By Ana Arjona

Violence has profound effects on individuals, communities, and countries. It affects mental health, child development, education outcomes, political participation, and social relations. It transforms formal and informal institutions, the quality of governance, public goods provision, and democracy. Yet, these effects do not impact all people equally: gender, race, ethnicity, class, age, and geographic location can determine people’s risk of being a victim as well as how severe the consequences are that they will endure. When violence systematically affects the most disadvantaged and vulnerable populations, it can reinforce and amplify inequality. Surprisingly, the causal effect of violence on inequality has received scant attention. This background paper hopes to lay the foundations for a research agenda on the effects of violence on inequality in human development in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)—the most violent and most unequal region in the world. By connecting various literatures on the dynamics of violence in LAC with different bodies of work on the effects of violence on individual and collective outcomes, the paper discusses several channels by which violence can perpetuate and amplify various types of inequalities.

Background Paper for the United Nations Development Programme 2021

UNDP LAC Working Paper No. 12

United Nations Development Program, 2021. 58p.

By Sara Lowes and Eduardo Montero

All colonial powers granted concessions to private companies to extract natural resources during the colonial era. Within Africa, these concessions were characterized by indirect rule and violence. We use the arbitrarily defined borders of rubber concessions granted in the north of the Congo Free State to examine the causal effects of this form of economic organization on development. We find that historical exposure to the concessions causes significantly worse education, wealth, and health outcomes. To examine mechanisms, we collect survey and experimental data from individuals near a former concession boundary. We find that village chiefs inside the former concessions provide fewer public goods, are less likely to be elected, and are more likely to be hereditary. However, individuals within the concessions are more trusting, more cohesive, and more supportive of sharing income. The results are relevant for the many places that were designated as concessions to private companies during the colonial era.

NBER Working Paper No. 27893

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020. 152p.

By Bruce Meyer, Angela Wyse, and Douglas Williams

Data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicate an unprecedented 43 percent increase in the number of people residing in homeless shelters in the United States between 2022 and 2024, reversing the gradual decline over the preceding sixteen years. Threequarters of this rise was concentrated in four localities – New York City, Chicago, Massachusetts, and Denver – where large inflows of new immigrants seeking asylum were housed in emergency shelters. Using direct estimates from local government sources and indirect methods based on demographic changes, we estimate that asylum seekers accounted for about 60 percent of the twoyear rise in sheltered homelessness during this period, challenging media and policy narratives that primarily attribute this rise to local economic conditions and housing affordability

WORKING PAPER · NO. 2025-49

Chicago: University of Chicago, The Becker Friedman Institute for Economics 2025. 21p.

By Margaret Love and David Schlussel

This report examines the extent to which state reenfranchisement laws consider payment of legal financial obligations (LFOs), including fines, fees, and restitution, in determining whether and when to restore voting rights to people disenfranchised due to a felony conviction. (Our national survey discusses and ranks each state’s general approach to loss and restoration of voting rights based on conviction.) We first published this research in July 2020 during litigation over Florida’s 2018 voting rights ballot initiative, which many expected would restore voting rights to more than a million people disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. However, the initiative was interpreted by Florida’s legislature and supreme court to condition reenfranchisement on payment of all outstanding fines, fees, costs, and restitution, which drastically limited its anticipated reach. A federal district court found this system unconstitutional, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed that conclusion in a 6-4 decision. During the appeal, an amicus brief by the State of Texas, joined by seven other states, asserted that “States across the country have similar rules [to Florida] for felon voting” and that the district court’s holding “called into question the widespread practice” of permanently disenfranchising people who are not able to “pay their debts to society.” As we demonstrated in our original report and amicus brief, few states have laws like Florida’s that indefinitely deny re-enfranchisement based on any unpaid debt related to a disqualifying conviction. This updated report documents each state’s current treatment of unpaid LFOs in regards to voting rights, including developments in California, where voters early this month passed a constitutional amendment to restore voting rights to those on parole; and Iowa, where the governor in August issued an executive order to restore voting rights after completion of incarceration and supervision, regardless of payment of LFOs. As of this writing, in nearly half the states (21 states), LFOs have no bearing on re-enfranchisement. In most of the others (15 states), regaining the vote is tied to completion of supervision, which may give courts and supervision officials some discretion to delay re-enfranchisement if LFOs have not been paid, but not to deny it permanently. Moreover, officials in many of these “delay” states already must consider ability to pay in determining whether to extend supervision, and officials may consider it in others. In total, 10 states deny the vote to at least some people who have otherwise completed all aspects of their sentence, but still owe LFOs. Of these, only 3 states including Florida have laws mandating indefinite denial of the vote to any person with any unpaid LFOs from a disqualifying conviction, even if the person has completed all non-financial requirements of the sentence, and regardless of ability to pay. An additional 7 states indefinitely deny re-enfranchisement because of LFOs, but only in certain cases. A new Sentencing Project report estimates that 5.2 million Americans remain disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, including an estimated 900,000 Floridians who have otherwise completed their felony sentences, but still owe LFOs; the authors were not able to provide firm estimates on the number of voters disenfranchised on this basis in the other 9 states that do so. * Four states handle reenfranchisement exclusively through a discretionary exercise of constitutional clemency. The governors of 3 of these states currently exercise their clemency power on a broad basis to reenfranchise most individuals who have completed incarceration and supervision time, without regard to payment of LFOs

