By Gilberto Rosas &Virginia Raymond
The Covid-19 emergency only deepens the crisis of inhumanity in the U.S. carceral immigration system. The only way to truly protect migrant lives is to abolish detention.
North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) — Fall 2020 . 289-295, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2020.1809086
By Amalia Campos-Delgado & Karine Côté-Boucher
By focusing on the externalisation of US bordering into Mexico, we consider the institutional setting that both limits and channels gestures of care and empathy in migrant detention. Working within a framework that highlights the connections between the global and the intimate, and by proposing to read these connections as they unfold into an intimate geopolitics of humanitarian borderwork, we unpack the effects of Mexico’s recent shift towards humanitarian border politics on the interactions between detained migrants and border agents. Together with the material scarcity in which border officers operate, horrendous detention conditions and increased investments in detention facilities, this shift produces care-control dynamics that are specific to bordering in transit countries. We identify three ‘tactics of empathy’ deployed by Mexican border officers as they attempt to morally legitimise border control in this new environment, while concurrently avoiding legal liabilities and taming migrants under their custody. We argue that these tactics are less a manifestation of an ethics of care than a response to situations occurring in transit migrant detention where morality and instrumental rationality become entangled.
Geopolitics, Feb. 2022.
By Emily Ryo and Reed Humphrey
Every year, tens of thousands of migrant children are taken into custody by U.S. immigration authorities. Many of these children are unaccompanied by parents or relatives when they arrive at the U.S. border. Others who are accompanied by parents or relatives are rendered unaccompanied when U.S. immigration authorities separate them upon apprehension. Together, these minors are called unaccompanied alien children (UACs) and transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), unless and until their immigration cases are resolved or until the children can be placed with a sponsor in the United States pending the adjudication of their immigration cases. In fiscal year 2019, the ORR held the highest number of UACs in its UAC program history. This study presents the first systematic empirical investigation of children in ORR custody using original administrative records pertaining to migrant children who were in ORR custody between November 2017 and August 2019. Our analysis reveals an increasing number and proportion of children in U.S. custody who are extremely vulnerable: girls, young children of tender age (260 of whom are U.S. citizens), and children emigrating from countries with high rates of crime and violence. This trend suggests that insofar as punitive immigration enforcement policies may have deterred some children from undertaking the dangerous journey to the United States, those who continue to arrive at the U.S. border are likely children who are most in need of special care and legal protection. Yet our analysis raises serious questions about the system’s capacity to afford such care and protection. We find that most migrant children held in custody were concentrated in a small number of states, which are different from the states in which their sponsors reside. Only about 11 percent of children reunified were discharged from facilities located in the same state as their sponsors’ states of residence. In addition, most migrant children were in facilities that are extremely large—for example, shelters with capacities of 100 or more children. We also find deep inequalities in the system that suggest that custodial experiences and outcomes of UACs in ORR custody are closely tied to the particular facility and type of program in which a child happens to be placed. Among other findings, our analysis shows that the median time to reunification varies widely between facilities. For example, one ORR shelter’s median time to reunification was nearly eight times as high as that of another ORR shelter. We discuss the policy implications of these findings and consider critical issues that require further investigation—issues that are central to evaluating how, whether, and to what extent the U.S. government is fulfilling its moral and legal obligation to protect migrant children inside our borders.
UCLA Law Review, 2021. 75p.
By the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
The release of this report marks ten years since Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made the choice to send over 3000 men, women and children who sought asylum by sea to offshore detention centres and deny them permanent resettlement. The report touches on the stories of seven people subjected to offshore detention since July 19, 2013. The people interviewed and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre call for the immediate evacuation of the 80 people remaining in Papua New Guinea (PNG), permanent resettlement for all, and a Royal Commission into offshore detention. The Albanese Government evacuated refugees from Nauru. However, people are still trapped in PNG and thousands have been denied the ability to rebuild their lives in Australia.
Footscray VIC : ASRC, 2023. 29p.
