focusing on the local as a means to ensure accountability for individuals whose human rights have been violated. Deportation is a term frequently associated with nativist sentiment and revulsion for those who appear foreign, as well as a type of "cleansing" as consequence of aggressive annexation of territory. 4 The efforts to accelerate the removal of noncitizens from the United States has reconfigured the historic narrative about the nation's relationship with immigration and immigrants. Concerns for the humanity of immigrants requires attention to all facets of the injustices of deportation, including the sites of the final act of removal. As we demonstrate, this may be accomplished through a variety of political and legal strategies designed to call attention to the ways that deportation violates the protection of rights that exist at the very local to the very global levels of law. Notwithstanding our descriptions and analyses of innovative and important anti-deportation campaigns to mitigate the deliberate infliction of human suffering on immigrants, we do not suggest that these strategies ensure success. In the face of the deportation dragnet machine and the aviation networks that are hidden from the public, it would be presumptuous to suggest victory. What this Article offers is a way of understanding and modeling new forms of resistance at sites previously overlooked-resistance that must stand in for the protection of rights until the structures of immigration laws and processes can be humanely reset.  

Hofstra Law Review Volume 49 Issue 2 Article 5 12-1-2021, 63 pages

By Jukka Könönen

Notwithstanding claims about the emergence of ‘crimmigration’ systems, immigration law and criminal law entail two different sets of instruments for authorities to control foreign nationals. Drawing on an analysis of removal orders for foreign offenders in Finland, this article demonstrates that significant administrative powers in immigration enforcement are employed largely autonomously from the criminal justice system. Immigration law enables the police and immigration officials to issue removal orders based on fines or penal orders for (suspected) minor offences, without obtaining criminal convictions. In addition to disproportionate administrative sanctions for foreign nationals, removal orders involve a preventive rationale targeting future risks for the society based on the assumed continuation of criminal activities. While criminal courts adjudicate all severe offences, punitive application of immigration law enables authorities to bypass criminal justice procedures and safeguards, resulting in a distinct, administrative punitive system for visiting third-country nationals.

Theoretical Criminology Volume 28, Issue 1, February 2024, Pages 70-87

By David Hausman

The US government maintains that local sanctuary policies prevent deportations of violent criminals and increase crime. This report tests those claims by combining Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation data and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime data with data on the implementation dates of sanctuary policies between 2010 and 2015. Sanctuary policies reduced deportations of people who were fingerprinted by states or counties by about one-third. Those policies also changed the composition of deportations, reducing deportations of people with no criminal convictions by half—without affecting deportations of people with violent convictions. Sanctuary policies also had no detectable effect on crime rates. These findings suggest that sanctuary policies, although effective at reducing deportations, do not threaten public safety.

PNAS,  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 117(44):27262–7.  2020.

By Melanie Gower, Georgina Sturge 

The Home Secretary has a duty to make a deportation order in respect of nonBritish or Irish citizens who have been convicted of an offence in the UK and sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment, unless certain exceptions apply. He also has discretionary powers to deport non-British citizens if he considers it to be “conducive to the public good”. Deportation of foreign national offenders is a longstanding government priority. The Home Office considers for deportation all foreign nationals convicted of a crime in the UK and given a prison sentence. Foreign national offenders can be removed from the country before the end of their prison sentence by way of a prisoner transfer agreement, or through the Early Removal Scheme or Tariff-Expired Removal Scheme. They can receive money to help them to resettle in their home country through the Facilitated Return Scheme. As of the end of June 2023, there were at least 10,321 foreign nationals in prison in England and Wales, out of a total prison population of 85,851. Over half of foreign prisoners were European and, overall, the most common nationalities were Albanian, Polish, Romanian, Irish, and Jamaican. There were 11,769 foreign national offenders subject to deportation action living in the community, as of 30 September 2022.

A report of an inspection by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published in June 2023 was critical of the Home Office’s handling of foreign national offender cases. It found that the Early Removal Scheme and the Facilitated Return Scheme were not being administered effectively. The Government says it has made good progress removing foreign national offenders from prisons and the community, pointing to a 19% increase in overall foreign national offender returns in the 12-month period to September 2023 (3,577 people). Up until that point, the number of foreign national offenders returned on an annual basis had been falling since 2016, when 6,437 individuals were returned. 