Washington, DC: Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC)2020. 17p.

By Human Rights Watch

Following the July 2024 presidential elections, electoral authorities in Venezuela announced that Nicolas Maduro had been re-elected president, despite substantial evidence to the contrary. When people took to the streets to demand a fair counting of votes, Venezuelan authorities responded with brutal repression. At least 24 protesters and bystanders were killed and over 2,000 people were detained in connection with post-electoral protests. Punished for Seeking Change documents human rights violations committed against protesters, bystanders, opposition leaders, and critics in the post-electoral protests and the months that followed. It implicates Venezuelan authorities and pro-government armed groups, known as “colectivos,” in widespread abuses, including the killing of protesters and bystanders, enforced disappearances of opposition party members and foreign nationals, arbitrary detention and prosecution of children and others, and torture and ill-treatment of detainees. With 8 million Venezuelans abroad, the rights crisis in Venezuela remains arguably the most consequential in the Western Hemisphere. Governments should support accountability efforts for these grave human rights violations, call for the release of people arbitrarily detained, and expand access to asylum and other forms of international protection for Venezuelans fleeing repression.

New York: HRW, 2025. 109p.

By Josh Fording

This summary provides four key considerations for labor trafficking prevention programs, based on findings from previous evaluations of interventions aimed at preventing labor trafficking and other forms of exploitation in low- and middle-income countries. The four considerations are the generally limited impact of awareness-raising interventions, the importance of local context, the time frames during which interventions have an impact, and the possibility that interventions may improve social and economic well-being without measurably reducing labor trafficking.

WHY THIS MATTERS

Tens of millions of people worldwide are victims of labor trafficking, and international organizations and governments around the world invest millions of dollars in labor trafficking interventions. Yet little is known about what works to prevent this form of modern-day slavery. Our findings can aid researchers, policymakers, and service providers in designing more effective labor trafficking prevention programs.

WHAT WE FOUND

Across the evaluations we reviewed, the following four key takeaways emerged:

Interventions that impart knowledge about labor trafficking and its risk factors can be beneficial, but they often are not enough on their own to prevent trafficking.

Contextual factors are key in labor trafficking prevention and should inform program design and implementation.

Some interventions have the strongest impact in the long term, while others have short-term effects that diminish over time.

Interventions may improve important elements of social and economic well-being without leading to measurable reductions in labor trafficking during study periods.

These lessons should inform the design and implementation of future labor trafficking prevention programs.

HOW WE DID IT

We reviewed 18 outcome and impact evaluations of labor trafficking prevention programs and similar programs in low- and middle-income countries. We searched Google Scholar for evaluations of interventions aimed at preventing labor trafficking and other forms of exploitation, like child labor, as well as the most serious risk factors for labor trafficking, particularly unsafe migration. We also consulted previously published reviews of such evaluations.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2025. 4p.