By Alexander Betts
Such threats as environmental change, food insecurity, and generalized violence force massive numbers of people to flee states that are unable or unwilling to ensure their basic rights, as do conditions in failed and fragile states that make possible human rights deprivations. Because these reasons do not meet the legal understanding of persecution, the victims of these circumstances are not usually recognized as "refugees," preventing current institutions from ensuring their protection. In this book, Alexander Betts develops the concept of "survival migration" to highlight the crisis in which these people find themselves.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Pres, 2013. 255p.
By Parveen Parmar , Madeline Ross , Sophie Terp , Naomi Kear, Briah Fischer Molly Grassini , Sameer Ahmed. Niels Frenzen , and Elizabeth Burner
Climate change, poverty, and violence increasingly drive migration to the United States. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detain some individuals while awaiting determination of immigration status or potential deportation. Over the last two decades, more than 200 individuals died in ICE detention. In this study, we aim to identify systemic issues related to deaths of individuals in ICE detention to potentially mitigate further harm. Methods: The ICE Office of Detention Oversight conducts investigations after each death in detention, producing a report called a “Detainee Death Review”. To identify systemic issues in these deaths, we used thematic analysis to review 55 Detainee Death Reviews available between 2011 and 2018. Findings: We identified 3 major themes of pervasive issues—Detainee Not Patient, System Over Patient, and Grossly Substandard Care— and 11 subthemes. Subthemes of culture of shortcuts, delays in care, and poor care delivered were present in the vast majority of cases. Subthemes biasand discrimination, language injustice, falsification of and inconsistencies between records and reports, willful indifference, security over health, communication breakdown, inadequate resources, failure of protective mechanisms, missing/ignoring red flags, and failure of emergency response were also prominent. Interpretation: This study identified underlying systems issues within the medical care provided in ICE detention. While there are issues with language services, discrimination, and inadequate response to medical emergencies, the greatest issue is the lack of independent, external review. Greater transparency is required, so that adherence to basic standards of care for individuals in ICE detention can be better evaluated.
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas, 2:2021
By Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes and Mary J. Lopez
The increase in immigration enforcement during the past two decades has led to a larger number of immigrants being detained in the U.S. criminal justice system. Using data from the 2006–2018 Annual Survey of Jails, we examine the impact of immigrants being held for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the conditions in U.S. jails. We find that increases in the number of detainees held for ICE are related to higher noncitizen jailed populations that are not offset by reductions in their citizen counterparts, likely contributing to worse confinement conditions. This is reflected in the higher levels of overcrowding and understaffing, as well as in the longer stays in jail and more physical assaults associated with a larger number of ICE detainees. These findings prove robust to using data on two local interior immigration enforcement programs responsible for the growing number of immigrant detainees in local jails—287(g) agreements and Secure Communities—as instruments to address the endogeneity of the number of ICE detainees with respect to jail conditions. The results are driven by slightly over half of U.S. counties located either along the United States– Mexico border or in states with a large or fast-growing immigrant population.
Criminology & Public Policy 202022022:21:433-460
By Emily Ryo
During the summer of 2018, the US government detained thousands of migrant parents and their separated children pursuant to its zero-tolerance policy at the United States–Mexico border. The ensuing media storm generated unprecedented public awareness about immigration detention. The recency of this public attention belies a long-standing immigration enforcement practice that has generated a growing body of research in the past couple of decades. I take stock of this research, focusing on the causes, conditions, and consequences of immigration detention in the United States. I also discuss critical tasks for future research, including (a) examining the role of local governments, the private prison industry, and decision makers responsible for release decisions in maintaining the detention system; (b) extending the field of inquiry to less-visible detainee populations and detention facility guards and staff, for a fuller understanding of detention conditions; and (c) investigating not only direct but also indirect consequences of detention.
Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15;97-115, 2019.
