By Joseph V. Cuffari

Why We Did This Audit - The dramatic increases in migrant encounters and traffic at the Southwest border have magnified existing staffing challenges at CBP and ICE. In light of these intensifying issues, we conducted this audit to determine whether CBP and ICE are effectively managing law enforcement staffing resources to accomplish their mission at the Southwest border. What We Recommend We made three recommendations to help CBP and ICE better manage resources along the Southwest border.

Washington, DC: OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Department of Homeland Security, 2023. 65p.

By Denise Gilman

The United States treats asylum as exceptional, meaning that asylum is presumptively unavailable and is offered only in rare cases. This exceptionality conceit, combined with an exclusionary apparatus, creates a problematic cycle. The claims of asylum seekers arriving as part of wide-scale refugee flows are discounted, and restrictive policies are adopted to block these claims. When asylum claims nonetheless continue to mount, the United States asserts “crisis” and deploys new exclusionary measures. The problems created by the asylum system are not addressed but are instead deepened. This Article encourages a turn away from policies that have led down the same paths once and again. This Article first describes the development of the modern U.S. asylum system, highlighting data that demonstrates the extent to which exceptionality is a basic feature of the system. In doing so, this Article reconsiders an assumption underlying much scholarship and commentary—that the U.S. asylum system is fundamentally generous even if it has sometimes failed to live up to its promise. This Article then establishes that the emphasis on exceptionality has led to an exclusionary asylum process. Most asylum claims are adjudicated within deportation proceedings, and policymakers have imposed layers of additional procedural barriers. Next, this Article presents the problems created by the system. It documents how the system places genuine asylees in danger while causing violence at the border. Further, embedded bias in the system, resulting from the focus on exceptionality, favors asylum claims from far-flung nations such as China over commonly arising claims from nearby troubled countries. This bias creates a legitimacy problem. The system also violates U.S. law and international human rights and refugee law  This Article concludes by offering suggestions for more stable, effective, and humane policies to address asylum seekers in the United States. In addition to eliminating many existing substantive restrictions on asylum, the system should incorporate group-based eligibility for applicants from designated nations or situations that are sending significant refugee flows. Finally, the United States should adopt a specialiZed non-adversarial asylum system for all cases, apart from the deportation system and with genuine independent review of denials of asylum.

  Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 2023.

By Michael Garcia Bochenek

In the last few months of 2017, public defenders working in United States communities along the US-Mexico border began noticing a pattern. Over several months, they had seen an increasing number of people facing criminal charges for irregularly crossing the border arriving in court with a new concern: When these people had a chance to speak in court, their primary worry was not that they were facing prosecution; instead, they were asking the judges where their children were. These public defenders were seeing the early days of the forcible family separation policy put in place by the administration of US President Donald J. Trump and developed in a larger context of overheated, dehumanizing, and at times racist official rhetoric toward migrants. The policy began in March 2017 as a pilot program in and around El Paso, Texas, and was then rolled out along the entire US-Mexico border in early 2018. The policy deployed a minor federal criminal charge—“improper entry”—to force children and parents apart. Its official name, “Zero Tolerance,” referred to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ directive that every adult who entered the United States irregularly would face prosecution. Criminal charges for improper entry have long been misused as a means of immigration enforcement, raising serious human rights concerns. More than five years before Sessions’ “zero tolerance” directive, improper entry and improper reentry were the most prosecuted federal crimes in the United States. As misguided and abusive as this earlier use of such charges was, it had not deliberately targeted children and their parents. In fact, before mid-2017, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) generally did not request prosecution of parents arriving with their children and federal prosecutors had usually declined to pursue improper entry charges against parents traveling with their children precisely to avoid separating arriving families. The policy developed at Sessions’ directive did not appear primarily aimed at securing convictions. Although a criminal conviction would mean more serious consequences on a subsequent irregular entry, the offense is, as a federal magistrate judge observed, “quite literally one of the least serious federal offenses.”1 The real payoff, as far as the architects of the policy were concerned, was that a criminal charge could be used as a reason to transfer the immediate responsibility for protective care of the child. Parents who faced charges were in the custody of the US Marshals Service. Their children remained in US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention. The parents were rapidly convicted—some spent less than a minute in front of the judge once their case was called, and most received sentences of time already served in government custody, so they were back in CBP holding cells in short order. In the meantime, however, DHS, the federal government department that includes CBP, had deemed their children to be unaccompanied. DHS agents not only knew exactly where the parents were but also knew that the parents would quickly return to CBP detention. Even so, the department treated the brief change in custody as meaning that parents were not “available” to provide care. Unaccompanied migrant children are entitled to specific protections. In response to a court case settled in 1997, Flores v. Reno, care of unaccompanied children is the responsibility of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A 2008 anti-trafficking law requires DHS to transfer unaccompanied children to ORR expeditiously, usually within 72 hours. The forcible family separation policy weaponized these requirements. Keeping families together is, in the vast majority of these types of cases, in children's best interests. But instead of making every effort to keep families together, DHS transferred the children it had separated to ORR, without planning for or putting measures in place that would enable authorities to reunite them with their parents. Discussions about separating children from their parents at the border began less than a month after President Trump took office. One federal prosecutor commented in early 2017, “History would not judge that kindly.” 2 In March 2017, after Reuters broke the story that family separation was under consideration, a DHS staffer emailed Allen Blume, the department’s budget director, to say, “I would be truly grateful if you could tell me this isn’t being seriously considered.” 3 This report is based on a review of public and internal government documents, legal proceedings, and the findings of DHS, DOJ, and HHS internal investigations, drawing on Human Rights Watch’s extensive interviews with forcibly separated children and parents in 2018 and 2019. It finds that the forcible separation of children from their parents was a deliberate, targeted policy choice taken even though the architects of the policy knew or should have known that it would inflict anguish and suffering on families. Forcible separation of children from their families inflicted harms that were severe and foreseeable. Once parents realized they would not be immediately reunited with their children, they were distraught. Some children sobbed uncontrollably. Many felt abandoned. Nearly all were bewildered, not least because immigration officials would not tell them where their parents were or gave responses that proved to be lies. Children forcibly separated from their parents experienced anxiety, had nightmares, regressed to earlier developmental stages, or found it difficult to trust others and form attachments. Some lashed out. Others stopped speaking.