By Amnesty International

In this report, Amnesty International analyzes the migratory regularization measures and procedures for the recognition of refugee status implemented by Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Chile, states that host nearly 70% of the 7.32 million Venezuelan people who have fled a complex humanitarian emergency and widespread and systematic violations of their civil and political rights in Venezuela. Based on the findings and conclusions of this investigation, Amnesty International makes a number of recommendations to the relevant authorities.

London: Amnesty International 2023. 42p.

By Tony Payan, José Iván Rodríguez-Sánchez

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

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

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

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

By Bill Frelick, Martina Rapido Ragozzino, and Michael Garcia Bochenek

Between February 12 and 15, 2025, the US government expelled 299 third-country nationals to Panama after they crossed the US-Mexico border, most of whom were seeking asylum, following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. Many of these people had fled persecution due to ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, family ties, and political views. “Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened”: The US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama documents this abusive mass expulsion, exposing the harsh detention conditions and mistreatment in the United States, beyond being denied due process and the right to seek asylum there. It also details their incommunicado detention in Panama, where authorities confiscated their phones, blocked visitors, and isolated them from the outside world. Of the 299 expelled, 179 were later returned to their home countries under the International Organization for Migration’s “assisted voluntary return” program—though the conditions of their confinement and the limited options they were given raise serious doubts about the voluntariness of those returns. The United States should allow those wrongfully removed to return and seek asylum in accordance with its international legal obligations. It should stop violating the principle of nonrefoulement by processing asylum claims of those arriving at the US border, rather than outsourcing responsibility to countries with far less capacity to examine asylum claims or to provide protection to those needing it. Panama should ensure that those it agreed to take can fairly access asylum and avoid complicity in US abuses

New York: Human Rights Watch, 2025. 45p.

By Taylor Koehler

Throughout the last decade, international human rights experts and monitoring bodies have expressed deep concern over States’ increased use of immigration detention. A primary reason for this concern is that States regularly impose immigration detention arbitrarily, and in so doing, render detained persons more vulnerable to violations of the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. As U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer explained in his 2018 report to the U.N. Security Council on migration-related torture and ill-treatment: “While not every case of arbitrary detention will automatically amount to torture or ill-treatment, there is an undeniable link between both prohibitions … experience shows that any form of arbitrary detention exposes migrants to increased risks of torture and ill-treatment.” While considerable analysis of components of the immigration detention system in the U.S. under international law, particularly the prohibition on torture and other ill treatment, have been completed, there have been few attempts to bring all these different analyses together to look at the U.S. immigration system as a complete whole. This backgrounder, and the more in-depth legal analysis on which it is based (linked above), attempt to fill this gap. The report analyzes the U.N. Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment (Convention against Torture) and other international and regional legal authorities. It draws on CVT’s decades-long clinical experience providing care to survivors of torture, including formerly detained asylum seekers, and highlights reports of wide-ranging abuses at immigration detention centers such as Stewart and Irwin County Detention Centers, located in Georgia where CVT has operated a survivor of torture program for the past five years. The report ultimately concludes both that the system is arbitrary and that U.S. immigration detention systematically exposes detained migrants to violations of the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Indeed, it finds that the current system’s defects are structural and pervasive to a degree that the system must be phased out entirely to bring the United States into compliance with its international legal obligations.

Center for Victims of Torture, 2021. 21p

By Karen Musalo, Anna Law, Annie Daher, and Katharine Donato

Immigration judges (IJs), housed within the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice (DOJ), make decisions in asylum and withholding claims, which are life or death matters. And although their title is “judge,” IJs are DOJ attorneys who lack independence and are particularly susceptible to political pressures. Federal court judges and scholars alike have criticized the quality and fairness of IJ decision-making, and many studies have been carried out to better understand the factors that impact it. The prior studies have relied principally on quantitative data because IJ decisions are not publicly available or searchable in any existing database. The authors of this study had unprecedented access to more than five hundred IJ decisions, allowing for both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. Our findings were consistent with other studies in noting that IJ experience and gender made a difference in case outcomes, with male IJs and IJs with enforcement backgrounds denying protection at higher rates. We were able to identify other significant trends as well, including that the most common reasons why IJs denied protection to credible asylum seekers were their findings that they failed to meet the extremely stringent requirements of two elements of the refugee definition elements which arguably are overly restrictive and inconsistent with international norms. We also observed patterns of incompetence and bias among these decisions.

