By Derek M. Moore 

Human trafficking thrives in the shadows, and the rise of social media has provided traffickers with a powerful and unregulated tool. This paper delves into how these criminals exploit online platforms to target and manipulate vulnerable populations. A thematic analysis of existing research explores the tactics used by traffickers on social media, revealing how algorithms can be manipulated to facilitate exploitation. Furthermore, the paper examines the limitations of current regulations in tackling this online threat. The research underscores the urgent need for collaboration between governments and researchers to combat algorithmic exploitation. By harnessing data analysis and machine learning, proactive strategies can be developed to disrupt trafficking networks and protect those most at risk  

In. Laws 13: 31.

By Ada Volodko, Ella Cockbain & Bennett Kleinberg 

Despite considerable concern about how human trafficking offenders may use the Internet to recruit their victims, arrange logistics or advertise services, the Internet-trafficking nexus remains unclear. This study explored the prevalence and correlates of a set of commonly-used indicators of labour trafficking in online job advertisements. Taking a case study approach, we focused on a major Lithuanian website aimed at people seeking work abroad. We examined a snapshot of job advertisements (n = 430), assessing both their general characteristics (e.g. industry, destination country) and the presence of trafficking indicators. The vast majority (98.4%) contained at least one indicator, suggesting certain "indicators" may in fact be commonplace characteristics of this labour market. Inferential statistical tests revealed significant but weak relationships between the advertisements’ characteristics and the number and nature of indicators present. While there may be value in screening job advertisements to identify potential labour trafficking and exploitation, additional information is needed to ascertain actual labour trafficking. We conclude with an outlook on automated approaches to identifying cases of possible trafficking and a discussion of the benefits and ethical concerns of a data science-driven approach.

Trends in Organized Crime, v. 23, 2020.

By Melanie Gower

‘Safe and legal routes’ are authorised immigration arrangements which enable a person to move to another country for humanitarian reasons. ‘Safe and regular’, ‘safe and regulated’ and ‘safe and lawful’ are common alternative terms. The UK immigration system includes several different safe and legal entry pathways. They can be grouped into four broad categories: Refugee resettlement schemes: The UK Resettlement Scheme, Community Sponsorship and the Mandate Scheme are available to people recognised as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.Refugee family reunion visas: Available to close relatives of people recognised as refugees.Nationality-specific routes: Available to some Afghans, Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong.Labour mobility pathways: The Displaced Talent Mobility Pilot and Healthcare Displaced Talent Program are small-scale initiatives helping refugees overseas obtain UK work visas. Each route has distinct eligibility criteria and conditions. Not all routes grant beneficiaries refugee status. This means that only some people on the UK’s safe and legal entry pathways receive all the protections laid out in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Most schemes are free of charge, but a few require applicants to pay fees. Calls for more safe and legal routes to the UK. Expanding safe and legal routes is often suggested as a policy response to small boat crossings and other forms of unauthorised migration to the UK. Commentators have noted, for example, that very few Ukrainians have made small boat crossings or been detected trying to enter the UK without authorisation since the launch of special visa schemes for Ukrainians. However, some experts have cast doubt on how much increasing the availability of legal routes would reduce demand for people smugglers and levels of unauthorised migration, given the number of people who might want to apply. The Labour government isn’t considering increasing safe and legal routes to the UK. ntroducing an annual limit on humanitarian routes: In 2023, the government legislated to introduce a ‘cap’ (an annual limit) on the number of people to be admitted to the UK through certain safe and legal routes. The size of the cap would reflect local councils’ assessed capacity to support new arrivals. It was expected to take effect from 2025, but the implementing regulations haven’t been made yet. When in opposition, Labour supported the principle of a cap. The Liberal Democrats and SNP both wanted an annual target rather than a cap.

London: UK Parliament House of Commons Library,   2024. 25p,

By Josiah Heyman

US political discourse characterizes the US-Mexico border as a site of threat and, of necessity, exclusion. This frame ignores the importance of borders to economies, families, and culture in our increasingly interconnected world. Moreover, it leads to policies that place people at risk of victimization and death. In conceiving of the border solely in terms of exclusion, nations forego the opportunity to strengthen relationships across borders. This paper argues that the politics of humane migration require a vision of borders as sites of encounter, engagement, and relationship, rather than solely exclusion. This reconceptualization of the US-Mexico border, in particular, would strengthen relationships across borders, and prioritize cooperation between Latin America/the Caribbean and the United States, starting with regulated legal flows. It would also respond to the shared contexts of migration, including contraband in arms and drugs, criminal violence, and climate change. It articulates an alternative vision of borders as a “commons” in which mutual needs can be addressed (a commons is an issue or resource in which every one has access and involvement). Migration itself provides a perfect example of such a need. It takes place in a political climate partially but powerfully shaped by racism and classism. Thus, it has become a polarized “issue” that appears insolvable. In fact, it may not be a problem at all. Rather, in our current demographic-economic situation, as well as for our cultural well-being, migration should be treated as an asset. Insofar as it needs to be addressed, this paper delineates many possibilities. The options are not perfect and magical — the challenges are hard and diverse — but they an advance a vision of a shared cross-border space on migration. That might be a crucial move, not only for migration, but along a path that recognizes relationships and commitments of many kinds across the hemisphere and world. Recognition is not enough; real change in resources and power needs to follow. But a vision of connection rather than exclusion provides the political starting point needed for change to happen. In every political instance in which borders are used to frame migration in terms of who, how, and how much to exclude, connectedness loses ground. A politics of humane migration can only emerge if rooted in a positive vision of borders as sites of engagement and encounter.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 321-331