By Gemma Dipoppa, Guy Grossman and Stephanie Zonszein
Covid-19 caused a significant health and economic crisis, a condition identified as conducive to stigmatization and hateful behavior against minority groups. It is however unclear whether the threat of infection triggers violence in addition to stigmatization, and whether a violent reaction can happen at the onset of an unexpected economic shock before social hierarchies can be disrupted. Using a novel database of hate crimes across Italy, we show that (i) hate crimes against Asians increased substantially at the pandemic onset, and that (ii) the increase was concentrated in cities with higher expected unemployment, but not higher mortality. We then examine individual, local and national mobilization as mechanisms. We find that (iii) local far-right institutions motivate hate crimes, while we find no support for the role of individual prejudice and national discourse. Our study identifies new conditions triggering hateful behavior, advancing our understanding of factors hindering migrant integration
ESOC Working Paper Series: 2021. 70p.
By Mizue Aizeki, Ghita Schwarz, Jane Shim, and Samah Sisay
Cruel by Design: Voices of Resistance from Immigration Detention, a report by the Immigrant Defense Project and the Center for Constitutional Rights, shows how the harms associated with ICE detention practices are embedded in the structures of the immigration control regime rather than a manifestation of a broken system. In doing so, it offers a summary of U.S. detention laws to illustrate how the system is designed to make it as easy as possible for the federal government to exclude and deport people. It also shows how the detention system deploys multiple tactics to undermine the ability of individuals to fight deportation. In addition, the report highlights the stories of people who’ve been held in ICE detention, and their resistance and resilience in the face of a draconian system. Piecemeal reforms alone will not be sufficient for remedying the cruelty of this system. What is ultimately required is far-reaching transformation, one aimed at ending detention as a tool of the U.S. regime of exclusion.
New York: Immigrant Defense Project and Center for Constitutional Rights, 2022. 49p.
By Rudy Schulkind
The introduction of automatic deportation for so called ‘foreign criminals’ convicted and sentenced to 12 months or more under the UK Borders Act 2007 (unless certain exceptions apply including the right to a private and family life), followed by further provisions in 20121 and 20142 , has led to an increasingly strident regime that makes it mandatory to separate a child from a parent. That is, so long as any harm that is caused to the child, parent or partner is not ‘excessive’. In the case of children, these provisions are relied upon by the Home Office and the courts to override the government’s statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. Through our legal casework BID has witnessed first-hand the devastating impact this regime is having on families and communities. We have undertaken this research so that we can shine a light on this cruel and inhuman policy. Our research is primarily based on interviews with fathers facing deportation from the UK. It is the words of those directly affected that form the substance of the report. The testimonies of the fathers we spoke to are powerful and often heart-breaking, and paint a picture of an entirely broken system that cannot be in the public interest. Section 1 of the report examines the sprawling impact of the deportation system, from the individuals punished permanently and given no second chance because they don’t have a British passport, to the children and families treated as collateral damage. Families were placed in extreme practical, financial and emotional hardship by extended periods of uncertainty under the constant threat that family life will be brought to a permanent end. Not only were the fathers we interviewed prevented from working, they faced repeated periods of detention that were traumatic for the entire family and placed an even greater practical burden on the mother. A particular focus of this section is the devastating impact deportation has on children. In the interviews we carried out, fathers facing deportation reported their children developing anxiety; crying constantly; unable to let their dad out of their sight; withdrawing from everything; loss of appetite; difficulty sleeping; having nightmares; and in one particularly serious case self-harm and attempted suicide. In addition to these testimonies we present evidence of recent academic insights about enforced parental separation in a number of different contexts. Somewhat unsurprisingly the evidence overwhelmingly finds that being forcibly and permanently separated from a parent generally has severe consequences for a child’s wellbeing and long-term development. Section 2 of the report concerns access to justice. The removal of legal aid and successive legislative changes have had a particularly detrimental effect on people seeking to appeal deportation. Interviewees explained the myriad interlocking barriers to justice they had been forced to confront. These include the complexity of immigration law and the prohibitive cost of private representation, as well as practical obstacles for those deprived of their liberty. The frequent and excessive use of detention, itself an injustice, leads to additional practical barriers to challenging deportation, particularly where this takes place in a prison. The first-hand evidence from our interviews reflect a dysfunctional system designed to make it practically impossible to even access a fair hearing. Alongside this we also present evidence from our own Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) project. We have found the ECF scheme to be unnecessarily burdensome and entirely inaccessible to unrepresented individuals.
