By Alia Fakhry

Since 2015, European partners have funded interventions in the Sahel to help countries like Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali increase their capacity to regulate and control migration. Through these interventions, the European Union has set precedents and encouraged securitised policies that reinforce the security interests of governments in the Sahel, and undermine the capacity of regional and continental organisations to establish comprehensive migration frameworks.

Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2023. 24p.

By United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations - Minority Report

INTRODUCTION The illegal migration crisis at the U.S. southern border presents a grave security threat to the United States and a humanitarian catastrophe for the vulnerable people involved. Illegal migration to the United States has reached astronomical levels since the Biden Administration entered office in January 2021.1 The sheer number of illegal migrants, combined with the evolving tactics that transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) employ to smuggle and traffic individuals, presents an untenable security and humanitarian situation. Weak U.S. border security and enforcement of immigration laws undermines U.S. efforts to improve the rule of law and humanitarian conditions in the region, takes a mental and physical toll on U.S. law enforcement personnel, and challenges their ability to defend our nation’s borders. The prevailing conditions benefit dangerous criminals and expose vulnerable populations to unspeakable dangers and abuse. The Biden Administration’s failure to secure our nation’s borders is worsening this crisis. Further, it undermines efforts to address inadequate law enforcement as well as asylum processing policies and capabilities in Mexico and the northern Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. This report puts forward concrete ideas to: • Establish effective migration controls in the United States; • Strengthen border security and migration management capacities in the region; and • Target TCOs smuggling and trafficking migrants.

Washington, DC: The Committee, 2023. 56p.

By Yves Guermond

The crisis of citizenship in democratic countries is a topic that I am accustomed to study and that I have developed in a recent book [1]. A definitive definition of the concept is hazardous as it continuously evolves across the centuries. It is presently caught in the crossfire between two emerging trends: the diversification of the public sphere with the extension of critical analysis, and on the other side the growth of various kinds of cosmopolitism.

The leading classes became aware progressively of the depreciation of the notion of citizenship and of the need to fill the gap of an ideological perspective and of the necessity of an admitted goal for a large majority of the population throughout the diverse tendencies. In France the idea has been secularism (laïcité), meaning that the religious influences must be set aside to maintain an ideal social live. The problem is that these religious influences often stem from the various cultural backgrounds of the local population.

Academic Letters. July 2021. 3p.

By Mary Holper

Immigration detainees challenging immigration judges’ bond decisions are hitting a jurisdictional wall — federal courts are given license to ignore errors that immigration judges make in determining dangerousness and flight risk, because such decisions can be categorized as “discretionary.” This license comes from a 1996 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which removed federal courts’ jurisdiction over discretionary decision to detain for immigration purposes. Detainees’ important liberty interests are left to the whims of a single immigration judge, who determines bond under conditions representing an implicit bias minefield. This article explores justifications for unreviewable discretion and for stripping federal courts over immigration decisions and argues that none of these justifications are applicable when an immigration judge decides whether to detain a person pending their removal proceedings. The article explores manners in which the judiciary can limit the reach of this jurisdiction-stripping statute, and in order to ensure that immigration detainees will not face an unclimbable wall when seeking federal court review of their bond decisions.

Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 607 2023.

By The International Detention Coalition

The arbitrary and indefinite immigration detention of Rohingya is harmful to refugees and their families. As Rohingya flee ongoing persecution in Myanmar and deteriorating security conditions in camps in Bangladesh, punitive immigration detention has not and will not deter them from coming to Malaysia for safety. Immigration detention is expensive, harmful and must be reformed.

A new joint report from the Protecting Rohingya Refugees in Asia (PRRiA) project demonstrates the far-reaching impact and trauma inflicted upon Rohingya refugees because of immigration detention. Rohingya in detention experience physical and psychological abuse that can compound pre-existing trauma. For detained children especially, the impact has long-term effects on their well-being.

The report also speaks to the incompatibility of detention practices with Malaysia’s desire to offer a protection-centred environment for persons in need.

International Detention Coalition, 2023. 32p,

By Peter J. Meyer

U.S. policy toward Central America has been a subject of significant debate and oversight over the past decade as Congress has sought to address the underlying factors driving migration from the region to the United States. Recent Trends According to a model developed at the University of Texas at Austin, an estimated 377,000 people, on average, left Northern Central America (see Figure 1) annually from FY2018 to FY2021, with the majority bound for the United States. Flows have varied from year to year, with an estimated 651,000 people leaving the region in FY2019, followed by 92,000 in FY2020, and 487,000 in FY2021. Surveys conducted in 2020 found many potential migrants had postponed their plans in the midst of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic but intended to undertake their journeys once governments lifted crossborder travel restrictions.

