By The Institute for Economics and Peace

This is the ninth edition of the Mexico Peace Index (MPI), produced by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP).

It provides a comprehensive measure of peacefulness in Mexico, including trends, analysis and estimates of the economic impact of violence in the country. The MPI is based on the Global Peace Index, the world’s leading measure of global peacefulness, produced by IEP every year since 2007. The MPI consists of 12 sub-indicators aggregated into five broader indicators.

Mexico’s peacefulness improved by 0.2 percent in 2021. This was the second year in a row of improvement following four consecutive years of deteriorations. Twenty-three states improved, while nine deteriorated. Although a minority of states deteriorated, the deterioration in these states was large enough to almost counter the improvements in other states. This relationship occurs globally where countries deteriorate in peacefulness much faster than they improve.

In 2021, three of the five indicators in the MPI improved. Notably, both firearms crime and homicide improved, with the rates falling by 6.2 and 4.3 percent, respectively, and both reaching around 26 per 100,000 people. This marks the second year in a row of improvement for both indicators following steep increases between 2015 and 2018....

Sydney: Institute for Economics and Peace, 2022. 102p.

By Aysegul Kayaoglu

The impact of immigration on crime continues to stir heated debates in public policy circles around the world whilst surveys indicate that host societies favor mitigating measures because they are concerned of what they perceive as an impingement on their security with each new wave of migration inflow. Whether there is any truth to such perceptions, however, remains a mystery for the case of developing countries since causal evidence is extremely limited. That those countries host the overwhelming majority of the global refugee population makes it paramount for researchers to supply the missing scientific link. Propelled by the magnitude of this need, this paper analyzes the impact of refugees on crime rates using the case of Turkey that hosts the world’s largest refugee population within any national borders. In doing so, it uses instrumental variables, Difference-in-Differences (DiD) and Staggered DiD methods to explain if the war-fleeing Syrian refugees pushed Turkey’s crime rates higher both in the short and the long-run. Controlling for various time-varying characteristics of provinces and presenting a battery of robustness checks against various identification threats, its findings show either null or negative effects of refugees on the incidence of criminal activity in the country.

Dokki, Giza Egypt: The Economic Research Forum, 2021. 44p.

By Mevlude Akbulut-Yuksel, Naci H. Mocan, Semih Tumen & Belgi Turan

We analyze the impact on crime of 3.7 million refugees who entered and stayed in Turkey as a result of the civil war in Syria. Using a novel administrative data source on the flow of offense records to prosecutors’ offices in 81 provinces of the country each year, and utilizing the staggered movement of refugees across provinces over time, we estimate instrumental variables models that address potential endogeneity of the number of refugees and their location, and find that an increase in the number of refugees leads to more crime. We estimate that the influx of refugees between 2012 and 2016 generated additional 75,000 to 150,000 crimes per year, although it is not possible to identify the distribution of these crimes between refugees and natives. Additional analyses reveal that low-educated native population has a separate, but smaller, effect on crime. We also highlight the pitfalls of employing incorrect empirical procedures and using poor proxies of criminal activity which produce the wrong inference about the refugee-crime relationship. Our results underline the need to quickly strengthen the social safety systems, to take actions to dampen the impact on the labor market, and to provide support to the criminal justice system in order to mitigate the repercussions of massive influx of individuals into a country, and to counter the social and political backlash that typically emerges in the wake of such large-scale population movements.

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022. 94p.

By Nicolas Ajzenman, Patricio Dominguex, and Raimundo Undurrage

This paper studies the effects of immigration on crime and crime perceptions in Chile, where the foreign-born population more than doubled in the last decade. By using individual-level victimization data, we document null effects of immigration on crime but positive and significant effects on crime-related concerns, which in turn triggered preventive behavioral responses, such as investing in home-security. Our results are robust across a two-way fixed effects model and an IV strategy based on a shift-share instrument that exploits immigration inflows towards destination countries other than Chile. On mechanisms, we examine data on crime-related news on TV and in newspapers, and find a disproportionate coverage of immigrant-perpetrated homicides as well as a larger effect of immigration on crime perceptions in municipalities with a stronger media presence. These effects might explain the widening gap between actual crime trends and public perceptions of crime.

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2021. 57p.