By Cate E. Bird and Austin Shangraw

This article highlights the importance of accounting for the dead in migration contexts, from international humanitarian law (IHL), international human rights law (IHRL), and forensic perspectives. Starting by reviewing obligations under IHL and IHRL for the processes of accounting, the article discusses forensic action and the role that accounting can play to protect the dead and clarify the fate and whereabouts of the missing for their families. Considering the complexity of missing and deceased migrant cases, this problem must be approached from several complementary angles, including States codifying international legal obligations related to accounting for the dead in domestic legal or policy frameworks; developing national mechanisms to collect, centralize, and report disaggregated information on migrant deaths; addressing migrant deaths from a public health perspective; pursuing identification efforts including participating in transnational coordination mechanisms; developing strong partnerships with civil society actors; and coupling accounting initiatives with policies that promote the search for missing migrants.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 310-320

By Gabriella Soto

This article explores how undocumented border crosser (UBC) deaths are counted as well as mis- and under-counted across the US southwest, and proposes a suite of policy remediations to standardize this process. An accurate count of UBC recovered remains is vital to understanding the scope of fatalities associated with border crossing, providing evidence accounting for the reciprocal relationship between US border enforcement and the incidence of migration-related death. To meaningfully intervene, it is insufficient to advocate only for more robust individual death investigations, though this is pivotal to forensically identify UBC decedents and unite them with their loved ones. Though identification and reunification of UBCs are the elements of forensic care most commonly attributed as humanitarian, the relationship between forensic investigation and international humanitarian principles is equally about accumulating primary evidence for policy intervention and justice claims on behalf of those who wrongfully die. Even if existing counting mechanisms do not provide the means for establishing this attribution between border-crossing deaths and border enforcement policy, this article lays out an argument for why they must do so and it makes recommendations for how this can take place. Necessarily, this article begins with a critique of existing mechanisms for counting UBC deaths, from the federal observation of such deaths by Customs and Border Protection, to the bureaucratic mechanisms for the collection of vital statistics authored at the local level. It then suggests means for improving accurate counting using the US Standard Certificate of Death. It particularly explores two aspects of the certificate, Manner of Death reporting and a section that asks death filers to describe how the death occurred, sections 37 and 43 respectively. Finally, it explores historical precedent for altering the standard death form at local and then national levels, positing that select amendments to the existing death certificate would be useful for standardizing how medicolegal death filers across the border and beyond can more accurately enumerate and characterize UBC deaths.

Policy recommendations include the following, in order of immediacy:

• Jurisdictions across the US southwest must adopt standardized criteria for counting fatalities believed to be associated with undocumented border crossing.

• Despite some local formalization of UBC counting, current means of representing UBC status in vital records remains ad hoc across the US southwest and existing mechanisms for counting elude wider scale national recognition in vital statistics. The most straightforward and reliable method of standardization to ensure systematic representation of UBC deaths across the borderlands would be a UBC checkbox on the death certificate. This would require cooperation with state-level public health departments and legislatures. Precedent exists for changing the death form at the state level, facilitating, in some cases, for eventual inclusion of new components of the death certificate to be adopted on the US Standard Certificate of Death. This is recommended as a longer-term goal.

• Finally, there must be a means to characterize the deadly relationship between UBC fatalities and US border enforcement policy and practice in vital records where UBC Manners of Death are most often characterized as “Natural” or “Accidental.” Both are inaccurate. Unilaterally ensuring an accurate count leaves room for a trend already well underway in which agencies associated with border enforcement have cast UBC deaths as simply due to unfortunate heat-related accidents, resulting in legislation aimed to mitigate deaths that fails to address the role of border policy in causing deaths. This paper recommends that a new Manner of Death category could be useful beyond the border to represent non-capital crimes enforced by leveraging bodily harm.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 290-309