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2024, 145p.

By Jonathan Haggerty and Arthur Rizer

After the Trump administration implemented its “zero tolerance” immigration policy in early 2018, stories of children being ripped from their mother’s arms and extended family separations emerged. Initially, administration officials denied the existence of any policy aimed at separating families at the border. Others later claimed the separations were unintentional. However, a recent review of a leaked report from the Office of the Inspector General reveals both claims were false. This report revealed staff members from the White House and the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security met on multiple occasions to craft a plan, which they knew would separate migrant children from their parents, with the explicit goal of deterring illegal border crossings. The resulting outrage eventually prompted President Trump to partially rescind the “zero tolerance” policy and fueled the political left’s opposition to the Trump administration’s handling of immigration laws. As a new administration takes office, immigration advocates have produced an exhaustive list of border policies for the Biden White House to repeal, but this administration will have to prioritize which of the Trump-era immigration regulations to address first. And, while the political left undoubtedly presents a strong case against the “zero tolerance” prosecutions undertaken by its predecessor, a robust set of conservative arguments against this policy offers the Biden administration ample, cross-ideological support for a new approach.

R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 212 November 2020, 7p.

By Felipe Gonçalves, Elisa Jácome and Emily Weisburst

How does immigration enforcement affect public safety? Heightened enforcement could reduce crime by deterring and incapacitating immigrant offenders or, alternatively, increase crime by discouraging victims from reporting offenses. The researchers study the U.S. Secure Communities program, which expanded interior enforcement against unauthorized immigrants. Using national survey data, they find that the program reduced the likelihood that Hispanic victims reported crimes to police and increased the victimization of Hispanics. Total reported crimes are unchanged, masking these opposing effects. The researchers provide evidence that reduced Hispanic reporting is the key driver of increased victimization. Their findings underscore the importance of trust in institutions as a central determinant of public safety.

Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 2024. 95p.