This Article recommends several policy reforms to address the shortcomings we identify, among them: (1) the creation of Article I immigration courts, (2) improvement of IJ competence through more stringent hiring standards and continuing education, (3) increased diversity of IJs based on employment experience, (4) reduced deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals in reviewing cases, and (5) allocating additional resources to immigration adjudication.

Boston College Law Review [Vol. 65:2743], 2024, 58p.

By Elana Fogel, Kate Evans

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

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

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

By David J. Bier

America traditionally had few immigration restrictions, but since the 1920s, the law has banned most aspiring immigrants. Today, fewer than 1 percent of people who want to move permanently to the United States can do so legally. Immigrants cannot simply get an exception to immigrate any more than restaurateurs in the 1920s could simply get an exception to sell alcohol. Instead, just as Prohibition granted only a few exemptions for religious, industrial, or medical uses of alcohol, people seeking an exception to immigration prohibition must also fit into preexisting carve-outs for a select few. Many Americans have the false impression that these carve-outs are realistic options for potential immigrants to join American society, but the government’s restrictive criteria render the legal paths available only in the most extreme cases. Even when someone qualifies, annual immigration caps greatly delay and, more frequently, eliminate the immigrant’s only

chance to come to the United States. Legal immigration is less like waiting in line and more like winning the lottery: it happens, but it is so rare that it is irrational to expect it in any individual case. This study provides a uniquely comprehensive, jargon-free explanation of U.S. rules for legal permanent immigration. Some steps are simple and reasonable, but most steps serve only as unjustified obstacles to immigrating legally. For some immigrants, this restrictive system sends them into the black market of illegal immigration. For others, it sends them to other countries, where they contribute to the quality of life in their new homes. And for still others, it requires them to remain in their homeland, often underemployed and sometimes in danger. Whatever the outcome, the system punishes both the prospective immigrants and Americans who would associate, contract, and trade with them. Congress and the administration can do better, and this paper explains how.

Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2023. 88p.

By Eric P. Baumer, Min Xie

Research Summary

Our understanding of how immigration enforcement impacts crime has been informed exclusively by data from police crime statistics. This study complements existing research by using longitudinal multilevel data from the National Crime Victimization Survey for 2005–2014 to simultaneously assess the impact of the three predominant immigration policies that have been implemented in local communities. The results indicate that the activation of Secure Communities and 287(g) task force agreements significantly increased violent victimization risk among Latinos, whereas they showed no evident impact on victimization risk among non-Latino Whites and Blacks. The activation of 287(g) jail enforcement agreements and anti-detainer policies had no significant impact on violent victimization risk during the period.

Policy Implications

Contrary to their stated purpose of enhancing public safety, our results show that the Secure Communities program and 287(g) task force agreements did not reduce crime, but instead eroded security in U.S. communities by increasing the likelihood that Latinos experienced violent victimization. These results support the Federal government's ending of 287(g) task force agreements and its more recent move to end the Secure Communities program. Additionally, the results of our study add to the evidence challenging claims that anti-detainer policies pose a threat to violence risk.

Criminology & Public Policy, 22, 417–455. 2023, 39p.

By Christian Ambrosius and David A. Leblang

The forced return of migrants is an important part of migration policy toolkits. An increased risk of deportation, politicians argue, will deter subsequent irregular migration. We explore this argument for the case of forced removals from the United States and find that rather than operating as a deterrent for future migrants, this policy had a boomerang effect. The forced return of migrants with a track record of crime generated negative externalities in the form of higher violence in their countries of origin, counteracting the deterrence effect of higher deportation risk. We apply mediation analysis to a panel of Latin American and Caribbean countries and decompose the effect of deportations on emigration into three coef­fi­cients of interest: a total effect of deportations on later emigration, an effect of deportations on the mediator variable of violence, and an effect of violence on emigration. We address the endogeneity of our key explanatory variables—deportations and violence—using migrants’ exposure to the unequal and staggered implementation of policies intended to facilitate deportations at the level of U.S. states as a source of exogenous variation. We show that migration intentions and asylum requests increase in response to deportation threats. This effect is mediated through increased violence and is strongly driven by dynamics in Central America. Although the total number of apprehensions at the U.S. southern border in response to deportation threats does not show a clear pattern, we observe an increase in the share of unaccompanied minors and the share of entire family units among those apprehended, suggesting a shift in migration strategies and composition.