By Stephanie Leutert

For the past 25 years, the Border Patrol has tracked migrant deaths along the US-Mexico border. For nearly the same amount of time, it has also faced criticisms that it failed to capture the true number of migrant deaths in its tally. This article focuses on these undercounting criticisms and asks two questions: (1) How many documented migrant death cases are left out of Border Patrol’s official data? And (2) what factors lead to the Border Patrol’s migrant death undercounting? In particular, the article focuses on three South Texas counties: Brooks County, Kenedy County, and Maverick County. To answer the research questions, this article relies on comparative data analysis. In particular, it compares two person-level datasets: the Border Patrol’s dataset on migrant deaths from 2009 to 2017 and county-level records from the Brooks County Sheriff’s Office, the Kenedy County Sheriff’s Office, and Maverick County Justices of the Peace over the same period. It then attempts to match each county-level record to a recorded death in the Border Patrol’s dataset. Using this process, the article quantifies migrant death undercounting in South Texas, highlights geographic and temporal trends, and tracks the uncounted cases’ specific characteristics. From 2009 to 2017, this comparative data analysis confirmed that the Border Patrol was undercounting migrant deaths across the three South Texas counties. Specifically, the article finds that the Border Patrol failed to include 139 cases, which totaled 19 percent of the counties’ 749 recorded migrant deaths during the study period. This undercounting ranged from 16 percent in Brooks County to 24 percent in Maverick County and 29 percent in Kenedy County, with fluctuating rates over time. The uncounted cases also had specific characteristics. In particular, they were more likely to be skeletal remains, lack an identification, and be discovered by an external entity. These characteristics highlight the various factors behind the Border Patrol’s undercounting, such as issues with the Border Patrol’s migrant death definition, inconsistent data collection from external entities, and the agency’s low prioritization of migrant death tracking. To address and remedy the Border Patrol’s migrant death undercounting requires tackling each underlying factor. First and foremost, this article recommends that the Border Patrol fully train its agents on the agency’s migrant death definition and ensure consistent and standardized outreach to external entities. Further, it recommends that the Border Patrol improve its migrant death count’s accuracy through additional operational changes. These proposed changes include making “accurate migrant death counts” an official objective for the Border Patrol’s Missing Migrant Program, prioritizing a two-way information-sharing process with county-level officials, retroactively including missed migrant deaths in the official count, and publishing more detailed person-level data on migrant deaths.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 277-289

By Courtney C. Siegert, Molly A. Kaplan, Nicholas P. Herrmann and M. Kate Spradley

This paper details the structural and resource challenges in Texas related to identifying migrant decedents, investigating their deaths, repatriating them, and adhering to legal and ethical requirements in addressing this humanitarian tragedy. While actors working on migrant decedent investigations in Arizona can map and provide accurate counts of migrant deaths, this is not yet possible for Texas cases. Texas’ mixed Medical Examiner/Justice of the Peace medicolegal system suffers from fragmentation across county jurisdictions, lack of resources, and minimal access to investigative tools for transnational families. These challenges produce a landscape where unidentified presumed migrants may structurally disappear (e.g., buried in temporarily marked graves as unidentified persons with no investigation or case tracking). The article highlights the work of Operation Identification (OpID), a humanitarian project formed to assist border counties with recovering, identifying, and repatriating migrant decedents. OpID’s extensive community outreach and collaboration with governmental and nongovernmental partners in the United States and Latin America have improved practices in some Texas counties. However, systemic change is still needed to address this humanitarian disaster. The article proposes that presumed migrant decedents be managed using a disaster victim identification (DVI) approach, which prioritizes identification, rather than how and why someone dies. It also proposes the establishment of regional Migrant Identification Centers (MICs) to streamline identification and repatriation efforts, while ensuring compliance with Texas law by Justices of the Peace (JPs). Centralization, the article argues, can lead to more accurate counts of migrant deaths and lay the groundwork for greater resources. The article also supports increased access to national databases including the National Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) and the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs). It argues that transnational families of missing persons be afforded expanded access to investigative tools (e.g., NamUs)

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 257-276

By Robin C. Reineke and Daniel E. Martinez

In this article, we present a qualitative analysis of the events surrounding death or disappearance in autopsy and missing person reports from the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (PCOME) in Arizona to highlight how interactions between border enforcement personnel and migrants can be deadly. We reviewed PCOME records of undocumented border crosser deaths between 2000 and 2023 and observed three main types of deadly U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) practices: reckless motor vehicle pursuits, aggressive strategies used to detain individuals who are on foot, and the use of lethal force. Our findings reveal that these tactics, which we argue constitute forms of “excessive use of force,” represent significant yet overlooked factors contributing to migrant death and disappearance in southern Arizona. We make the following policy recommendations:

1. Immediate measures to prevent the loss of life

(A). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should mandate a ban on border enforcement methods that provoke fear, panic, or confusion.

(B). DHS should take measures to substantially reduce the use of high-speed motor vehicle pursuits by USBP and other immigration enforcement officials.

(C). DHS should ensure that USBP officers are compliant with Department of Justice (DOJ) standards on use of deadly force, in particular the policy that “Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.”

2. Investigate Border Fatalities Involving Border Enforcement Officers

(A). We call on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an official review of all medical examiner and coroner records along the U.S.-Mexico border for fatality cases in which border enforcement personnel were involved in any way in the circumstances surrounding death.