By Jesus de la Torre, Blanca Navarrete and Diana Solis

On June 4, 2024, President Biden announced the Proclamation on Securing the Border. Together with the accompanying Interim Final Rule (IFR), the administration imposed a suspension of normal asylum processing at the U.S.-Mexico border when the sevenday average of encounters with migrants by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reached 2,500. This executive action significantly limits the chances of bona fide asylum seekers to present their protection claims and increases the chances of forced removal. These changes add to an already extensive list of actions which the administration has taken to significantly weaken the framework of asylum protection at the border, especially for those unable to access the 1,450 CBP One app appointments allotted daily In the State of Texas, these actions also come against the backdrop of Governor Greg Abbott’s parallel immigration enforcement operation, known as Operation Lone Star (OLS), which first began in March 2021. Since its implementation, OLS has led to harrowing levels of cruelty at the Texas-Mexico border. An obscene amount of dangerous concertina wire fortifies the border, National Guard soldiers fire projectiles at families stranded at the border wall, and the Texas Department of Public Safety regularly engages in deadly high-speed chases in border communities. In the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez region, many migrants who arrive at the Mexico-Texas border find themselves in a state of dangerous limbo, able to access safety neither in the United States nor in Mexico. In recent years, Mexico has also taken increasingly drastic action to militarize its border cities and migration routes, detaining up to thousands of migrating persons per day and reaching an unseen level of 1.4 million enforcement encounters in the first five months of 2024. At the U.S. request, Mexico also accepts nationals from third countries who have been deported from the U.S. Abuse of persons in immigrant detention in Mexico is widespread. In order to avoid detention, families seeking safety must maneuver through a terrain of omnipresent violence from statesanctioned unscrupulous criminal groups, who extort, kidnap and kill them. This report sheds light on the reality of people on the move in the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez region under the layered pressures of the recent Interim Final Rule; the Biden administration’s existing Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule (known as the ‘Asylum Ban’ and implemented in May 2023); Texas’ Operation Lone Star; and Mexico’s complex of immigration enforcement operations and systematic criminal exploitation of migrants. This report relies on in-person observations made during the course of HOPE’s medical interventions with migrants at the border wall between May and June 2024. It also draws from an analysis of joint U.S.- Mexican migration policies and monitoring exercises in temporary and permanent shelters and critical transportation infrastructures in Ciudad Juárez between 2023 and 2024. It is complemented by Jesuit Refugee Service Mexico data obtained during interviews with 841 family units and 2,278 individuals between June 2020 and May 2024. Although interrelated, this report presents the impacts of a multilayered border in El Paso-Ciudad Juárez in three sections: the impacts of Mexican enforcement actions before arriving to and while in Ciudad Juárez; the impacts of Texas’ Operation Lone Star at the border wall; and the impacts of the U.S. asylum bans. It also unmasks how criminal organizations prey on those who migrate while they wait in Ciudad Juárez. We conclude with critical immigration policy recommendations for the future U.S. and Mexican administrations.

El Paso: Hope Border Institute and Derechos Humanos Integrales en Acción. 2024. 27p.

By Rebecca Gambler, United States, Government Accountability Office

ICE, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. Citing limited resources, ICE states that it cannot respond to all immigration violations or act on all persons determined to be removable from the U.S. It therefore prioritizes its enforcement actions. GAO was asked to review ICE immigration enforcement priorities. This report examines, among other things, (1) ICE data on immigration enforcement actions from 2019 through 2022, and the extent to which ICE is reporting data on all immigration detentions; (2) ICE’s implementation of immigration enforcement policies; and (3) ICE data on detentions of select vulnerable populations. GAO analyzed ICE enforcement action data for calendar years 2019 through 2022 (2022 being the most recent year that data were available). GAO also reviewed ICE policies and procedures, and interviewed agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is recommending that ICE publicly report (1) data on all detentions of individuals in ICE detention facilities, and (2) its explanation of the methodology used to report detention statistics. DHS did not concur with the recommendations, stating ICE already reports sufficient information. GAO continues to believe ICE should report complete and transparent information on its annual detentions

Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office 2024. 61p.

By Emily Ryo and Ian Peacock

In the current era of intensified immigration enforcement and heightened risks of deportation even for long-term lawful permanent residents, citizenship has taken on a new meaning and greater importance. There is also growing evidence that citizenship denials in their various forms have become inextricably linked to immigration enforcement. Who is denied citizenship, why, and under what circumstances? This article begins to address these questions by developing a typology of citizen denials and providing an empirical overview of each type of citizenship denial. Taken together, the typology of citizenship denials and the accompanying empirical overview illustrate the close connection between immigration enforcement and citizenship rights in the United States

USC CLASS Research Paper No. CLASS19-31, USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 19-31, 47 pages