By Appleseed for Justice

There are few things a lawyer can do more profound than helping an immigrant avoid deportation. From saving a refugee from persecution to keeping a long-time U.S. resident from exile, the professional and personal rewards are tremendous. Yet there are a great number of challenges in immigration court, a venue unfamiliar to many litigators and other pro bono lawyers. This guide is intended to supplement the basic rules and procedures of immigration court with tips from experienced practitioners on how to deal with some of the peculiarities of these courts, including interpretation, videoconferencing, and a confounding document discovery process. The fifty-seven immigration courts are staffed by approximately 250 judges,2 sitting from New York to Honolulu. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office of Immigration Reform (“EOIR”) governs each of these courts, and each applies the same federal substantive and procedural law, but the practices differ formally and informally— sometimes even from judge to judge. Appleseed gathered information from practitioners in a variety of courts in diverse geographies, and the guidance in this book is the result of their willingness to share their experiences and tips.

• More.....

  Of course, the practical application of this guidance will depend greatly on the context in which the practitioner finds herself: the court, the judge, the opposing Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) attorney, and, of course, the client’s circumstances. And a pro bono lawyer taking his first case in immigration court will undoubtedly view these tips with a different perspective than a long-time immigration practitioner. But we hope that any lawyer can find here a framework for decision-making when encountering the peculiarities of litigating in immigration court—the near-absence of formal discovery, the challenges of a hearing interpreted into and from a foreign language, the minimal out-of=court contact between opposing counsel, and the obstacles presented by a videoconference system that keeps counsel miles away from the client. The guide is intended to inform your strategic choices as counsel in immigration court, but by no means to mandate a particular course of action. Above all else, a lawyer in immigration court needs to act in the client’s interest, even if that means deciding not to push aggressively against a videoconference hearing, to stop a sloppy interpretation, or to file a complaint against a misbehaving DHS attorney

Washington, DC: Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2016. 126p.

By Appleseed Fund for Justice

Every year, millions of people arrive at America’s borders fortified by the hope of a better life. Some come to escape persecution or torture; others, to improve their economic situation; still others, to seek education or training. Some of these newcomers enter lawfully; others, illegally; still others enter lawfully but overstay their welcome and remain here in violation of our immigration laws. Whatever brings them here, virtually all are inspired by the American promise of opportunity in a free society and our traditions of fair play and equal justice under the law. But many, particularly those who enter or remain illegally or who are simply unable to document their right to remain, get swept up in Immigration Courts that do not faithfully carry out these ideals. It is well documented that the single best predictor of an immigrant’s success or failure in Immigration Court is the identity of the judge who hears the case. Moreover, countless immigrants are subjected to harassing or denigrating treatment in Immigration Court, cannot understand what they are being asked or told, or have no assistance in navigating the byzantine court process. Far too many immigrants are held in detention for so long, while their cases grind on at a glacial pace, that they ultimately decide to go back home, even if they are entitled to be here. Many immigrants face a courtroom experience that does not uphold America’s commitment to the fair and dispassionate administration of the laws.

• More.....

  The sharp increase in the number of cases in Immigration Courts over the past decade, without a corresponding increase in resources, lies at the root of many of these problems. Immigration Judges, their clerks and the DHS Trial Attorneys who represent the government are overwhelmed, yet the stakes to the immigrants involved could not be higher: the outcome of these cases often determines whether a person will lose his livelihood, be torn from his family or even sent back to persecution. As one Immigration Judge, commenting on the crushing burden, said to us, “These are death penalty cases being handled with the resources of traffic court.” In response to this crisis of justice, the national nonprofit organization Appleseed decided in 2008 to investigate the Immigration Court system by gathering the opinions of those who face the challenges of that system on a daily basis. Appleseed sought practical, achievable steps to bring the system closer to our American ideals and prepared this report to highlight its findings and propose workable recommendations. This report takes no position on who should be entitled under the nation’s immigration laws to stay, leave or become a U.S. citizen. Nor does it address every problem facing immigrants or the government that deals with them. (For example, we heard from many of our interviewees about— but do not address—problems in the private immigration bar.) Instead, our recommendations have been narrowly tailored to bring the reality— and the perception—of fair play and equal justice to the Immigration Court system.