(B). We encourage the formation of civilian review boards in border regions to review medical examiner and coroner records of migrant fatalities involving immigration officials as well as immigration officials’ apprehension strategies immediately preceding fatal encounters with migrants.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 243-256

By Jasmine R. Hernandez and Heather J. H. Edgar

The United States is no stranger to migration across its borders. In 2020, its Southwestern border saw a drastic increase in apprehensions by the Border Patrol. While imperfect and an undercount of the true number of migration events, apprehension data is often used as a proxy to understand migration patterns. The rise in migration was coupled with an increased but unknown number of deaths along migration routes. This article focuses on the New Mexico portion of the El Paso Border Patrol Sector and the increased migrant caseload at New Mexico’s Office of the Medical Investigator (OMI) over the last few years. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first academic study to examine migrant deaths in detail in southern New Mexico. We begin by contextualizing the changing pattern of migrant deaths in New Mexico within the broader framework of border policing strategies that have intentionally pushed migration routes to remote areas. We describe the work of the OMI, highlighting its very recent initiatives to track migrant deaths in its database. We then discuss the changes seen by the OMI in its migrant caseload from fiscal year (FY) 2009 to 2023, with the most drastic increase in cases occurring from 2022 to 2023. For instance, the data indicate that most of the identified migrants that have died in New Mexico were recovered in June and July (45 percent), crossed through Doña Ana County (66 percent), were male (60 percent), and among those identified, were from Mexico (65 percent) and between 20 and 39 years of age (69 percent). Of the 248 cases of migrant deaths, 87 percent have been identified. The most common causes of death were undetermined (46 percent) and environmental exposure (41 percent). We then explore the effects of changing governmental policies and state initiatives to curb/reduce migration in the US on OMI’s increased caseload. We discuss the impact that the rapid shift in migration deaths is having on the OMI and how OMI is working to respond and adjust to the dynamic situation. This work highlights the collateral damage of border security measures, underscored by the increasing number of deaths and challenges faced by the OMI. We consider the need for new and amended policies aimed at mitigating the humanitarian crisis that continues to unfold, emphasizing the need for the humane treatment of migrants. Finally, we suggest allocating resources to death investigating agencies. These resources would provide essential support to find, identify, and repatriate migrants, improve agencies’ abilities to collaborate with governmental agencies and programs such as Border Patrol’s Missing Migrant Program, and improve our understanding of the circumstances along the Southwestern border.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 226-242

By Molly Miranker

This paper explores how qualitative information may be used to enhance understanding and inform recommendations for improved accounting of migrant deaths along the Texas-Mexico border. While border crossing related deaths affect jurisdictions throughout the US’s Southwestern border states and Northern Mexican states, Texas has unique challenges that merit specific examination. In short, the management and investigation of unidentified migrant decedents in Texas is severely fragmented and often noncompliant with Texas Criminal Code Procedure. I explore a way to improve accounting of migrant deaths leveraging qualitative information, local newspaper articles from South Texas and Northern Mexico, by using descriptive summaries coupled with Sankey Diagrams and a programmatic technique, qualitative spatial representation (QSR). QSR enabled me to identify under-recognized stakeholders (South Texas locals, Mexican consulates) and under-supported counties (i.e., those with migrant deaths that do not share a border directly with Mexico). I found that local English-language newspapers obscured the prevalence of migrant deaths and that their narrative tone of “business as usual” normalized the occurrence of such deaths. The Spanish-language articles better represented the diversity of agencies and individuals that were involved in the various aspects of migrant remains management and forensic investigation, most notably residents of South Texas themselves (or situational participants who first found the remains) and Mexican consulates. Finally, I noted that the collaborations among Texas counties and between Texan and Mexican jurisdictions, when they were described in the newspapers, highlighted that the phenomenon of migrant deaths penetrates beyond the dividing line of the Rio Grande/Río Bravo River. Migrant deaths must be accounted for in a way that reflects a regional experience in which people may perish as far as ~100 miles into Texas’ interior. Considering these observations, I have two policy recommendations. First, the Office of the Texas Governor should establish funds distinct from the Operation Lone Star program for the management of unidentified human remains. Currently, grants through the Operation Lone Star Program are the only funds available in Texas to support identification of migrant decedents. However, this program is explicitly designed to further border security operations in the state of Texas, which can contradict efforts around recovery and identification. The documentation and forensic investigation of the unidentified deceased can be eclipsed or neglected under the larger deterrence aims of Operation Lone Star. Second, to improve accounting and increase documentation of migrant deaths, a Regional Identification Center should be established in South Texas. Not every county in Texas has or has access to a Medical Examiner’s office, including the means to transport and pay for autopsy or other forensic services. The Center would provide training, store extra equipment such as mobile refrigerated morgues, and hire personnel to inventory cases, and report information to the state (e.g., vital statistics) and to foreign consulates. A Regional Identification Center would counteract the challenges highlighted in the local newspaper summaries and QSR by decreasing the isolation of counties experiencing migrant deaths and serve as a documentary and communication hub for stakeholders in Texas and Mexico.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 204-225