In FY2022, U.S. Border Patrol encountered nearly 521,000 foreign nationals from Northern Central America at the U.S. Southwest border, including 199,000 Hondurans, 228,000 Guatemalans, and 93,000 Salvadorans (see Figure 2). The Border Patrol apprehended 177,000 of those individuals under Title 8 of the U.S. Code (immigration) and expelled nearly 344,000 under Title 42 of the U.S. Code (public health). According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the use of Title 42 corresponded with an increase in recidivism, with repeat encounters accounting for 26.5% of total encounters in FY2020 and FY2021, up from an average of 11.8% in FY2015-FY2019. Of those encountered from Northern Central America in FY2022, about 22% were unaccompanied minors, 24% were traveling with family members, and 54% were single adults.

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2023. 3p.

By Andrés Dae Keun Kwon

Los Angeles County has a proud history of providing public defenders to people who cannot afford a lawyer to defend them in criminal court. On January 9, 1914, the county opened the first public defender office in the United States. In addition to being first, this office is the biggest in the nation. The Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office (LACPD) currently employs about 700 public defenders, who handle approximately 300,000 criminal cases a year. And yet there is a crisis today in our county’s public defender system. In particular, LACPD has been grossly under-resourced as measured against recommended staffing ratios and compared to other California public defender offices. As a result, LACPD underserves a large and vital segment of the Los Angeles population: the immigrant community. This report, Defend L.A., examines the failures of the county’s public defender system and demands legal representation that, at a minimum, meets the standards of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S Constitution for all Los Angeles community members— including immigrants. The report documents many cases in which LACPD’s noncitizen clients pleaded to criminal dispositions triggering severe immigration consequences when more immigration-favorable alternative dispositions were available. Uninformed and unaware, LACPD’s noncitizen clients have pleaded guilty only to face mandatory deportation and permanent separation from family, community, and home—the loss “of all that makes life worth living.

Los Angeles: American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, 2018. 80p.

By The United States Government Accountability Office; Rebecca Gambler, et al.

Within the Department of Homeland Security, ICE is responsible for providing safe, secure, and humane confinement for detained noncitizens in the United States. In that capacity, ICE oversees and at some detention facilities provides on-site medical care services. ICE also oversees referrals and pays for off-site medical care when services are not available at detention facilities. GAO was asked to review issues related to informed consent for medical care for noncitizens in immigration detention facilities. Among other things, GAO examined the extent to which ICE has policies for obtaining informed consent for medical care, and how selected facilities implemented the policies; and oversees implementation of policies related to informed consent to help ensure compliance. GAO interviewed ICE officials and medical staff from six facilities selected, in part, based on whether ICE staff provided on-site medical care. GAO also reviewed 48 medical files from these facilities. Further, GAO analyzed oversight results for fiscal years 2019 through 2021, and reviewed ICE documentation in light of federal internal control standards. What GAO Recommends GAO is making three recommendations, including that ICE require detention facilities to collect informed consent documentation from off-site providers, and then require a review of this documentation as part of its oversight mechanisms for detention facilities. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with each of the recommendations.

Washington, DC: GAO, 2022. 53p.

By The United States Government Accountability Office; Rebecca Gambler, et al.

In fiscal year 2021, Border Patrol reported about 1.7 million apprehensions of noncitizens between ports of entry—a 300 percent increase over fiscal year 2020. This included approximately 451,000 apprehensions of family unit members. Compounding this increase were continued concerns related to COVID-19 and physical distancing protocols that imposed space limitations on facilities. To address these concerns and reduce time in custody, Border Patrol and ICE initiated two new processes in 2021, referred to as NTR and parole plus ATD. Border Patrol released family units into the U.S. without first issuing them a charging document—generally a Notice to Appear—which places them into immigration court removal proceedings. Instead, Border Patrol instructed them to report to an ICE field office. ICE officials are to further process family unit members who report to field offices, such as issuing them a Notice to Appear. GAO was asked to review Border Patrol’s and ICE’s implementation of the NTR and parole plus ATD processes. This report describes (1) Border Patrol and ICE implementation of the NTR and parole plus ATD processes, and (2) ICE’s efforts to initiate removal proceedings for family unit members processed with NTRs or under parole plus ATD. GAO analyzed Border Patrol and ICE policies, guidance, and data on individuals processed with an NTR or under parole plus ATD and who reported to ICE as required. GAO also interviewed officials in Border Patrol and ICE headquarters and selected field locations.