Washington, DC: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2009. 44p,

By The Legal Assistance Foundation Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice of Metropolitan Chicago and Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice ; Julie Dona, Geoffrey Heeren, Lisa Palumbo, Diana White, Amanda J. Grant, Mollie G. Hertel, Malcolm C. Rich

In 2002, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) moved televisions into one of the Chicago immigration courtrooms and began conducting hearings for detained immigrants in removal proceedings by videoconferencing. In Chicago’s videoconference hearings, the judges are located in the downtown court, and the detainees appear from a small detention facility in a Chicago suburb. EOIR believes that videoconferencing enhances efficiency but has not to date undertaken a study of its efficacy or fairness. Since the consequences of removal from the United States are so severe for immigrants and their families, we believed that these videoconference hearings deserved further examination. During the summer and fall of 2004, we observed 110 videoconference hearings and recorded our findings. The hearings we observed were “Master Calendar” hearings, where the Immigration Judge determines whether the removal proceeding was properly commenced, examines the charges against the immigrant, schedules future hearings, and, in some cases, orders the immigrant’s removal. Findings We found that videoconferencing is a poor substitute for in-person hearings. Among other problems, we observed deficiencies related to access to counsel, presentation of evidence, and interpretation. Latino immigrants appeared to fare especially poorly in videoconference hearings.

• More.....

  Compounding these errors, the immigrants whom we observed had little chance to speak or ask questions, were unable to communicate easily with their attorneys (if they were represented), and typically were informed of what had happened only at the conclusion of the hearing. There was little interpretation given for the benefit of non-English speakers. We were impeded from conducting our study by a general lack of transparency in the removal process for detained immigrants. There was no public access to the remote courtroom, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) refused to allow us to interview immigrants who had gone through videoconference hearings. There is virtually no regulation or written policy, moreover, governing videoconferencing in the immigration court

Washington, DC: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2005. 106p.

By Bail for Immigration Detainees (‘BID); Medical Justice ; Public Law Project

Human rights groups the Public Law Project, Bail for Immigration Detainees and Medical Justice Monday released a joint report calling upon the UK government to immediately end GPS electronic monitoring of immigration bailees. GPS monitors currently track approximately 2000 people for 24 hours a day. The tracking devices do not have an expiry date and can only be removed by court decision. The report “focused on the anticipated impact of electronic monitoring on physical or psychological well-being.” The groups found that the use of the tracking devices has serious impacts on the physical and mental health of bailees. According to the report, “clinicians raised concerns about the potential for electronic monitoring to exacerbate mental illness by triggering reminders of their trauma, for example where clients had a history of being restrained, or where they feared return to a situation where they may be at risk of further harm, or had experiences of powerlessness.” There is also serious concern that the trackers are restrictive socially and physically due to charging requirements. Physical impacts include skin conditions and musculoskeletal issues. Although the report calls for the immediate end of GPS electronic monitoring, the groups also provide recommendations for better regulation of the tracking devices if they are to continue. Recommendations include a strict limit on the time a tracking device shall be worn and call for GPS monitoring to be removed as a mandatory term of immigrant bail.

London: Public Law Project, 2022. 49p.

By Stephanie Brewer, Lesly Tejada, and Maureen Meyer

Seeking asylum is never an easy process. Families, children, and adults forced to flee their homes experience the trauma of violence or other life-threatening circumstances at their place of origin, the rupture of leaving their past lives behind, and the uncertainty of where and how to find refuge. But in recent years, this already difficult path has become increasingly fraught with obstacles for the rising population of protection-seeking people arriving at Mexico’s southern border, the majority of whom make their asylum claims in the city of Tapachula, Chiapas.

The new WOLA report, Struggling to Survive: the Situation of Asylum Seekers in Tapachula, Mexico, follows the route of asylum seekers arriving in Tapachula. It draws on a March 2022 visit during which we conducted field documentation and interviews with asylum seekers, government officials, UN agencies, and civil society organizations providing services to migrants. The report highlights abuses, arbitrary treatment, and steep obstacles faced by asylum seekers at each step of their process.

Washington, DC; Washington Office on Latin America, 2022. 39p.