By Daniel E. Martínez, Sam Chambers, Geoff Boyce and Jeremy Slack 

Immigration at the US-México border has drastically changed since the mid-2010s. Instead of adult undocumented Mexican men, generally migrating for economic purposes, there are now large numbers of men, women, unaccompanied minors, and families from diverse countries seeking asylum in the United States, as they are allowed to do under US and international law. In response to these changes, the US federal government leveraged multiple strategies to impede access to the country’s asylum system, including relying on Title 42 “expulsions.” Title 42, a COVID-19-era health measure, prevented migrants from initiating an asylum claim. Instead, asylum-seekers were typically immediately expelled to the closest port of entry in México. The use of public health as a pretext to control the border placed these migrants at risk and led many to attempt repeat border crossings. Given this policy context, we ask: what, if any, is the association between Title 42 expulsions and migrant deaths in southern Arizona? We address this question by drawing on records of recovered undocumented border crosser (UBC) remains investigated by the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner (PCOME) in Tucson, Arizona. We examined differences in the number and demographic characteristics of UBC remains recovered between what prior studies have characterized as the “Localized Funnel Effect” Era of border enforcement in southern Arizona (i.e., October 1, 2013–March 19, 2020; N = 851), and the “Title 42” Era (i.e., March 20, 2021–September 30, 2023; N = 709). We also assessed how, if at all, the geography of recovered UBC remains shifted between these eras. We found that migrant deaths rose from an annual mean of 133 during the Localized Funnel Effect (LFE) Era to 198 in the Title 42 (T42) Era, representing a 48 percent increase. Compared to the earlier era, remains recovered during the T42 Era clustered closer to the border and near the cities of Nogales and Agua Prieta, Sonora, having shifted from west to east in southern Arizona. Additionally, we found that Title 42 disproportionately affected Mexican and Guatemalan nationals both in terms of expulsions as well as deaths. We propose several policy recommendations based on our study’s findings intended to reduce unnecessary suffering and increase human security:

• The US federal government should not impede or limit migrants’ access to the asylum system. Policymakers should instead create clear pathways and procedures that obviate the need for migrants to undertake dangerous journeys and overcome barriers to fair consideration of their claims.

• The US government must expand its ability to address these claims, as continued attempts to block asylum seekers will result in additional loss of life and increased violence. It should increase its capacity to screen asylum seekers at the US-México border. We propose an increase in USCIS Asylum Officers to carry out this duty. US Customs and Border Protection agents should not screen asylum seekers, nor should they assume the responsibility of serving as asylum officers, given the agency’s extensively documented record of persistently dehumanizing and mistreating migrants.

• The US federal government must take measures to eliminate the backlog of asylum cases in the immigration courts. These measures need to include reforms in the underlying immigration system and in the removal adjudication system, such as greater access to legal counsel and changes to the law that offer legal pathways to imperiled migrants who do not meet the narrow definition of asylum. Absent these reforms, the asylum case backlog will grow, and many asylum seekers with strong claims to remain will be removed after living for years in the United States.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 182-203

By Abby Córdova, Jonathan Hiskey, Mary Malone and Diana Orcés

U.S. efforts to control unauthorized crossings of its southwest border have long rested on the idea of deterrence — if migrants know that a border is dangerous to cross and the likelihood of deportation is high, they will be dissuaded from trying in the first place. Despite the seemingly intuitive logic of this strategy, and the billions of dollars invested in it, deterrence efforts largely have failed, with the number of border crossings in recent years exceeding those of 30 years ago. To understand why this decades-old, bipartisan deterrence strategy has proven ineffective, we focus on individuals from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who have previous migration experience, with a vast majority of them seeking entry into the U.S. These individuals have direct knowledge of the difficulties and dangers a border crossing poses, yet many report plans to try to cross the border again. To understand why they persist, we rely on survey data specifically collected to better understand the root causes of international migration. We find that citizens with previous migration experience are significantly more likely to report plans to emigrate, in particular women, younger cohorts, and those at the bottom of the economic ladder. In contrast, family reunification does not appear to play a significant role in driving the migration intentions of those with a prior migration experience. Further, deportation does not deter migrants from trying again, as individuals who have been deported are just as likely to report plans to emigrate again as those who returned to their home countries voluntarily and those who never reached their destination. Most importantly, our research indicates that human insecurity is at the core of why Central Americans who have migrated in the past are more likely to report migration plans for the future. Both the threat of violence and food insecurity are central drivers of their persistent predisposition to embark on the journey again. Individuals remain undeterred in their efforts to escape their country because upon returning to that country, they confront the same conditions that led them to attempt to flee in the first place. We draw two main policy implications from our research. First, the U.S. government should continue its prioritization of investments in tackling the root causes of forced migration through the empowerment of civil society organizations and the channeling of foreign aid to marginalized communities affected by human insecurity, such as those suffering food insecurity or fearing violence. The main objective of these investments should be to improve the living conditions of individuals, giving them a viable option of remaining in their country. Second, the U.S. must invest greater resources in its immigration system to reduce the current backlog of asylum cases, and expand H2-a and -b visa programs to provide a more expansive legal path to migration. Facilitating a legal pathway to immigrants who face heightened human insecurity, like the potential repeat migrants in our study, would prevent further deaths that lay at the hands of a border policy focused on deterrence.

