By Anastasia Karatzas

The harmful consequences of child immigration detention are, by now, increasingly well-documented. Evidence attests to the long-lasting and negative impact of the practice on children’s health, well-being and development, and has given rise to an international consensus firmly against its continued use.

However, the European Union’s policies fail to reflect any such agreement, which is evident not least in the context of the Return Directive and member states’ continued use of the practice. As it stands, the detention of minors is permitted by the Directive and remains a plausible option both according to the European Commission’s proposal to recast it and the Council of the EU’s position on the matter.

Furthermore, although the Directive mandates member states to explore all plausible alternatives and use child immigration detention only as a measure of last resort, evidence suggests that detention is prolific and other measures underused. In the recast proposal, little looks set to change on this front either, with the use of alternatives having fallen mostly by the wayside.

In this context, this paper argues that, with negotiations on the file ongoing, the time for the EU to shift gears, ban the practice, and mandate member states to implement alternatives is now opportune.

Brussels: European Policy Centre, 2022.  12p.

By Jonathan Hafetz

The U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay has long been synonymous with torture, secrecy, and the abuse of executive power. It has come to epitomize lawlessness and has sparked protracted legal battles and political debate. For too long, however, Guantánamo has been viewed in isolation and has overshadowed a larger, interconnected global detention system that includes other military prisons such as Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, secret CIA jails, and the transfer of prisoners to other countries for torture. Guantánamo is simply—and alarmingly—the most visible example of a much larger prison system designed to operate outside the law.

Habeas Corpus after 9/11 examines the rise of the U.S.-run global detention system that emerged after 9/11 and the efforts to challenge it through habeas corpus (a petition to appear in court to claim unlawful imprisonment). Habeas expert and litigator Jonathan Hafetz gives us an insider’s view of the detention of “enemy combatants” and an accessible explanation of the complex forces that keep these systems running.

In the age of terrorism, some argue that habeas corpus is impractical and unwise. Hafetz advocates that it remains the single most important check against arbitrary and unlawful detention, torture, and the abuse of executive power

New York; London: NYU Press, 2011. 331p.

By Alicia Heys, Craig Barlow, Carole Murphy and Amy McKee

This article offers an original contribution to the field of victimization studies by investigating the current context of, and responses to, British nationals who are victims of modern slavery in the UK (BVs). Through the examination of National Referral Mechanism and Duty to Notify statistics, a current picture of specific experiences of BVs in the UK is illustrated with reference to identification and access to support. An exploration of the reasons for non-engagement of BVs with services and the detrimental impact this may have on their recovery highlights pertinent issues of mistrust, stigma and shame. Compounded by the current criminal justice approach towards modern slavery, the effects on the well-being of victims and survivors document the barriers to accessing services. A lack of engagement with the complexity of modern slavery; a lack of knowledge, training and expertise; and a lack of comprehensive guidance result in poor outcomes for BVs. Overall, the findings of this article are important in recognizing that the needs of BVs are currently not adequately met. A comprehensive investigation is required to examine the specific needs and experiences of BVs so that responses can be improved to effectively and appropriately support them into long-term and meaningful recovery.

Journal of Victimology and Victim JusticeVolume 5, Issue 1. April 2022, 16pg

BY ROGER J. R. LEVESQUE  

In the wake of the civil rights movement, the legal system dramatically changed its response to discrimination based on race, gender, and other characteristics. It is now showing signs of yet another dramatic shift, as it moves from considering difference to focusing on neutrality. Rather than seeking to counter subjugation through special protections for groups that have been historically (and currently) disadvantaged, the Court now adopts a “colorblind” approach. Equality now means treating everyone the same way.

This book explores these shifts and the research used to support civil rights claims, particularly relating to minority youths’ rights to equal treatment. It integrates developmental theory with work on legal equality and discrimination, showing both how the legal system can benefit from new research on development and how the legal system itself can work to address invidious discrimination given its significant influence on adolescents—especially those who are racial minorities—at a key stage in their developmental life.