By Rachel Feldman

This study was undertaken because generally available information about local government policy regarding inquiry about immigration status, use of this information, and interaction with federal immigration authorities was limited to a few New Mexico jurisdictions and was not upto-date or complete. The study identifies the variation and reasons for variation in these policies across the state, including the lack of any formal policy, and the function of informal policy. The study introduces the term “policy infrastructure” to refer to the function of written policy, procedure, monitoring and enforcement systems in directing local government employees and contractors, regarding their obligations to use public resources as directed by any policy that exists1 . A study assumption is that where no formal policy exists and where policy infrastructure is incomplete, public employees and contractors may use public resources at their discretion, regardless of consequences for affected persons. The problem motivating the study is the apparent situation in which residents and visitors to New Mexico experience different practices regarding the identification of and treatment related to their immigration status across the state, including within overlapping jurisdictions (e.g., city and county). Such variation in treatment raises questions regarding the extent to which immigrant rights (legal and undocumented) are respected across the state. It raises the question as to whether such variation is consistent with the intent of state and federal civil and human rights. The study was conducted between September and December in 2018, and inquiries were made by phone and formal requests for public records to all 33 counties and the 10 largest cities in the state. Contacts focused on county and city managers, sheriff and police departments and detention facilities operated by local governments. Some level of information was provided by all 33 counties and all cities contacted. A summary of results is shown in Table 1. Analysis of all documents and interview notes is provided below as study findings.   

Albuquerque, NM: ACLU of New Mexico, 2019. 51p.

By United Nations Task Force on Children Deprived of Liberty

IMMIGRATION DETENTION, IS NEVER IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND CONSTITUTES A CHILD RIGHTS VIOLATION.

It is a form of violence that impacts a country’s capacity to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, especially targets 10.7 and 16.2.4,5 All children, regardless of their legal or migratory status or that of their families, have the right to be cared for and protected from violence, abuse and exploitation. At least 77 countries have laws and policies that allow children to be detained based on their legal or migratory status, and at least 330,000 children globally per year are deprived of their liberty based on their (or their parents’) legal or migratory status.6 Lack of accurate data means this is likely to be a significant under-estimate. While many countries have committed to end child immigration detention, the reality is that even in some countries where legislation does not support immigration detention, it continues to remain in use.7 In 2022, the United Nations Task Force on Children Deprived of Liberty8,9 under the leadership of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children, made a joint pledge10 at the International Migration Review Forum (IMRF):

1. To conduct evidence-based advocacy and to mobilize all key stakeholders at all levels to scale up child rights-based protective solutions to end the detention of children in the context of migration.

2. To support Member States to harmonize their national legal frameworks with international human rights standards to explicitly prohibit detention of children based on their migration status or that of their families.

3. To involve and amplify the voices of migrant children in determining their best interests in all issues concerning children in legislation, policies, practices, including those related to integration, return and family reunification; as well as access to services, to justice and to remedies for violations of their rights.

4. To support data collection and the dissemination of promising practices on child rights-based protective solutions as alternative measures to end the detention of children in the context of migration.
   This advocacy brief provides an overview of promising practices and lessons learned to end child immigration detention and sets out a range of policy actions needed to scale up efforts to end this form of violence

New York: UNICEF, 2024. 15p.

By Tom K. Wong, S. Deborah Kang, Carolina Valdivia, Josefina Espino, Michelle Gonzalez and Elia Peralta

Previous research shows that the day-to-day behaviors of undocumented immigrants are significantly affected when local law enforcement officials do the work of federal immigration enforcement. One such behavior, which has been widely discussed in debates over so-called sanctuary policies, is that undocumented immigrants are less likely to report crimes to the police when local law enforcement officials work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on federal immigration enforcement. However, the mechanism that explains this relationship, which is decreased trust in law enforcement, has not yet been systematically tested. Do undocumented immigrants become less trusting of police officers and sheriffs when local law enforcement officials work with ICE on federal immigration enforcement? To answer this question, we embedded an experiment that varied the interior immigration enforcement context in a survey (n = 512) drawn from a probability-based sample of undocumented immigrants. When local law enforcement officials work with ICE on federal immigration enforcement, respondents are statistically significantly less likely to say that they trust that police officers and sheriffs will keep them, their families, and their communities safe, protect the confidentiality of witnesses to crimes even if they are undocumented, protect the rights of all people, including undocumented immigrants, equally, and protect undocumented immigrants from abuse or discrimination.