By The Immigrant Defense Project

The ICE Out of Courts Coalition (the Coalition) is comprised of over 100 organizations and entities across New York State. As community-based organizations, unions, civil legal services providers, public defenders, family defenders, anti-violence advocates, law schools, and civil rights and liberties groups serving New Yorkers of all ages, races, and immigration statuses, we have been alarmed and appalled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) increasing dependence on our State’s court system as its preferred venue for surveilling and detaining immigrant New Yorkers. For over two years, the Coalition has gathered qualitative and quantitative data from affected stakeholders across issue areas and roles within the justice system. Following meetings with the Chief Judge and the Chief Administrative Judge, the Coalition has spent significant energy compiling the data collected in this report. The data collected in this report demonstrates the full breadth of the negative impact ICE courthouse operations have had on the administration of justice, as well as equal access to justice, in New York State. This report demonstrates just how widespread this problem is — affecting not just New York City but the whole state, affecting not just criminal but problem-solving and civil courts as well. Information presented here attests to how systemic this issue has become in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and how ICE courthouse operations have had an outsized effect on the most vulnerable New York State residents, including victims and survivors of domestic and gender-based violence, single mothers, those eligible for problem=solving courts and youth.

New York: Immigrant Defense Project, 2019. 88p.

By The Immigrant Defense Project

In 2019, ICE continued its expansive courthouse operations: IDP received reports of 203 operations, a 1700% increase from 2016 (11 operations). Nearly half of these operations occurred after the New York State Unified Court System (UCS) issued a Directive to limit ICE courthouse arrest practices on April 17, 2019—in part, requiring ICE to provide a judicial warrant to make an arrest inside a courthouse. ICE made clear to its agents through internal communications that “We can enter the courthouses to observe...we are good to make the arrest outside the courthouse with or without a judicial warrant.”1 From April 2019 onward, ICE used tactics that skirted the Directive by moving their arrests to court entrances and exits, while still surveilling people inside courthouses. In some cases, ICE violated the Directive outright—refusing to identify themselves as required, failing to wait for a supervising judge to review a warrant, and escorting an individual out of the courthouse to handcuff them outside. ICE’s use of force has resulted in injuries, broken glass doors, and crippling fear of attending court. As New York ICE Field Office Director Thomas Decker told reporters in September, “if we don’t have the information about where they are at in the community, and then we can pick them up around the court, then that’s what we are going to do.”2

New York: Immigrant Defense Project, 2020. 22p.

By Hillel R. Smith

Congress’s power to create rules governing the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) has long been viewed as plenary. In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, Congress has specified grounds for the exclusion or removal of aliens, including because of criminal activity. Some criminal offenses, when committed by an alien present in the United States, may render that alien subject to removal from the country. And certain criminal offenses may preclude an alien outside the United States from being either admitted into the country or permitted to reenter following an initial departure. Criminal conduct also may disqualify an alien from certain forms of relief from removal (e.g., asylum) or prevent the alien from becoming a U.S. citizen. In some cases, the INA directly identifies particular offenses that carry immigration consequences; in other cases, federal immigration law provides that a general category of crimes, such as “crimes involving moral turpitude” or an offense defined by the INA as an “aggravated felony,” may render an alien ineligible for certain benefits and privileges under immigration law.

• More.....

  The INA distinguishes between the treatment of lawfully admitted aliens and those who are either seeking initial admission into the country or who are present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted by immigration authorities. Lawfully admitted aliens may be removed if they engage in conduct that renders them deportable, whereas aliens who have not been admitted into the United States may be barred from admission or removed from the country if they have engaged in conduct rendering them inadmissible. Although the INA designates certain criminal activities and categories of criminal activities as grounds for inadmissibility or deportability, the respective grounds are not identical. Moreover, a conviction for a designated crime is not always required for an alien to be disqualified on criminal grounds from admission into the United States. But for nearly all criminal grounds for deportation, a “conviction” (as defined by the INA) for the underlying offense is necessary. Additionally, although certain criminal conduct may disqualify an alien from various immigrationrelated benefits or forms of relief, the scope of disqualifying conduct varies depending on the particular benefit or form of relief at issue.

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2021. 37p.