Adolescents, Discrimination, and the Law articulates the need to address discrimination by recognizing and enlisting the law’s inculcative powers in multiple sites subject to legal regulation, ranging from families, schools, health and justice systems to religious and community groups. The legal system may champion ideals of neutrality in the goals it sets itself for treating individuals, but it cannot remain neutral in the values it supports and imparts. This volume shows that despite the shift to a focus on neutrality, the Court can and should effectively foster values supporting equality, especially among youth.

New York; London: New York University Press, 2015. 304p.

By Jonathan Haggerty

  Research suggests there is little connection between immigration and crime; and, to the extent any such relationship exists, immigration reduces crime rates. One frequently cited example—an analysis of 51 studies on immigration and crime conducted between 1994 and 2014—showed that the relationship between immigration and crime is either nonexistent or negative, which means that immigration appears to reduce crime rates. Nonetheless, immigration and crime—specifically related to Latin American gang members—was a major theme of the 2016 presidential election, as opposition to immigration was fundamental to then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign. Because much of the opposition to immigration stems from a conviction that immigrants are uniquely prone to crime, it is important to review the current evidence. This paper looks specifically at the evidence on illegal immigration and crime, as many supporters of President Trump claim to only oppose illegal immigration, and not immigration itself. There is limited research on the crime rates of illegal immigrants due to data restrictions; however, much of the current, impressive body of evidence that suggests immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native-born Americans combines data on legal and illegal immigrant populations  The most frequently cited studies specifically on illegal immigration can be divided into two categories: those looking at institutionalization rates—the rate at which a given population is arrested or incarcerated—and experimental studies measuring illegal immigration’s impact on crime rates in particular geographic areas. Both categories suggest that illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Of the nineteen studies examined in this policy brief, only one suggested a higher crime rate for illegal immigrants, while the rest suggested that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, that they have no effect on crime rates or that they decrease crime rates in areas where they settle. These findings are largely consistent with the overall empirical evidence on immigration and crime.

  R STREET SHORTS NO. 97  

Washington, DC: R Street, 2020. 4p

Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Nicholas M. Pace, Nastassia Reed, Rosemary Li

In 2020, California took steps to address intercounty variation and shortcomings in indigent defense resources through the Indigent Defense Grant Program (IDGP), which provided 9.8 million to public defenders’ offices in small to medium-sized counties. An understanding of the implementation and outcomes of the projects initiated by grantees is critical to identifying ways to improve the effectiveness of indigent defense across the state and achieve the goals of the IDGP. Authors detail how grantees used program funds, what the funds enabled offices to accomplish, and statewide lessons learned from this program and make recommendations for similar future grant programs.

Key Findings

• The most common grant-funded hires were attorneys, law clerks or law students, and administrative assistants.

• Offices used funds for case-support services, including expert witnesses, immigration support, and interpreters.

• Grantees reported making progress toward such goals as increasing knowledge and skills of staff, improving attorney and staff workloads, and providing services related to behavioral health and well-being.

• Challenges that grantees experienced included hiring and retention difficulties, delays outside the control of the offices, and data and technology limitations.

• Grantees cited flexibility in using funds as a feature of the grant program that maximized its impact and suggested increasing the minimum funding allocation

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024, 73 pages

By Inga Thiemann

This research report looks into the conditions attached to visa routes for both the care and agricultural sectors, known as ‘tied’ and short-term visas respectively, and the increased vulnerability to exploitation associated with these visas.

The findings show significant issues of debt and deductions of wages across both sectors and barriers to reporting concerns.

London: Focus on Labour Exploitation. 2024, 68pg

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 Emily Ryo and Reed Humphrey

Removal proceedings are high-stakes adversarial proceedings in which immigration judges must decide whether to allow immigrants who allegedly have violated U.S. immigration laws to stay in the United States or to order them deported to their countries of origin. In these proceedings, the government trial attorneys prosecute noncitizens who often lack English fluency, economic resources, and familiarity with our legal system. Yet, most immigrants in removal proceedings do not have legal representation, as removal is considered to be a civil matter and courts have not recognized a right to government­appointed counsel for immigrants facing removal. Advocates, policymakers, and scholars have described this situation as an access-to-justice crisis or a representation crisis for immigrant communities. The prevailing wisdom suggests that the solution to this crisis is more lawyers or more nonlawyer practitioners, such as accredited representatives and legal technicians, who can provide affordable and quality legal services. The focus, therefore, has been on the ubiquity of "legal deserts," commonly defined as areas that are in shortage of lawyers, and on ways to increase the supply of legal service providers in the marketplace.