La Jolla, CA: U.S. Immigration Policy Center, University of San Diego, 2019. 21p.

By Tom K. Wong, Karina Shklyan, Anna Isorena and Stephanie Peng

How does interior immigration enforcement affect the day-to-day behaviors of undocumented immigrants? Although there is some evidence that points to a broad range of “chilling effects” that result when local law enforcement officials work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on federal immigration enforcement, the academic literature is surprisingly sparse. In this study, we embedded an experiment in a survey (n = 594) drawn from a probability-based sample of undocumented immigrants in order to better understand how the behaviors of undocumented immigrants are affected when local law enforcement officials do the work of federal immigration enforcement. When respondents are told that local law enforcement officials are working with ICE on federal immigration enforcement, they are 60.8 percent less likely to report crimes they witness to the police, 42.9 percent less likely to report crimes they are victims of to the police, 69.6 percent less likely to use public services that requires them to disclose their personal contact information, 63.9 percent less likely to do business that requires them to disclose their personal contact information, and are even 68.3 percent less likely to participate in public events where the police may be present, among other findings.

La Jolla, CA: U.S. Immigration Policy Center, University of San Diego, 2019. 24p.

By Andrea Guttin

The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) is a program administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that screens inmates in prisons and jails, identifies deportable non-citizens, and places them into deportation proceedings. In this Special Report, The Criminal Alien Program: Immigration Enforcement in Travis County, Texas, author Andrea Guttin, Esq., provides a brief history and background on the CAP program. Guttin also includes a case study of CAP implementation in Travis County, Texas, which finds that the program has a negative impact on communities because it increases the community’s fear of reporting crime to police, is costly, and may encourage racial profiling.

La Jolla, CA: Immigration Policy Center, 2010. 23p.

Read/Download

By Matt O’Brien, Spencer Raley and Casey Ryan

Advocates of open borders are fond of claiming that illegal aliens commit fewer crimes than native-born U.S. citizens. That makes perfect sense, they assert, because illegal aliens do not wish to be brought to the attention of law enforcement and risk deportation from the United States. In fact, this report finds that in the states examined, illegal aliens are incarcerated up to five and a half times as frequently as citizens and legal immigrants.

Washington, DC: The Federation For American Immigration Reform, 2019. 20p.

By The National immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Immigrant Defence Project, and Mijente

Tech is transforming immigration enforcement. As advocates have known for some time, the immigration and criminal justice systems have powerful allies in Silicon Valley and Congress, with technology companies playing an increasingly central role in facilitating the expansion and acceleration of arrests, detentions, and deportations. What is less known outside of Silicon Valley is the long history of the technology industry’s “revolving door” relationship with federal agencies, how the technology industry and its products and services are now actually circumventing city- and state-level protections for vulnerable communities, and what we can do to expose and hold these actors accountable. Mijente, the National Immigration Project, and the Immigrant Defense Project — immigration and Latinx-focused organizations working at the intersection of new technology, policing, and immigration — commissioned Empower LLC to undertake critical research about the multi-layered technology infrastructure behind the accelerated and expansive immigration enforcement we’re seeing today, and the companies that are behind it. The report opens a window into the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) plans for immigration policing through a scheme of tech and database policing, the mass scale and scope of the tech-based systems, the contracts that support it, and the connections between Washington, D.C., and Silicon Valley. It surveys and investigates the key contracts that technology companies have with DHS, particularly within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and their success in signing new contracts through intensive and expensive lobbying.

Washington, DC: National Immigration Project, 2018. 74p.

By Steve Cohen

This book is a searing critique of today's immigration systems. Former barrister Steve Cohen declares that these systems are deeply flawed, and takes a fresh look at the ethical and political problems that surround this controversial subject. Cohen proposes that current immigration controls are so inherently racist and irrational that they require the creative dystopian ideas contained within George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" to adequately describe them. He seeks to understand the irrationality of these controls - complete with their own brand of newspeak, doublethink, memory holes and thought police - and undertakes an incisive critique of immigration controls, revealing the nightmare world in which refugees, migrants and immigrants find themselves. The book also scrutinizes the latest developments in UK immigration legislation and compares and contrasts the UK experience with that of other countries. "Deportation is Freedom!" is a lively yet thought-provoking read that will captivate anyone who cares about the immigration systems that are shaping our world today. It will be of particular interest to social workers, lawyers, social policy makers and all people politically engaged in immigration campaigning.