Washington, DC: GAO, 2022. 58p.

By Rustamjon Urinboyev

While migration has become a vital issue worldwide, mainstream literature on migrants’ legal adaptation and integration has focused on cases in Western-style democracies. We know relatively little about how migrants adapt in the ever-growing hybrid political regimes that are neither clearly democratic nor conventionally authoritarian. This book takes up the case of Russia—the third largest recipient of migrants worldwide—and investigates how Central Asian migrant workers produce new forms of informal governance and legal order. Migrants use the opportunities provided by a weak rule of law and a corrupt political system to navigate the repressive legal landscape and to negotiate, using informal channels, access to employment and other opportunities that are hard to obtain through the official legal framework of their host country. This lively ethnography presents new theoretical perspectives for studying legal incorporation of immigrants in similar political contexts.

Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2020. 186p.

By Manlio Cinalli, Hans-Jörg Trenz, Verena K. Brändle, Olga Eisele and Christian Lahusen

This book examines the ‘European refugee crisis’, offering an in-depth comparative analysis of how public attitudes towards refugees and humanitarian dispositions are shaped by political news coverage.

An international team of authors address the role of the media in contesting solidarity towards refugees from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Focusing on the public sphere, the book follows the assumption that solidarity is a social value, political concept and legal principle that is discursively constructed in public contentions. The analysis refers systematically and comparatively to eight European countries, namely, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Treatment of data is also original in the way it deals with variations of public spheres by combining a news media claims-making analysis with a social media reception analysis. In particular, the book highlights the prominent role of the mass media in shaping national and transnational solidarity, while exploring the readiness of the mass media to extend thick conceptions of solidarity to non-members. It proposes a research design for the comparative analysis of online news reception and considers the innovative potential of this method in relation to established public opinion research.

The book is of particular interest for scholars who are interested in the fields of European solidarity, migration and refugees, contentious politics, while providing an approach that talks to scholars of journalism and political communication studies, as well as digital journalism and online news reception.

London; New York: Routledge, 2021. 220p.

Edited by Peter Scholten Han Entzinger Rinus Penninx Stijn Verbeek

This book is the outcome of a truly European exercise. It all started in May 2008 with a conference called ‘Research-Policy Dialogues on Migration and Integration in Europe’, held at the University of Twente, organised by Peter Scholten, the first editor of this book, who was based at Twente at the time, and Rinus Penninx. This conference was co-sponsored by the IMISCOE Research Network, and some of its contributors decided to continue their joint activities in this field in a special research group under the IMISCOE umbrella. They were all intrigued by the vast differences between European countries in the use of scientific knowledge in policymaking and in the patterns of communication between academic researchers and policymakers when it comes to analysing the impact of immigration and migrant integration. Peter Scholten and Rinus Penninx invited several speakers at the Twente conference to transform their paper into a book chapter. Updated versions of these chapters are included in the present volume. In addition to this, a research proposal was developed by some of the members of the research group. The proposal primarily aimed at gathering more empirical evidence on the functioning of the research-policy nexus in the field of immigrant integration in several EU countries as well as in the EU as such. The proposal was called ‘Science-Society Dialogues on Migration and Integration in Europe’, abbreviated DIAMINT. It was accepted for funding by the Volkswagen Foundation in Hanover under its programme ‘Science, the Public and Society’. The DIAMINT project was carried out between September 2011 and September 2013, under the supervision of Han Entzinger of Erasmus University Rotterdam, and Peter Scholten, who had moved meanwhile to that university. Stijn Verbeek, also at Erasmus University, contributed significantly to both the contents and the organisation of the project. The theoretical design of the present volume as well as most of its chapters constitutes the final report of the DIAMINT project. The project, and the IMISCOE Standing Committee of which the project was part, has also produced a considerable number of journal articles and other output, of which a list appears elsewhere in this book..

IMISCOE Research Series . Cham, SWIT: Springer Nature, 2015 341p.

By Christopher Levesque , Jack DeWaard, Linus Chan, Michele Garnett McKenzie, Kazumi Tsuchiya, Olivia Toles, Amy Lange, Kim Horner, Eric Ryu and Elizabeth Heger Boyle

Examining what we call “crimmigrating narratives,” we show that US immigration court criminalizes non-citizens, cements forms of social control, and dispenses punishment in a non-punitive legal setting. Building on theories of crimmigration and a sociology of narrative, we code, categorize, and describe third-party observations of detained immigration court hearings conducted in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, from July 2018 to June 2019. We identify and investigate structural factors of three key crimmigrating narratives in the courtroom: one based on threats (stories of the non-citizen’s criminal history and perceived danger to society), a second involving deservingness (stories of the non-citizen’s social ties, hardship, and belonging in the United States), and a third pertaining to their status as “impossible subjects” (stories rendering non-citizens “illegal,” categorically excludable, and contradictory to the law). Findings demonstrate that the courts’ prioritization of these three narratives disconnects detainees from their own socially organized experience and prevents them from fully engaging in the immigration court process. In closing, we discuss the potential implications of crimmigrating narratives for the US immigration legal system and non-citizen status.

Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , May 2023 , pp. 407 - 436

By Kim Voss, Fabiana Silva & Irene Bloemraad

Activists do not just ‘name’ problems faced by migrants; they ‘frame’ them, constructing a particular meaning of the social world. Activists in the United States are especially likely to use rights language. Some appeal to human rights; others call on the history and resonance of civil rights. Those who contest immigrant inclusion often instead evoke ‘American values’. Are these competing frames persuasive? Drawing on a survey experiment of California voters, we examine whether these frames affect support for undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens in need. We find that although respondents agree that food insecurity, sexual harassment, and inadequate health care violate the human rights of citizens and noncitizens equally, a human rights frame does not equalise support for government action to address the situation. Indeed, overall, respondents are much less supportive of government action for undocumented immigrants than citizens; neither rights nor value frames mitigate this inequality. The civil rights frame, relative to the American values frame, actually decreases respondents’ support for government action, for citizens and noncitizens alike. The type of hardship also matters: in scenarios concerning sexual harassment, legal status is not a barrier to claims-making. These findings reveal some limits of rights language for mobilisation around immigration.

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2019.

By Valeria Gomez

Using the procedural due process framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, I argue that the current geographic distribution of immigration courts violates respondents’ rights to procedural due process by inhibiting their ability to appear, present evidence, and secure counsel. In so doing, I highlight the detrimental effects that geography has on remote communities, such as their ability to build pipelines towards access to counsel. Finally, I weigh and propose alternative solutions that balance the government’s interests in efficiency with the respondents’ interests in having a meaningful opportunity to avoid the harsh consequences of deportation.

Wisconsin Law Review, 2023. 45p.

Legally reviewed by Miriam Domer

Though some may mistakenly believe otherwise, noncitizens (also called undocumented immigrants) have a number of legal rights in the United States. These may include the right to due process and a jury trial in certain court proceedings, the right to payment for their work, the right to defend against deportation, and many more.

People who are facing deportation or who have had their Constitutional rights violated may have legal recourse through a number of immigrant-focused resources.

Legal Rights Guide. https://www.legalfinders.com/immigrants-legal-rights-guide/ 2022. 22p.

Edited by Barak Kalir and Malini Sur

This book is a collection of ethnographies of transnational migration and border crossings in Asia. Interdisciplinary in scope, it addresses issues of mobility and Diaspora from various vantage points. Unique to this volume is an emphasis of studying globalisation from below, privileging the narratives and views of —people on the move˜ ­ or the transnational underclass ­ and their sense of belonging to places and communities. The collection is further distinguished by its focus on the sources of authority and the social configurations that are created in the intersections between legality and illegality across Asia. Though previous studies on transnational flows have deconstructed the notion of nation-states as having fixed political boundaries, and have engaged in spaces beyond the nation-states, seldom has an entire region, Asia, been privileged in one integrated volume. We emphasize hitherto marginalized debates that have significant policy relevance. Other than a serious academic interest from lecturers and students, we are confident that the book will be of significant interest for development practitioners and NGOs.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012. 268p.

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 Victoria Boelman, Dr Alessandra Radicati, Amelia Clayton, Sophie De Groot and Oliver Fisher

This research provides rich insight into the experiences of migrant workers in London and the barriers and challenges faced in accessing support and advice in relation to labour rights abuses and exploitation. It draws on interviews conducted by peer researchers, who are themselves migrant workers in London, as well as interviews with advice service providers, and desk research to map the advice sector in London.

London: The Young Foundation, 2023. 70p.

By the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General

The report contains five recommendations aimed at improving management of, and conditions in, CBP short-term holding facilities in the El Paso area of western Texas and New Mexico. Your office concurred with all five recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider these recommendations open and resolved. Once your office has fully implemented the recommendations, please submit a formal closeout letter to us within 30 days so that we may close the recommendations. The memorandum should be accompanied by evidence of completion of agreed upon corrective actions and of the disposition of any monetary amounts.

Washington DC: DHS, 2023. 40p.