Demography (2025) 62(2):419–439 DOI 10.1215/00703370-11863789 © 2025

By Silvia Carta

In 2024, PICUM’s media monitoring confirmed a growing trend: at least 142 individuals faced criminal or administrative proceedings for acting in solidarity with migrants in the EU. Additionally, our media monitoring found that at least 91 migrants were subjected to criminalisation, mostly under counter-smuggling legislation. But we know that this number is an undercount, as other organisations recorded many more cases1 in their own work. Furthermore, news articles highlighted several forms of non-judicial harassment directed at human rights defenders and civil society organisations within the EU. Due to the significant gap in statistical and official public data2 regarding individuals accused, charged, or convicted for smuggling and related offenses, this briefing relies on a media alert system and desk research, which may not comprehensively capture all relevant incidents reported across EU countries. Consequently, the figures presented likely underestimate the true extent of such occurrences. In addition, it is likely that many cases, particularly regarding people who are migrants, go unreported by the media.3 Beyond the continuously high number of people who have been criminalised in 2024, this report highlights different trends. Under the current legal system, charges of facilitation and smuggling can be used to criminalise migrants or people without regular residence and those acting in solidarity with them. Despite numerous and protracted judicial proceedings, actual convictions remain low. This report also looks at the several cases of people and organisations across Europe that have experienced non-judicial harassment. Moreover, the findings of our media monitoring in 2024 seek to shed light on the criminalisation of people crossing borders irregularly, which has grown of at least 20% in comparison to monitoring in 2023,4 but remains a relatively hidden phenomenon. A comparison between PICUM’s findings and existing research reveals a tendency for the media to underreport the criminalisation of migrants.5 Yet, the majority of cases analysed by PICUM align with research indicating that migrants, including children, often face unfounded accusations, endure harsh legal processes and face years of pre-trial detention for the sole fact of migrating   

Brussels: PICUM, 2025. 29p.

By Maricela Sanchez

In 2023, we worked with local partners and a brave set of detained leaders to create the California Immigration Detention Database (“Database”). The purpose of the Database was to expose and document the daily conditions of life in California immigration detention by tracking formal grievances sent to us by those inside. “When people try to be heard by staff through their grievances, [they] are ignored. These facilities are not safe, and staff are not held responsible for misconduct.” – Jose Ruben Hernandez Gomez Since the inception of this project, detained immigrants in California have launched widespread labor strikes and hunger strikes and have filed multiple lawsuits and administrative complaints to put a spotlight on the abuse and neglect they suffer. As part of this effort, people in custody have continued to send us copies of the grievances they file through Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE’s”) internal system. As of July 2024, we have received 485 grievances across six immigration detention facilities in California. Together, these grievances reveal a persistent and disturbing pattern of abuse that pervades ICE’s detention regime in California. • Hazardous Facilities and Inhumane Treatment: Inadequate facility management was the most common reason for a grievance, making clear that ICE’s immigration detention facilities in California are consistently unfit for human habitation. ICE also fails to meet the minimum standards of its own policies, like ensuring people have edible food, clean water, and the opportunity to go outside for fresh air and sunshine • Medical neglect: We have received 94 grievances related to inadequate medical care, lack of COVID-19 protections, and denial of medication. Many people in the detention facilities suffer from chronic conditions. Some develop new health problems, sometimes because of hazardous materials or abusive treatment they experience while detained. But requests to see a doctor are left languishing, and ICE and facility staff regularly leave medication unfilled, or otherwise disregard the prescribed treatment. Likewise, during the pandemic, ICE showed a remarkable indifference to the safety of the people it incarcerates. More recently, ICE has withheld potentially life saving treatments, like Paxlovid, from people who contract COVID. • Retaliation: The most common outcome of filing a grievance isn’t change. It’s retaliation. The grievances we’ve received include 56 complaints of bullying and harassment by detention facility staff, 13 complaints related to sexual assault, 15 complaints related to sleep deprivation, and 59 complaints related to other forms of retaliation, such as punitive and extended use of solitary confinement. As part of its regular practice, ICE does not proactively release information about the grievances it receives from people in detention. Based on our conversations with detained people and with local partners who regularly engage in detention-related work, we believe that our records represent the most consistent issues in the detention facilities. This report is intended to support the advocacy and resistance of the people trapped inside ICE’s detention facilities. It includes data, stories, and background that document the ongoing harms of immigration detention. Taken together, it is unequivocally clear that ICE and the private companies it contracts with cannot be trusted to care for the people they detain. The grievance system, which is supposed to offer an avenue for redress, ends up making things worse for those it’s intended to help. Existing oversight mechanisms are inadequate, and human rights violations are rampant. It is our conclusion that the immigration detention system is irredeemable and infected by greed, racism, and impunity