London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2021. 40p.
By Rebecca Gambler; et al.
Each year, EOIR issues decisions for hundreds of thousands of cases of foreign nationals charged as removable under U.S. immigration law. EOIR is facing a significant and growing backlog of cases pending before the immigration courts. At the start of fiscal year 2023, EOIR’s backlog was about 1.8 million pending cases—more than triple the number of pending cases at the start of fiscal year 2017. In 2017, GAO reported on EOIR’s management practices, including how it manages and oversees workforce planning and immigration judge hiring. GAO was asked to review various EOIR management functions, including actions taken since GAO’s 2017 report. This report assesses, among other things, EOIR’s (1) workforce planning practices; (2) judge performance appraisal program; and (3) policies and procedures for reporting quality data to the public. GAO analyzed EOIR staffing data from fiscal years 2017 through 2022—the most current data available. GAO reviewed EOIR documentation and interviewed officials from headquarters and four immigration courts selected to include different caseloads, among other factors. What GAO Recommends GAO is making six recommendations to improve, among other things, EOIR’s workforce planning, judge performance appraisal program management, and data quality practices. EOIR identified ongoing and planned steps to address these recommendations.
Washington, DC: GAO, 2023. 61p.
The Trump administration implemented a total of 363 policy changes to interior enforcement with the overarching goal of subjecting all undocumented immigrants to enforcement actions. President Biden assumed office following significant commitments to implement changes to immigration enforcement, to limit enforcement activities, and to reduce the hardship experienced by noncitizens and their families.
This report analyzes some of the most consequential changes to immigration enforcement implemented by the Trump administration, the changes that President Biden committed to making during his campaign and transition, and the progress that his administration has achieved in its first 100 days. The report concludes with recommendations for additional changes that the administration should prioritize in working to create a fairer and more humane system of immigration enforcement.
Washington, DC: American immigration Council, 2021. 33p.
By Kathleen O’Connor, Claire Thomas-Duckwitz, and Guillermina Gina Nuñez-Mchiri
The 1951 Refugee Convention of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country." Further, the UNHCR is particularly concerned with refugees in Latin America and the Caribbean and uses the term refugee to describe persons fleeing from violence in Central America (U.N. High Commission for Refugees 2014). Thus, in this document, we refer to immigrants detained in the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas (“Dilley”), as refugees because they have been persecuted by virtue of their membership in a social group, are outside their country of origin, are fleeing extreme violence, and fear returning to their countries of origin, which provided no protection from violence and persecution. Throughout the report, refugees who agreed to speak with the team and to an assessment of mental health outcomes are also referred to as study participants, participants, or respondents. During fieldwork from July 22 to July 24, 2015, a team of mental and behavioral health specialists collected the following data at Dilley, at the Greyhound Bus Station in San Antonio, and at the Hospitality House, a shelter in San Antonio where refugees are housed temporarily en route to resettlement areas throughout the United States
Cambridge, MA: Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), 2015. 82p.
By The Global Human Rights Clinic (GHRC) of the University of Chicago Law School and United Stateless (USL)
Statelessness — the condition of lacking citizenship or nationality in any country of the world — affects more than 10 million people globally. In the United States, conservative estimates put the number of stateless persons at over 200,000. Given that the U.S. provides citizenship to people born on the territory, nearly all stateless persons within the U.S. were born elsewhere. However, the U.S. immigration framework is silent with respect to statelessness, in effect leaving stateless people unrecognized, unprotected and invisible before the law. As persons relegated to a life without legal status, stateless people in the United States are subject to being detained by immigration officials. Because they do not have a country of nationality where they can be deported to, stateless detainees have remained in immigration detention for months or years without any prospect of release, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and international human rights law. In some cases, after undergoing prolonged detention, stateless detainees have been forcibly deported to “third countries” (countries where they are not citizens), thereby perpetuating their condition of legal limbo and further depriving them of protection as required by international law. This report by the Global Human Rights Clinic (GHRC) of the University of Chicago Law School, in partnership with the non-profit organization United Stateless (USL), documents how the U.S. government violates international law by subjecting stateless persons to prolonged, repeated and arbitrary detention. Drawing from interviews with impacted stateless individuals and experts on statelessness, the report sets out specific recommendations for the U.S. government to bring its laws and policies in compliance with international human rights law.