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 160-181

By Donald Kerwin and Daniel E. Martínez

The International Organization of Migration has characterized the US-Mexico border as the world’s deadliest land migration route. By August 2024, a minimum of 5,405 persons had died or gone missing along this border since 2014, with record high numbers since 2021. Migrant deaths occur despite decades of: US Border Patrol search and rescue initiatives; public education campaigns targeting potential migrants on the dangers of irregular migration; dozens of academic publications and reports highlighting the root causes of these deaths; efforts by consular officials, local communities, and humanitarian agencies to locate, identify, and repatriate human remains; and desperate attempts by families to learn the fate of their missing loved ones. This paper introduces a special edition of the Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS), which draws on original research and the expertise of medical examiners, forensic anthropologists, social scientists, and humanitarian organizations to examine this persistent human tragedy. Many of the authors investigate migrant deaths in their professional capacities. They identify the dead, return remains to family members, and champion reforms to prevent deaths and better account for the dead and missing. This JMHS special edition represents a collaboration between the University of Arizona’s Binational Migration Institute, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMSNY), and the Working Group on Mapping Migrant Deaths along the US Southwest Border. The Working Group includes scholars and practitioners from California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and New York who have met monthly since October of 2021. The special edition examines in granular detail the causes of migrant deaths, US border enforcement strategies and tactics, migrant death statistics, and the resource and capacity challenges faced by US counties along and leading from the US-Mexico border in investigating these deaths. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and many public officials attribute the deaths to the predations of human smugglers, the victims’ ignorance or assumption of risk, and the harsh “natural” conditions to which migrants finally succumb. This special issue also documents the underlying non-natural causes of this enduring tragedy, and offers both overarching and more targeted solutions to preventing and minimizing migrant deaths. The issue builds upon and extends seminal research on migrant deaths first featured in CMSNY publications more than two decades ago.Section I introduces the issue of migrant deaths by posing the question: Why should we care? Section II describes the genesis of “prevention through deterrence”—a border enforcement theory and strategy—and its evolution through subsequent Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Border Patrol strategic plans. It describes the immense enforcement infrastructure built around this idea by successive administrations and Congresses, and it explains why it has failed to stem irregular migration and how it has contributed to migrant deaths. Section III reviews the main causes of migrant deaths—forced migration, the combined effects of prevention through deterrence and border enforcement tactics, the denial of access to asylum, the border wall, the “naturalization” of migrant deaths, and the dominant vision of the border as a site of danger and exclusion. Section IV reviews the legislative standards for identifying, investigating, and reporting on migrant decedents. It also details the deficiencies of Border Patrol and county-level sources of data on deaths, and it outlines ways to strengthen data collection. Section V discusses the burdens placed on communities along and leading from the border in investigating deaths and their need for greater resources and capacity to address this problem. Section VI outlines the anomalies and challenges related to the Border Patrol’s migrant rescue program. Section VII describes international legal standards to guide the investigation of migrant deaths and two model programs. Section VIII sets forth policy recommendations to prevent migrant deaths and to honor and account for the dead.Journal on 

Journal on Migration and Human SecurityVolume 12, Issue 3, September 2024, Pages 127-159

By Nicole Hallett

The border has never played a larger role in the American psyche than it does today, and yet it has never been less legally significant. Today, a noncitizen’s place of residence tells you less about what rights and privileges they enjoy than it ever has in the past. The border has migrated inward, affecting many aspects of non-citizens’ lives in the United States. The divergence between the physical and legal border is no accident. Instead, it is a policy response to the perceived loss of control over the physical border. But the physical border remains porous despite these legal changes. People keep migrating even as we continue to draw boundaries within communities, homes, and workplaces far away from the border. This paper explores how U.S. law has evolved to render the border superfluous, even as its symbolic importance has grown, and how it might further evolve in the future.

University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 2023, Article 6.

By César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández

Borders do not exist. They are made and remade. At every step, the law creates, moves, reforms, reproduces, and reinforces the border. Focusing on the boundary that México and the United States share, this essay critiques the U.S. Supreme Court’s privileging of the sovereign prerogative to control access to the nation’s territory. In their efforts to control movement across and near the border, legal doctrine permits Executive officials to deviate from ordinary legal constraints on the use of violence. This creates a modern version of the sovereign that Carl Schmitt described a century ago: extra-constitutional in origin and subject to law only on its own terms. Urging an end to the law of border exceptionalism, the essay argues that the Schmittian sovereignty that exists in the borderlands is neither justified by the facts on the ground nor required by the very legal principles that the Supreme Court points to.

Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 820

University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 2023, Article 5

By Matthew Lisiecki and Gerard Apruzzese

In 2017, the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) analyzed the effects of a mass deportation program for undocumented immigrants proposed by then-President Donald Trump (Warren & Kerwin 2017). With now-candidate Trump reintroducing a similar proposal as a key element of his platform, CMS has conducted a new analysis using the most recent available data: the 2022 American Community Survey microdata, released by the US Census Bureau (Ruggles et al. 2024). In this report, we highlight the devastation of mass deportation on both undocumented residents and their US citizen and legal noncitizen families and communities. We discuss individual, household, and family characteristics of the 10.9 million undocumented residents living in the US, and 4.7 million households with both undocumented residents and residents with permanent legal status (referred to henceforth as “mixed status” households). We investigate the economic effect of the deportation on US citizens and undocumented residents, as well as the negative fiscal impact on the broader economy should mass deportation be carried out.