This Article presents an empirical study of legal representation that unsettles this prevailing wisdom by showing why an adequate supply of legal service providers is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to address the representation crisis. Our study uses a new and original dataset that we compiled for the purposes of this study on immigration lawyers and non-detained immigrant respondents in removal proceedings. Our findings suggest that although the focus on the supply­side dimension of the representation crisis is important, it obscures other complex sets of barriers to obtaining legal representation that are distinct from the problem of legal deserts. Specifically, our empirical analyses show that whether a non-detained immigrant respondent obtains legal representation is predicted by where they reside, their primary language, and the size of their conational social networks, controlling for the availability of practicing immigration lawyers in close proximity to their places of residence and other potential confounders. In short, we argue that geography, language, and networks are destiny for immigrant respondents when it comes to obtaining legal representation. Thus, addressing the representation crisis requires looking beyond the problem of legal deserts to attend to a variety of other hurdles to obtaining legal representation that are associated with certain geographical, linguistic, and social isolation in which many immigrants live.

101 North Carolina Law Review 787-840 (2023), 54 pages

By Polaris

We have long known human trafficking to be a pervasive and versatile crime, as traffickers and exploiters adjust to changing environments. The COVID-19 pandemic showed us the profound adaptability of human trafficking. A global pandemic did not stop or impede trafficking from happening and, with few exceptions, did not seem to change how it happens or to whom it happens. In this report, we examine data from the National Human Trafficking Hotline from January 2020 through August 2022 and explore a snapshot of the top findings of human trafficking during the calamitous pandemic years. We provide top trends and answers to questions we typically report on as a part of our data analysis, and introduce how select trends that began early in the pandemic changed or continued as the crisis evolved. 

Washington, DC: Polaris. 2024, 10pg

By Andy Shen and Loria-Mae Heywood  

A new report published today by UNU-CPR’s Finance Against Slavery and Trafficking (FAST) initiative argues that a small but significant change to the international anti-money laundering regime – the laws, regulations, and procedures used to tackle money laundering – could have enormous consequences for the fight against human trafficking and forced labour.    

Making knowingly benefitting from human trafficking or forced labour a predicate offense to money laundering, the report stresses, would close the gap between the billions generated from these crimes and the meagre compensation provided to its victims and survivors. This is a challenge that persists despite international law codifying remedy for human rights violations.

New York: United Nations University Centre for Policy Research. 2023, 112pg

By OSCE - Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings

First of its kind, this report was designed to identify — in 40 OSCE participating States — the market-leading online sites and platforms for the explicit and non-explicit selling of sexual services where victims of THB for sexual exploitation could be advertised. The report's findings are based on the mapping and analysis of almost 2,900 sex services websites across the OSCE region, containing over 3 million advertisements; detailed information about how these websites operate is provided. The research also lists information and data associated with the sites and, through an analysis based on trafficking indicators, examines whether they can be exposed to human trafficking's risks.