London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2016. 224p.

By Mary Bosworth

On any given day nearly 3000 foreign national citizens are detained under immigration powers in UK detention centers alone. Around the world immigrants are routinely detained in similar conditions. The institutions charged with immigrant detention are volatile and contested sites. They are also places about which we know very little. What is their goal? How do they operate? How are they justified

Inside Immigration Detention lifts the lid on the hidden world of migrant detention, presenting the first national study of life in British immigration removal centers. Offering more than just a description of life behind bars of those men and women awaiting deportation, it uses staff and detainee testimonies to revisit key assumptions about state power and the legacies of colonialism under conditions of globalization.

Based on fieldwork conducted in six immigration removal centers (IRCs) between 2009 and 2012, it draws together a large amount of empirical data including: detainee surveys and interviews, staff interviews, observation, and detailed field notes. From this, the book explores how immigration removal centers identify their inhabitants as strangers, constructing them as unfamiliar, ambiguous and uncertain. In this endeavor, the establishments are greatly assisted by their resemblance to prisons and by familiar racialized narratives about foreigners and nationality.

However, as staff and detainee testimonies reveal, in their interactions and day-to-day life women and men find many points of commonality. Such recognition of one another reveals the goal and effect of detention to be incomplete. Denial requires effort. In order to minimize the effort it must expend, the state 'governs at distance', via the contract. It also splits itself in two, deploying some immigration staff onsite, while keeping the actual decision-makers (the caseworkers) elsewhere, sequestered from the potentially destabilizing effects of facing up to those whom they wish to remove. Such distancing, while bureaucratically effective, contributes to the uncertainty of daily life in detention, and is often the source of considerable criticism and unease. Denial and familiarity are embodied and localized activities, whose pains and contradictions are inherent in concrete relationships.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014. 283p.

By Ivan Y. Sun and Yuning Wu

This book discusses the issues surrounding race, ethnicity, and immigrant status in U.S. policing, with a special focus on immigrant groups’ perceptions of the police and factors that shape their attitudes toward the police. It focuses on the perceptions of three rapidly growing yet understudied ethnic groups – Hispanic/Latino, Chinese, and Arab Americans. Discussion of their perceptions of and experience with the police revolves around several central themes, including theoretical frameworks, historical developments, contemporary perceptions, and emerging challenges. This book appeals to those interested in or researching policing, race relations, and immigration in society, and to domestic and foreign government officials who carry law enforcement responsibilities and deal with citizens and immigrants in particular.

Palgrave, 2018. 195p.

By Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Tara Tidwell Cullen and Clara Long

Justice-Free Zones: U.S. Immigration Detention Under the Trump Administration, a research report from the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, and the National Immigrant Justice Center, provides an in-depth examination of the state of immigrant detention. Through visits to five detention facilities, interviews with 150 detained people, and analysis of government data, this report shines a light onto our nation’s treatment of immigrants. Specifically, the findings illustrate how the immigrant detention system has grown since 2017, the poor conditions and inadequate medical care — even before the COVID-19 outbreak, and the due process hurdles faced by immigrants held in remote locations.

New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 2020. 82p.

By Nina Rabin

Young people in immigrant families are often characterized as a separate population in debates over immigration reform, with distinctive claims and interests as compared to their parents. Bifurcating the undocumented population between children and parents over-simplifies how immigration enforcement impacts families. This article challenges the dichotomy between children and parents by studying how young people who are not direct enforcement targets are nevertheless impacted by immigration enforcement policies, regardless of their own immigration status. These impacts, which I call “secondary immigration enforcement,” often manifest as family separations. To render secondary immigration enforcement visible, I studied 38 young people in Arizona who are living on their own – without either biological parent – at least in part because of immigration enforcement policies. Drawing on in-depth interviews and self-assessments of psycho-social functioning, I describe what secondary immigration enforcement looks like and how it operates. I illustrate that deportation statistics alone fail to capture the extent of immigration enforcement because they do not encompass the complex impacts of secondary enforcement. In addition to the acute disruptions caused by deportations of family members, the young people in the study also experienced family separation as a result of immigration enforcement’s interaction with three other key factors: family dysfunction, extreme poverty, and educational aspirations.

Tucson: The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, 2017. 37p.