San Francisco: UCLA of Northern California, 2024. 34p.

By Sana Singh

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

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

By Emmanuel Arthur - Ewusie

Ghana's child street crime is a complicated issue that calls for striking a careful balance between protecting national security, respecting human rights, and applying the law. The term "streetism" describes the situation where children live and labor on the streets, frequently without access to basic supplies and at risk from different sources. To address the underlying causes of streetism, safeguard vulnerable children, and maintain social well-being, it is imperative to strike a balance between these objectives. The basic idea of human rights is at the center of the problem. Every child is entitled to education, a secure and supportive home, and defense against abuse and exploitation. But these rights are frequently violated by child streetism in Ghana, where children are put at risk of exploitation, abuse, and neglect. As a result, the protection and realization of children's rights must be given top priority in any strategy to combat streetism, and this strategy should be informed by both Ghanaian law and international human rights norms. Regarding child streetism, criminal law is also very important. It's important to distinguish between criminal behavior and the circumstances that lead to streetism, even though some youngsters may participate in criminal activity while living on the streets. Penalties by themselves may worsen the cycle of poverty and vulnerability and are insufficient to address the root causes of streetism. Instead, social initiatives that deal with family dissolution, poverty, and limited access to healthcare and education should be used in conjunction with criminal law enforcement. In addition, when tackling child streetism, national security implications are considered. Streetism has the potential to worsen social unrest and jeopardize public safety, especially in cities where a high proportion of youngsters live on the streets. Thus, combating streetism involves preserving community stability and security in addition to upholding individual rights. But rather than using punitive tactics, security measures must be put into place in a way that upholds human rights and encourages long-term solutions. This essay aims to present a thorough examination of youth street crime in Ghana, looking at its effects on national security, criminal law enforcement, and human rights. It attempts to contribute to a fuller knowledge of the complex issues faced by child streetism and to inform evidence-based methods for addressing this important issue in Ghana by examining legal frameworks, policy responses, and grassroot activities. In Ghana, the issue of children living and working on the streets creates difficult problems where criminal law, national security, and human rights intersect. This study looks at the causes, prevalence, and effects of child street behavior, considering how it affects children's rights and welfare, the application of the law, and maintaining national security. The research investigates legislative frameworks, policy responses, and grassroots activities targeted at resolving child streetism in Ghana using a multidisciplinary analysis. Additionally, it assesses the efficacy of the current strategies and makes recommendations for a fair and rights-based strategy that puts the child's best interests first while maintaining public safety and security.

Unpublished Paper 2024. 19p.

 By Goroga Oabile  and · France Maphosa 

For a long time, universities applied the principle of in loco parentis, when dealing with issues relating to students’ welfare on campus, including the provision of security. Standing in the place of parents, universities could decide on issues that affected students without consulting them. However, students are increasingly demanding their rights as adults, including the right to be consulted in decisions that affect them. The students’ demand for their rights has, however, often militated against universities’ efforts to provide security on campus which they are mandated to do. Using a sample of 60 students from the University of Botswana, selected through the purposive cluster sampling method, this study found that the most important demand for students is to be consulted when decisions that afect them are being made including decisions on. Students are prepared to relinquish some of their rights in exchange for their security if consulted. However, the primary responsibility for providing security on campus is for university authorities. 

Security Journal, 2025, 20p.