Vienna: OSCE. 2023, 40pg

By Marta Gionco and Jyothi Kanics 

The European Union (EU) is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.8 The Treaty on European Union (TEU) underlines that these values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and gender equality prevail.9

Yet, in recent years, these values have been under threat within the EU, as many Member States’ policies and actions have led to a “shrinking space” for civil society. Perhaps this trend is nowhere more evident than in the treatment of migrants in Europe and the human rights defenders working to assist them. The “criminalisation of solidarity” strikes at the heart of European values and contributes to the erosion of rule of law and democracy, while seriously impacting the rights and welfare of the most vulnerable in our societies and those who seek to protect and assist them. The criminalisation of solidarity with migrants remains a widespread phenomenon across the EU. According to our media monitoring, at least 89 people were criminalised in the EU between January 2021 and March 2022.10 Out of them, 18 people faced new charges, while the other 71 were ongoing cases from previous years. Four of them are migrants themselves. Three people were convicted and 15 acquitted, while all the other cases are still ongoing. People have been criminalised for actions including providing food, shelter, medical assistance, transportation and other humanitarian aid to migrants in dire conditions; assisting with asylum applications; and rescuing migrants at sea. In the vast majority of the cases (88%), human rights defenders were charged with facilitation of entry, transit or stay, or migrant smuggling (depending on how the crime is defined in the national legislation).11 It is also notable that the criminalisation of solidarity has continued, and in certain cases even soared (see section 1.2), during periods in which many countries adopted COVID-19 restrictions, at a time when human rights defenders risked their own personal safety and health to leave their homes to help others. Emergency measures adopted to address the COVID-19 pandemic have been used to limit access to reception facilities and detention centres, to impose fines on organisations providing services during lock-downs or after the curfew, and to limit the right to freedom of assembly. National data further contributes to give an idea of the magnitude of the criminalisation of solidarity in the EU. For example, according to the Polish civil society network Grupa Granica, nearly 330 people were detained for helping people crossing borders irregularly between Belarus and Poland between August and November 2021.12 Those detained include EU nationals as well as migrants and their family members, many of whom had residence permits in Belgium, Germany and Poland. Many are likely to have been motivated by humanitarian reasons, including helping family members. In another example, a total of 972 people were convicted in Switzerland in 2018 on grounds of facilitation of irregular entry or stay.13 The vast majority, almost 900 people, acted out of solidarity or family reasons.

Belgium, PICUM. 2022, 66pg

STUESSY, MEGHAN M.

The passage that follows includes several links embedded in the original text. From the document: "On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14110 on 'Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.' This E.O. advances a coordinated approach to the responsible development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) and directs agencies to mitigate privacy risks and bias potentially exacerbated by AI, including 'by AI's facilitation of the collection or use of information about individuals, or the making of inferences about individuals.' [...] The E.O. focuses on three priorities relating to privacy: 1. Identifying and evaluating agency use of commercially available information (CAI); 2. Revising existing privacy requirements for the adoption of AI, including privacy impact assessments (PIAs); and 3. Encouraging agency use of PETs [privacy-enhancing technologies]."

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE. 2024.