By Fabio Mariani and Marion Mercier

Contrary to popular perception, empirical evidence suggests that immigrants do not necessarily commit more crimes than natives, in spite of having lower legitimate earning opportunities. To make sense of this, we propose a novel theoretical framework based on a predator/prey model of crime, where endogenous migration decisions and career choices (between licit and illicit activities) are jointly determined. In this setting, we show that the involvement of migrants in crime crucially depends on self-selection into migration, as well as on productivity and institutional quality in the host economy. In particular, immigrants may display a lower crime rate than natives even if they are less productive on the honest labor market - and this result can still hold if career choices are revised after migration. We also find that stricter immigration policies could induce an adverse selection of migrants, and eventually attract more foreign-born criminals. Finally, a dynamic extension of our model can account for the higher crime rates of second-generation immigrants, and highlights the critical role of immigration and assimilation for the long-run evolution of crime and institutions in host countries.

Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics. 2021. 51p.

By George Edward Moore

From the preface: “It appears to me that in Ethics, as in all other philosophical studies, the difficulties and disagreements, of which its history is full, are mainly due to a very simple cause: namely to the attempt to answer questions, without first discovering precisely what question it is which you desire to answer.”

London. Cambridge University Press. 1903. 264p.

By F. H. Bradley

THE object of this volume is not the construction of a system of Moral Philosophy. It is very far from attempting either an exhaustive or a systematic treatment of ethical questions. Nor is the Author so much as pre- pared to define the sphere of Moral Philosophy, to say what does fall within it and what docs not. The writer’s object in this work has bceti mainly critical. He sees that ethical theories rest in the end on pre- conceptions metaphysical and psychological. He believes that many of the fundamental ideas now current, especially and he has en- deavoured, by the correction of some of these, at least to remove what seem obstacles to the apprehension of moral facts. These Essa^^s arc a critical discussion of some lead- ing questions in Ethics, and ai'e so far connected that, for the most part, they must be read in the order in which they stand. (Author’s preface)

Oxford : At The Clarendon Press. (1876)1927. 358p.

By Anna Weiss

Anna Wyss’ survey of the heavily politicised group of male migrants in Europe provides insightful analysis of both masculinity and the European migration crisis. The book tracks men’s repeated attempts to achieve permanent residence status and the successive detentions and deportations they endure. It measures the effects of precarity on their lives and explores the hope and vulnerability they experience.

Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2022. 214p.

Edited by Ilke Adam, Tundé Adefioye, Serena D'Agostino, Nick Schuermans and Florian Trauner

"Migration, Equality and Racism trigger ever more salient societal debates. More than 80 VUB academics and co-authors joined forces for this book. Philosophers, lawyers, psychologists, health scientists, sociologists, geographers, criminologists, communication and political scientists … look at migration, equality and racism from different disciplinary angles. Together they aim to contribute to an exercise of humanism as a praxis of criticism or a ‘technique of trouble-making’, in the words of Edward Said. Through 44 thought-provoking and informed opinion pieces, they question widespread beliefs on migration, equality and racism and propose solutions that might disturb. Let this book be a source of inspiration for those who want to spark an informed debate on the ever more salient issues of migration, equality and racism, for those who want to learn more on how and why humanism has often remained an empty box for migrants and racialized groups. Or for those who are in search of inspiration for a just future for all. Migration, Equality and Racism is the work of Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) think tank POINcaré and was created under the direction of Ilke Adam, Tundé Adefioye, Serena D’Agostino, Nick Schuermans and Florian Trauner."

Brussels: 1 VUBPRESS, 2021. 258p.

By Emile Durkheim.

“‘Our first obligation at this time is to create a moral consensus.’ Thus Durkheim concludes his thesis which began with the assertion ‘that science can help us determine the way in which we ought to orient our conduct’.”

NY. The Free Press. 1961. 322p. CONTAINS MARK-UP

By Crane Brinton.

Hailed by The New York Times as "tantalizing" and "learned," A History of Western Morals brings together an impressive range of knowledge of Western civilization. From the ancient cultures of the Near East, through the Ancient Greek and Roman worlds, to the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Age of Reason and the twentieth century, Crane Brinton searches human history for the meaning of ethics. A History of Western Morals raises controversial conclusions about the value of religion in society, the practices of sex, the nature of crime and the possibility of progress.

NY. Harcourt Brace. (1959) 507p.

Edited by Jude McCulloch and Sharon Pickering

Considers the growing importance of the border as a prime site for criminal justice activity and explores the impact of border policing on human rights and global justice. It covers a range of subjects from e-trafficking, child soldiers, the 'global war on terror' in Africa and police activities that generate crime.

Houndmills, Basingstoke. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. 214p.