Chicago: The Global Human Rights Clinic (GHRC) of the University of Chicago Law School, 2022. 88p.
By David Goodhart
The Government has steadied the ship in recent weeks after the Liz Truss misadventure. But if there is any chance of winning back some of the 2019 coalition, one condition of being competitive at the next election, the Government will need some visible policy progress in three big areas: NHS performance, levelling up and immigration (including stopping the Channel boats). This paper focuses on that third policy field. Attitudes to immigration have liberalised somewhat since Brexit ended free movement reinforced by the persistent publicity about labour shortages. But anxiety about immigration is likely to rise again sharply following the unprecedented post-Covid surge in legal net migration, with the illegal Channel boats as a backdrop, and the probable revival of the Reform party to highlight Conservative failed pledges on immigration.
The net immigration figure of 504,000 in the year to June, easily the largest ever annual increase, creates another headache for the Government but is mainly due to one-off factors—a post-Covid catch up on student migration (277,000) and a surge in mainly legal refugee inflows (276,000) which are unlikely to be repeated, including the large numbers from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. Only about 150,000 of the net migration figure is people coming on work visas (around 20%) but most of them and almost all the students will only be here temporarily. Notwithstanding this unsustainable surge, Britain’s post-Brexit immigration system is broadly striking the right balance. It is already more open than many comparable countries, with greater restrictions on most low paying jobs than in the EU era but with almost two-thirds of jobs subject to a potential work visa. Outside of some very specific areas, such as seasonal agricultural work, there is no case for more liberalisation, especially in the light of the unprecedented half a million number, but this paper makes some suggestions for further reform under three main headings, and concludes with an analysis of the Channel boats problem.
London: Policy Exchange, 2022. 23p.
By Arezo Malakooti
The overall objective of this study is to understand the political economy of migrant detention in Libya, in both the official and non-official detention systems. The study was launched in October 2018 and the report was finalized in April 2019. The study was conducted by means of a qualitative approach, based on primary field research spanning four research modules: literature review, initial screening of detention centres in Libya, primary field interviews with migrants and with a variety of key informants (armed groups, authorities, smugglers, detention-centre staff, programme implementers). The methodology was route focused and, as such, involved interviews in four countries: Niger, Libya, Italy and Malta. A total of 85 key informant interviews were conducted and 75 in-depth interviews were conducted with migrants (160 in-depth interviews in total).
Geneva: Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2019. 111p.
By Galina Cornelisse
Practices of immigration detention in Europe are largely resistant to conventional forms of legal correction. By rethinking the notion of territorial sovereignty in modern constitutionalism, this book puts forward a solution to the problem of legally permissive immigration detention.
Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010. 403p.
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.
By Dan Godshaw.
Young arrivers to the UK come from a wide variety of backgrounds and situations. Many are fleeing persecution or conflict; many have suffered the breakdown of their families through a range of circumstances. Many, by the time they are adults, have known no other home and are, to all intents and purposes, British. All are people asking for our help. They should find protection, fairness and clarity in our immigration system and in statutory support systems. Instead, far too many people are failed by the systems at many different points. This report, written with a focus on first-hand testimonies, explores the realities young arrivers face, with particular regard to immigration detention. We make a number of recommendations for changes that we believe are needed, with actions required from government, from local authorities, and from support services
Crawley, UK: Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group, 2017., 56p.