Key findings of the updated analysis include:

• 5.8 million US households are home to at least one undocumented resident. Of those, 4.7 million households are home to undocumented residents and US citizens or others with legal status. Therefore, mass deportation threatens to break up nearly 5 million American families.

• Over half of the US undocumented population is woven into American life, having been in the country for at least 10 years; their deportation would damage long-standing communities.

• Mass deportation would push nearly 10 million US citizens into economic hardship. Median household income for mixed-status households would drop from $75,500 to $39,000 (a drop of over 48 percent).

• 5.5 million US-born children live in households with at least one undocumented resident, including 1.8 million living in households with two undocumented parents.

• The monetary cost of paying to complete the upbringing of these US-born children in the event of mass deportation is estimated to be at least $116.5 billion.

• Undocumented workers contribute an estimated $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes; their removal from the workforce would have a substantial impact on local economies.

This report is one of several CMS publications outlining the negative impacts of a mass deportation policy for undocumented immigrants. In 2017, we analyzed the social and economic impacts of mass deportation using Census Bureau data from 2014 (Warren & Kerwin 2017). Earlier in 2024, we explored other immediate and downstream impacts of the Trump campaign’s proposed mass deportation policy, including the moral, legal, and public safety crisis caused by implementing a mass search-and-seizure operation across the nation.

New York: Center for Migration Studies, 2024. 7p.

By: Paul Louis Landsberg

I SHALL be told that the problem I propose to dis- cuss simply does not exist, or, at any rate, does not exist for Christians. We all know that Christianity, and the Catholic Church in particular, and all moral theologies, whether Catholic or Protestant, consider suicide to be mortal sin, and do not admit that it can be justified in any circumstances whatsoever. All this is quite clear, and there seems to be nothing more to be said. Suicide is forbidden by divine authority and that ought to be enough. It is indeed true that the believer should accept such a pronouncement as authentic and final, even when he is not capable of grasping the reasons on which it is founded. There is such a thing as implicit obedience, just as there is an implicit faith. This obedience is not blind ; it is based, like faith, both on evidence and upon spontaneous acceptance. However, this evidence is not the particular content of such and such an article of faith, or such and such a moral precept, but the fundamental evidence and the spontaneous acceptance of the intrinsic goodness and justice of the authority which reveals, teaches, orders and forbids. So far, all is straightforward. But no one will deny that we have the right and even, in a certain sense, the duty to try to understand more clearly what we believe, and to seek for the reasons for the rules we should obey. This is St. Anselm's fides quaerens intellectum. And I should like to add that, in my case, there seem to be two particular reasons which do indeed make the question of suicide a very real problem, which neither Christian philosophy nor theology has the right to overlook.

PARIS, 1937

By Carl Davis, Marco Guzman, & Emma Sifre

Key Findings

Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Most of that amount, $59.4 billion, was paid to the federal government while the remaining $37.3 billion was paid to state and local governments. Undocumented immigrants paid federal, state, and local taxes of $8,889 per person in 2022. In other words, for every 1 million undocumented immigrants who reside in the country, public services receive $8.9 billion in additional tax revenue. More than a third of the tax dollars paid by undocumented immigrants go toward payroll taxes dedicated to funding programs that these workers are barred from accessing. Undocumented immigrants paid $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes, $6.4 billion in Medicare taxes, and $1.8 billion in unemployment insurance taxes in 2022. At the state and local levels, slightly less than half (46 percent, or $15.1 billion) of the tax payments made by undocumented immigrants are through sales and excise taxes levied on their purchases. Most other payments are made through property taxes, such as those levied on homeowners and renters (31 percent, or $10.4 billion), or through personal and business income taxes (21 percent, or $7.0 billion). Six states raised more than $1 billion each in tax revenue from undocumented immigrants living within their borders. Those states are California ($8.5 billion), Texas ($4.9 billion), New York ($3.1 billion), Florida ($1.8 billion), Illinois ($1.5 billion), and New Jersey ($1.3 billion). In a large majority of states (40), undocumented immigrants pay higher state and local tax rates than the top 1 percent of households living within their borders. Income tax payments by undocumented immigrants are affected by laws that require them to pay more than otherwise similarly situated U.S. citizens. Undocumented immigrants are often barred from receiving meaningful tax credits and sometimes do not claim refunds they are owed due to lack of awareness, concern about their immigration status, or insufficient access to tax preparation assistance. Providing access to work authorization for undocumented immigrants would increase their tax contributions both because their wages would rise and because their rates of tax compliance would increase. Under a scenario where work authorization is provided to all current undocumented immigrants, their tax contributions would rise by $40.2 billion per year to $136.9 billion. Most of the new revenue raised in this scenario ($33.1 billion) would flow to the federal government while the remainder ($7.1 billion) would flow to states and localities.