London: UK Parliament, The House of Commons Library , 2024. 11p

By Lynn Tramonte and Suma Setty

What if you were forced to pack your belongings and leave your family, friends, career, home, and life behind? Could you say good-bye to everyone and everything you love, not knowing if you will see them again? That is what deportation is: permanent banishment from your home, family, friends, and job, from a life built over years. It is an extreme action that causes lasting harm to everyone it touches.

From 2022 to 2023, Maryam Sy, an organizer with the Ohio Immigrant Alliance (OHIA), spent hundreds of hours interviewing over 250 people who were deported to find out what they wanted the world to know.

“A lot of these people went through, I think, the hardest part of their life when they were deported,” she reflected. “Because it was like a broken hope, like the government broke their hope. They came to America to seek asylum for a better life.”

Immigration detention and deportation unravels lives, with crushing consequences for children, partners, parents, and communities. Broken Hope connects the experiences of individuals with studies that show these harms are universal. And it details how deportation is an extreme response to a visa problem.

This issue brief summarizes a book Broken Hope: Deportation and the Road Home, a collaboration between the OHIA and the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) that highlights the experiences, hopes, and dreams of 255 people who were deported from the United States, as well as their loved ones. They are part of OHIA’s #ReuniteUS campaign, which seeks to change policy so that more people who were deported can return

Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy | CLASP, 2023. 20p.

By Abigail Andrews And the students of the Mexican Migration Field Research Program

The world is changing so fast that it's hard to know how to think about what we ought to do. We barely have time to reflect on how scientific advances will affect our lives before they're upon us. New kinds of dilemma are springing up. Can robots be held responsible for their actions? Will artificial intelligence be able to predict criminal activity? Is the future gender-fluid? Should we strive to become post-human? Should we use drugs to improve our intimate relationships — or to reduce crime? Our intuitions about questions like these are often both weak and confused. David Edmonds has put together a philosophical task force to get to grips with these challenges. Twenty-nine philosophers present provocative and engaging pieces about aspects of life today, and life tomorrow — birth and death, health and medicine, brain and body, personal relationships, wrongdoing and justice, the internet, animals, and the environment. The future won't look the same when you've finished this book.

Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2023.

By Antonella Bandiera, Lelys Dinarte, Sandra Rozo, Carlos Schmidt-Padilla, Micaela Sviatschi, Hernan. Winkler    

  Can repatriation inflows impact firm behavior in origin countries? This paper examines this question in the context of repatriation inflows from the United States and Mexico to El Salvador. The paper combines a rich longitudinal data set covering all formal firms in El Salvador with individual-level data on all registered repatriations from 2010 to 2017. The empirical strategy combines variation in the municipality of birth of individuals repatriated over 1995–2002—before a significant change in deportation policies—with annual variation in aggregate inflows of repatriations to El Salvador. The findings show that repatriations have large negative effects on the average wages of formal workers. This is mainly driven by formal firms in sectors that face more intense competition from the informal sector, which deportees are more likely to join. Repatriation inflows also reduce total employment among formal firms in those sectors. Given that most deportees spend less than a month abroad, these findings suggest that the experience of being detained and deported can have strong negative effects not only on the deportees, but also on their receiving communities.  

  Policy Research Working Paper 9521. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2021. 39p.

Edited by Monika Heupel, Caiden Heaphy, and Janina Heaphy

This book examines why the United States has introduced safeguards that are designed to prevent their counterterrorism policies from causing harm to non-US citizens beyond US territory. It investigates what made US policymakers take steps to "put the gloves back on" through five case studies on the emergence of such safeguards related to the right not to be tortured, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, the right to life (in connection with targeted killing operations), the right to seek asylum (in connection with refugee resettlement), and the right to privacy (in connection with foreign mass surveillance). The book exposes two mechanisms – coercion and strategic learning – which explain why the United States has introduced what the authors refer to as "extraterritorial human rights safeguards", thus demonstrating that the emerging norm that states have human rights obligations towards foreigners beyond their borders constrains policy choices. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of human rights, counterterrorism, US foreign policy, human rights law, and more broadly to political science and international relations.

London; New York: Routledge, 2022. 252p.