By Pew Charitable Trusts

The business of state civil courts has changed over the past three decades. In 1990, a typical civil court docket featured cases with two opposing sides, each with an attorney, most frequently regarding commercial matters and disputes over contracts, injuries, and other harms. The lawyers presented their cases, and the judge, acting as the neutral arbiter, rendered a decision based on those legal and factual arguments. Thirty years later, that docket is dominated not by cases involving adversaries seeking redress for an injury or business dispute, but rather by cases in which a company represented by an attorney sues an individual, usually without the benefit of legal counsel, for money owed. The most common type of such business-to-consumer lawsuits is debt claims, also called consumer debt and debt collection lawsuits. In the typical debt claim case, a business—often a company that buys delinquent debt from the original creditor—sues an individual to collect on a debt. The amount of these claims is almost always less than $10,000 and frequently under $5,000, and typically involves unpaid medical bills, credit card balances, auto loans, student debt, and other types of consumer credit, excluding housing (mortgage or rent). For more than a decade, the American Bar Association and legal advocacy organizations such as the Legal Services Corporation and the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association have sounded alarms about worrisome trends underway in the civil legal system. And court leaders have taken notice. In 2016, a committee of the Conference of Chief Justices, a national organization of state supreme court heads, issued a report recommending that courts enact rules to provide a more fair and just civil legal system, especially with respect to debt collection cases. Chief justices of various supreme courts, with support from private foundations, have established task forces to probe the issue further. However, until relatively recently, these discussions were largely confined to court officials, legal aid advocates, and other stakeholders concerned about the future of the legal profession. In most states, policymakers have not been a part of conversations about how and why civil court systems are shifting; the extent to which the changes might lead to financial harm among American consumers, especially the tens of millions of people in the U.S. who are stuck in long-term cycles of debt; and potential strategies to address these issues. To help state leaders respond to the changing realities in civil courts, The Pew Charitable Trusts sought to determine what local, state, and national data exist on debt collection cases and what insights those data could provide. The researchers supplemented that analysis with a review of debt claims research and interviews with consumer experts, creditors, lenders, attorneys, and court officials. The key findings are: • Fewer people are using the courts for civil cases. Civil caseloads dropped more than 18 percent from 2009 to 2017. Although no research to date has identified the factors that led to this decline, previous Pew research shows lack of civil legal problems is not one of them: In 2018 alone, more than half of all U.S. households experienced one or more legal issues that could have gone to court, including 1 in 8 with a legal problem related to debt. • Debt claims grew to dominate state civil court dockets in recent decades. From 1993 to 2013, the number of debt collection suits more than doubled nationwide, from less than 1.7 million to about 4 million, and consumed a growing share of civil dockets, rising from an estimated 1 in 9 civil cases to 1 in 4. In a handful of states, the available data extend to 2018, and those figures suggest that the growth of debt collections as a share of civil dockets has continued to outpace most other categories of cases. Debt claims were the  most common type of civil case in nine of the 12 states for which at least some court data were available— Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. In Texas, the only state for which comprehensive statewide data are available, debt claims more than doubled from 2014 to 2018, accounting for 30 percent of the state’s civil caseload by the end of that five-year period. • People sued for debts rarely have legal representation, but those who do tend to have better outcomes. Research on debt collection lawsuits from 2010 to 2019 has shown that less than 10 percent of defendants have counsel, compared with nearly all plaintiffs. According to studies in multiple jurisdictions, consumers with legal representation in a debt claim are more likely to win their case outright or reach a mutually agreed settlement with the plaintiff. • Debt lawsuits frequently end in default judgment, indicating that many people do not respond when sued for a debt. Over the past decade in the jurisdictions for which data are available, courts have resolved more than 70 percent of debt collection lawsuits with default judgments for the plaintiff. Unlike most court rulings, these judgments are issued, as the name indicates, by default and without consideration of the facts of the complaint—and instead are issued in cases where the defendant does not show up to court or respond to the suit. The prevalence of these judgments indicates that millions of consumers do not participate in debt claims against them. • Default judgments exact heavy tolls on consumers. Courts routinely order consumers to pay accrued interest as well as court fees, which together can exceed the original amount owed. Other harmful consequences can include garnishment of wages or bank accounts, seizure of personal property, and even incarceration. • States collect and report little data regarding their civil legal systems, including debt cases. Although 49 states and the District of Columbia provide public reports of their cases each year, 38 and the district include no detail about the number of debt cases. And in 2018, only two states provided figures on default judgments in any of their state’s debt cases. Texas is the only state that reports on all types of cases, including outcomes, across all courts. • States are beginning to recognize and enact reforms to address the challenges of debt claims. From 2009 to 2019, 12 states made changes to policy—seven via legislation and five through court rules—to improve courts’ ability to meet the needs of all debt claim litigants. Examples of such reforms include ensuring that all parties are notified about lawsuits; requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate that the named defendant owes the debt sought and that the debt is owned by the plaintiff; and in some states, enhanced enforcement of the prohibitions on lawsuits for which the legal right to sue has expired. Based on the findings of this analysis and these promising efforts in a handful of states, Pew has identified three initial steps states can take to improve the handling of debt collection cases: • Track data about debt claims to better understand the extent to which these lawsuits affect parties and at which stages of civil proceedings courts can more appropriately support litigants. • Review state policies, court rules, and common practices to identify procedures that can ensure that both sides have an opportunity to effectively present their cases. • Modernize the relationship between courts and their users by providing relevant and timely procedural information to all parties and moving more processes online in ways that are accessible to users with or without attorneys. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report on the lack of adequate service to consumers in state courts that concluded, “The system for resolving disputes about consumer debts is broken.”1 In the decade since, this problem has not abated and if anything has become more acute. Furthermore, the challenges that this report reviews regarding debt collection cases epitomize challenges facing the civil legal system nationwide. This report summarizes important but inadequately studied trends in civil litigation, highlights unanswered questions for future research, and outlines some initial steps that state and court leaders can take to ensure that civil courts can satisfy their mission to serve the public impartially. 

Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, 2020. 44p.

By The Writers’ Workshop

From the introduction: The Writing Workshop at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility has been hard at work since 1989. This is our second book; the first, More In Than Out, was published in 1992 and well received. I think this one is even better. We meet every Wednesday evening, and, as members are fond of saying, for three hours we're no longer at Bedford but at a place of unlimited freedom. It isn't always easy to get there but we always give it a try. Some of the women in this anthology are regulars, others show up once in a while, still others have come and gone, leaving us a few inspired mementos. The Workshop is an outlet for feelings, of course, but it doesn't stop there.

Edited by Douglas Edlin

Are judges supposed to be objective? Citizens, scholars, and legal professionals commonly assume that subjectivity and objectivity are opposites, with the corollary that subjectivity is a vice and objectivity is a virtue. These assumptions underlie passionate debates over adherence to original intent and judicial activism.

In Common Law Judging, Douglas Edlin challenges these widely held assumptions by reorienting the entire discussion. Rather than analyze judging in terms of objectivity and truth, he argues that we should instead approach the role of a judge's individual perspective in terms of intersubjectivity and validity. Drawing upon Kantian aesthetic theory as well as case law, legal theory, and constitutional theory, Edlin develops a new conceptual framework for the respective roles of the individual judge and of the judiciary as an institution, as well as the relationship between them, as integral parts of the broader legal and political community. Specifically, Edlin situates a judge's subjective responses within a form of legal reasoning and reflective judgment that must be communicated to different audiences.

Edlin concludes that the individual values and perspectives of judges are indispensable both to their judgments in specific cases and to the independence of the courts. According to the common law tradition, judicial subjectivity is a virtue, not a vice.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016. 281p.

By Richard H. Donohue, John S. Hollywood, Samuel Peterson, Bob Harrison, Daniel Tapia, Sunny D. Bhatt, Candace Strickland

Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) researchers conducted an independent assessment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's) pilot body-worn camera (BWC) program for personnel assigned to Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations.

This report summarizes the findings from a mixed-methods analysis, in which researchers collected and analyzed data from BWCs and observed BWCs in training and operational environments with pilot participants. The analysis was supplemented by data and observations collected by ICE and analyzed by the authors. Researchers studied the BWC pilot program to better understand issues related to (1) trust and transparency, (2) user adoption and effectiveness, (3) implementation of BWCs, and (4) efficacy of the technology.

The resulting findings and recommendations cover a comprehensive variety of topics, including benefits and risks, human factors, policy and training considerations, and considerations for future ICE BWC procurement.

This research was sponsored by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Office of Regulatory Affairs and Policy and conducted in the Management, Technology, and Capabilities Program of the RAND Homeland Security Research Division (HSRD). 2023. 18p.

By Ran Abramitzky, Leah Boustan, Elisa Jácome, Santiago Pérez, and Juan David Torres

Combining full-count Census data with Census/ACS samples, the researchers provide the first nationally representative long-run series (1870–2020) of incarceration rates for immigrants and the U.S.-born. As a group, immigrants had lower incarceration rates than the US-born for the last 150 years. Moreover, relative to the U.S.-born, immigrants’ incarceration rates have declined since 1960: Immigrants today are 60% less likely to be incarcerated (30% relative to U.S.-born whites). This relative decline occurred among immigrants from all regions and cannot be explained by changes in immigrants’ observable characteristics or immigration policy. Instead, the decline likely reflects immigrants’ resilience to economic shocks.

Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research, 2023. 62p.

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.