Washington, DC:  Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2024. 42p.

By Julia Litzkow 

This study examines factors of resilience and vulnerability to exploitation and trafficking of people who fled Ukraine to Berlin, Bern and Warsaw after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Conducted in partnership with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) it is based on desk research, quantitative data from 1,602 surveys collected with displaced Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians in 2023 and qualitative data from 57 key informant interviews (KII) conducted between 2023 and 2024. It also includes 8 illustrative case studies. In the research conducted across three cities, instances of potential forced labour and labour trafficking were reported at relatively low levels by survey respondents.1 Specifically, 6% of respondents (104/1,602) noted experiencing some form of workplace abuse, while 2% of respondents (35 out of 1,602) either experienced or observed others who fled Ukraine facing workplace conditions that could suggest potential trafficking for forced labour. The majority of these accounts were based on observations rather than personal experience. Common issues reported included unpaid or underpaid wages, misleading information about the nature of the job, excessively long working hours, unsafe working environments, and deception about their employer’s identity. While key informants corroborated the low occurrence of potential forced labour and trafficking, they also emphasized widespread violations of labour laws. A smaller proportion of survey respondents (2.5%) reported witnessing or learning about displaced Ukrainians engaged in prostitution or sex work. Of these, seven individuals believed the prostitution was forced, reflecting a 0.4% prevalence of forced prostitution, potentially signalling trafficking for sexual exploitation. None of the 1,602 respondents indicated experiencing sexual exploitation in prostitution themselves. The relatively low incidence of potential forced labour, labour trafficking and sexual exploitation reported by survey respondents and key informants among people who fled the war in Ukraine may be attributed to the visa-free travel, temporary protection status, and robust anti-trafficking measures implemented in destination countries. However, it may also be due to cases that have yet to be identified. It is important to recognize that despite the presence of temporary protection, visa-free travel and the anti-trafficking response implemented, there are specific situations where personal, situational, and contextual factors intersect to create potential increased risk of exploitation and trafficking for individuals fleeing Ukraine. The following is a summary of key findings on factors of resilience and vulnerability to exploitation and trafficking in the cities examined under this study, which aim to contribute to a better understanding of the experiences of people who fled the war in Ukraine and offer insights for designing interventions by United Nations (UN) organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and national authorities. Factors of vulnerability to exploitation and trafficking • Financial pressure: Economic hardships and the need to support oneself and family members can increase the urgency for people displaced from Ukraine to find work quickly and can lead them to accept precarious working conditions. When asked whether their financial situation meets their household needs, 44% of respondents in Berlin, 44% of respondents in Bern and 43% of respondents in Warsaw said they were only partially covered. • Limited access to decent work: Barriers like language skills, non-recognition of qualifications, and financial hardships can push refugees into low-skilled, often exploitative jobs. Lack of skills in the local language was mentioned as the top barrier to accessing a decent job, cited by 86% of respondents in Berlin, 80% of respondents in Bern and 67% of respondents in Warsaw. • Difficulties accessing information about the law and their rights: Lack of knowledge about local labour laws and rights, exacerbated by lack of knowledge of the local language can increase vulnerability and make it difficult for people who fled the war in Ukraine to protect themselves from exploitative situations. • Insecure housing: Dependence on employer-provided accommodation, dependence on and limited monitoring of private accommodation providers and in collective centres can increase exploitation risks. • Challenges accessing temporary protection status: Bureaucratic hurdles and legal status challenges particularly affect non-Ukrainian Third Country Nationals (TCNs) and Ukrainian citizens of Roma ethnicity, making them potentially more vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking in informal work arrangements. • Decreasing solidarity: Growing negative perceptions of Ukrainians within host communities can lead to increased risks of exploitation as refugees feel less supported and more isolated. Factors of resilience to exploitation and trafficking • Visa-free travel and temporary protection status2: Rapid access to legal status, combined with access to social security, significantly protects against exploitation and trafficking. The EU’s visa-free travel approach for Ukrainian citizens and temporary protection status enable refugees to travel legally and rapidly access work and social benefits, reducing their dependence on potentially exploitative coping mechanisms. • Social support networks: Social networks within the Ukrainian community can serve as a crucial factor of resilience. These networks provide familiarity and support, helping refugees navigate employment and housing options. • Political will and solidarity: Initial strong political commitment and societal support for Ukrainian refugees enhanced their resilience. Quick legislative and administrative responses and comprehensive support systems have positively impacted the integration and protection of refugees who fled the war in Ukraine. However, political will and the level of support can vary based on the perceived nationality or ethnicity of people who fled the war in Ukraine. • Anti-trafficking responses: Large-scale anti-trafficking measures, particularly efforts to raise awareness, were adopted by national and local authorities, as well as civil society organizations, likely building resilience against exploitation. 

Geneva: Mixed Migration Centre,  2024. 46p.