By Annika Lindberg

Deportation limbo traces the efforts of two Nordic welfare states, Denmark and Sweden, to address the so-called implementation gap in deportation enforcement. It offers an original, empirically grounded account of how often-futile, injurious policy measures devoted to pressuring non-deported people to leave are implemented and contested in practice. In doing so, it presents a critique of the widespread, normalised use of detention, encampment, and destitution, which routinely fail to enhance deportations while exposing deportable people to conditions that cause their premature death. The book takes the ‘deportation limbo’ as a starting point for exploring the violent nature of borders, the racial boundaries of welfare states, and the limits of state control over cross-border mobility. Building on unprecedented access to detention and deportation camps and migration offices in both countries, it presents ethnographic material capturing frontline officials’ tension-ridden efforts to regulate non-deported people using forced deportation, incarceration, encampment, and destitution. Using a continuum of state violence as the analytical lens, the book offers a uniquely comprehensive account of how the borders of Nordic welfare states are drawn through practices that subject racialised ‘others’ to expulsion, incarceration, and destitution. The book is the first to systematically document the renewed deportation turn in Denmark and Sweden, and to critically examine its implications: for the people targeted by intensified deportation measures, and for the individual officials, institutions, and societies enforcing them. It offers an important, critical contribution to current debates on the violence of deportation regimes, the politico-bureaucratic structures and practices that sustain them, and their human costs.

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2023. 205p.

By Annie Laurie Hines and Giovanni Peri

This paper analyzes the impact of immigrant deportations on local crime and police efficiency. Our identification relies on increases in the deportation rate driven by the introduction of the Secure Communities (SC) program, an immigration enforcement program based on local-federal cooperation which was rolled out across counties between 2008 and 2013. We instrument for the deportation rate by interacting the introduction of SC with the local presence of likely undocumented in 2005, prior to the introduction of SC. We document a surge in local deportation rates under SC, and we show that deportations increased the most in counties with a large undocumented population. We find that SC-driven increases in deportation rates did not reduce crime rates for violent offenses or property offenses. Our estimates are small and precise, so we can rule out meaningful effects. We do not find evidence that SC increased either police effectiveness in solving crimes or local police resources. Finally, we do not find effects of deportations on the local employment of unskilled citizens or on local firm creation

Bonn, Germany: IZA - Institute of Labor Economics, 2019. 42p.

Edited by Bryan Roberts , Cecilia Menjívar and Nestor P. Rodríguez

This volume focuses on recent experiences of return migration to Mexico and Central America from the United States. For most of the twentieth century, return migration to the US was a normal part of the migration process from Mexico and Central America, typically resulting in the eventual permanent settlement of migrants in the US. In recent years, however, such migration has become involuntary, as a growing proportion of return migration is taking place through formal orders of deportation. This book discusses return migration to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, addressing different reasons for return, whether voluntary or involuntary, and highlighting the unique challenges faced by returnees to each region. Particular emphasis is placed on the lack of government and institutional policies in place for returning migrants who wish to attain work, training, or shelter in their home countries. Finally, the authors take a look at the phenomenon of migrants who can never return because they have disappeared during the migration process. Through its multinational focus, diverse thematic outlook, and use of ethnographic and survey methods, this volume provides an original contribution to the topic of return migration and broadens the scope of the literature currently available.

Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017. 187p.

Edited by Kenyon Zimmer and Cristina Salinas

In Deportation in the Americas: Histories of Exclusion and Resistance, editors Kenyon Zimmer and Cristina Salinas have compiled seven essays, adapted from the Walter Prescott Webb Memorial Lecture Series, that deeply consider deportation policy in the Americas and its global effects.

These thoughtful pieces significantly contribute to a growing historiography on deportation within immigration studies — a field that usually focuses on arriving immigrants and their adaptation. All contributors have expanded their analysis to include transnational and global histories, while recognizing that immigration policy is firmly developed within the structure of the nation-state. Thus, the authors do not abandon national peculiarity regarding immigration policy, but as Emily Pope-Obeda observes, “from its very inception, immigration restriction was developed with one eye looking outward.” Contributors note that deportation policy can signal friendship or cracks within the relationships between nations.

Rather than solely focusing on immigration policy in the abstract, the authors remain cognizant of the very real effects domestic immigration policies have on deportees and push readers to think about how the mobility and lives of individuals come to be controlled by the state, as well as the ways in which immigrants and their allies have resisted and challenged deportation. From the development of the concept of an “anchor baby” to continued policing of those who are foreign-born, Deportation in the Americas is an essential resource for understanding this critical and timely topic.

College Station, TX:Texas A&M University Press, 2018. 242p.