By Stephanie Leutert and Caitlyn Yates

In recent years, hundreds of thousands of migrants have sought asylum annually along the U.S.-Mexico border—either by arriving at ports of entry or by turning themselves in to Border Patrol agents. In response, U.S. authorities have enacted a range of policies, which have oscillated between channeling asylum seekers into specific legal pathways and either partially or fully blocking their access to the U.S. immigration system. During each shift, migrants have reacted in varying ways, such as by creating asylum waitlists or encampments along the border. In November 2018, the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin began publishing quarterly reports on asylum processing at ports of entry. As of January 20, 2025, there is no longer any asylum processing at the border. On this day, President Donald Trump assumed office for a second term and immediately halted all asylum processing—including both at and between ports of entry. This shift left hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers in limbo across Mexico, without any path to make an asylum claim in the United States. Simultaneously, the Mexican federal government has also increased its immigration enforcement at its borders and across the country’s interior. Specifically, it has expanded the number of migration-focused checkpoints on highways heading north, deployed more soldiers to the U.S.-Mexico border, and bussed apprehended migrants to cities in southern Mexico. The Trump Administration’s elimination of foreign assistance has also hurt Mexican civil society organizations, with some migrant shelters struggling to provide food and other basic resources. This February 2025 asylum processing update focuses on current U.S. asylum policies at ports of entry and migrants’ experiences in Mexican border cities. It draws on phone and WhatsApp interviews with Mexican government officials and members of civil society organizations on both sides of the border from February 17, 2025 through February 24, 2025. It also relies on local news articles to fill in any gaps.

Austin, TX: The Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, 2025. 14p.

By  Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX)

Labour exploitation must be recognised as part of a continuum of experiences which range from decent work through to minor and major labour law violations, all the way to severe exploitation, including human trafficking. When workers are unable to access rights or to challenge poor employment conditions at those ‘earlier stages’ or ‘lower levels’ of exploitation, it paves the way for more severe exploitation including trafficking. 

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 focused on identifying trafficking which had already taken place. For those people who have been trafficked, this is too late. Ten years later, and with an Employment Rights Bill going through parliament, policy-makers should turn their attention to prevention, by addressing the conditions which have allowed trafficking for labour exploitation to thrive.

The Employment Rights Bill provides significant opportunity here. The Bill must be amended to ensure that all workers can access rights early, knowing that the authorities will focus on addressing their exploitation and delivering justice. 

London: FLEX, 2025. 5p.

By Susan Fratzke, Meghan Benton, Andrew Selee, Emma Dorst, Samuel Davidoff-Gore 

  The territorial asylum system at the heart of the global protection regime has proven itself to be a blunt tool with which to address the protection challenges of the 21st century. New crises, protracted displacement situations, and expanding norms about who merits protection have created a significant and growing population of individuals in need of international protection. In addition, growing mobility pressures due to demographic change, economic inequality, and climate change have found an outlet in asylum systems, providing an avenue of entry even for those who do not technically qualify for protection. Meanwhile, national governments have struggled to reconcile their international protection responsibilities with their domestic responsibilities to maintain security and order and to foster public trust. Asylum adjudication systems have become unwieldy and unable to keep pace with the demands placed on them, particularly when confronted with rapid changes or complex needs. These failures have had serious consequences. For individuals, the absence of large-scale alternatives to territorial asylum means that access to protection often depends on taking extreme risks or enduring hardships in order to reach the territory of a country where they can seek protection, journeys that may not be possible for the most vulnerable. For states, territorial asylum places governments in a largely reactive position, only responding to protection needs once their hand is forced by the arrival of people seeking protection on their territory. And at the global level, the lack of tools to facilitate the legal mobility of individuals in search of protection and of opportunities for displaced persons to move to a country other than their country of first asylum has concentrated protection responsibilities in a small number of countries, most of them low- or middle income. According to estimates by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) nearly 40 percent of the world’s refugees and individuals in refugee-like situations were hosted by just five countries as of mid-2023. To answer these challenges, there is an urgent need to shift the focus of protection responses away from an exclusive reliance on territorial asylum and toward a diversified set of policy tools. Territorial asylum will, and should, remain accessible as a safety valve, but states should seek to proactively facilitate access to protection as soon after and close to a displacement crisis as possible—and well before dangerous journeys become necessary. At the same time, policy approaches should recognize the agency of refugees and displaced persons—and the mobility pressures this can create—and provide legal avenues for individuals to move within and outside of their country of first asylum to join family and other connections through family reunification or sponsorship channels and to pursue education, work, or other opportunities. Aside from the benefits for displaced persons, such approaches would help transit and destination countries to reduce disorder at their borders and, by capitalizing on the resiliency and resourcefulness of displaced individuals in locating and securing solutions for themselves, to better allocate scarce resources to assist those who are most vulnerable. Policy approaches should also be responsive to the specificities of each crisis or situation. This may mean adopting expedited procedures or flexible forms of status in order to enable faster access to  status, prevent processing backlogs, or respond to legitimate needs that are not recognized in existing legal frameworks.    

Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2024.  33p.

By Suleman Lazarus, Mina Chiang, and Mark Button

This study examines how cybercriminals exploit deceptive recruitment tactics and digital platforms to entrap and exploit victims in human trafficking withinthe cybercrime context. It employs Migration and Transnationalism perspec-tives to elucidate the intersection of human trafficking and cybercrime opera-tions in Cambodia. Using thematic analysis of victim testimonies, we identify six main themes: (1) Deception and Recruitment, (2) Manipulation and Control,(3) Exploitation and Forced Labor, (4) Trading and Movement, (5) ScammingMethods, and (6) Escape and Rescue. While the following analysis explores thevictim’s first-hand experiences within these themes, it also reflects the accounts of other victims referenced in his story. Human traffickers enticed victims with fraudulent job offers and misleading promises, compelling them to pay significant recruitment fees. After recruitment, they manipulated vic-tims through tactics such as visa deception and bribery at immigration to ensure compliance and control. They subjected victims to harsh working conditions, enforcing extended hours, unrealistic targets, and physical punish-ments for underperformance. Strict security measures and trading between companies and compounds further complicated escape efforts. Criminal Strained victims to forge identities and exploit targets via social media, effec-tively turning them into online fraudsters. However, some managed to escape with assistance from NGOs, highlighting the vital role of organizational sup-port in rescue operations. We highlight the need for targeted interventions and support for victims of such complex cybercrime enterprises.tions

Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner OHCHR 2023).

By Amnesty International

This briefing presents Amnesty International’s findings and observations from a week-long research trip to Tijuana, Mexico, in February 2025, whose purpose was to document the human rights impacts of changes to US migration and asylum policies since President Trump took office on 20 January 2025.1 In particular, it focuses on the end of applying for asylum at the US-Mexico border and the situation of asylum seekers in Mexico. This briefing does not provide detailed information about mass immigration arrests and detentions in the United States, nor an analysis of the discriminatory impacts of these measures. The cumulative effects and harms of the Trump administration’s punitive and discriminatory immigration and asylum measures are the subject of Amnesty International’s ongoing monitoring and analysis of the situation in the United States. During the trip to Tijuana, Amnesty International interviewed people seeking safety, met with legal, humanitarian and social service providers, local and international organizations, and visited shelters and spaces where migrants and asylum seekers are staying. The organization spoke with two Mexican men who had recently been deported from the United States to Mexico, as well as with 35 people seeking safety (almost half of whom were women) from Belarus, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Russia and Venezuela. Amnesty International interviewed local and international organizations operating in Tijuana including Al Otro Lado (AOL), Asylum Access México and Haitian Bridge Alliance. The organization also visited and spoke with those running migrant shelters, including Borderline Crisis Center, Casa de los Migrantes, Casa de los Pobres, El Rubi, Jardin de las Mariposas and Villa Haitiana. The interviews with Spanish-language speakers were conducted in Spanish, while interviews with non-Spanish speakers were conducted in English with interpretation assistance from staff of local organizations and other people seeking safety. Amnesty International requested meetings with the San Diego offices of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE declined the meeting request and CBP did not respond. The organization’s request to visit the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego was denied. Various individuals and organizations spoke to Amnesty International on the condition of anonymity. Their names have not been included in this report.  

London: Amnesty International, 2025. 24p.

By Fiona Robertson, Hui Yin Chuah, Abdullah Mohammadi, and Jennifer Vallentine

  Migration within and towards Southeast Asia is a dynamic, mixed and enduring phenomenon influenced by historical, socio-cultural, economic, and geopolitical factors. From the Mekong region to movements between Indonesia and Malaysia, these migration practices are rooted in the region’s history and continue to evolve today.11 Significant events such as the large-scale displacement during the 1950s–70s Vietnam War, persistent systemic persecution of Rohingya, and the recent conflicts in Myanmar have accentuated the complexity of mixed migration in the region. Uneven economic development across Southeast Asia has further fuelled migration, attracting workers from lower-income countries to larger economies that offer greater opportunities. Additionally, climate change and environmental disasters have increasingly influenced migration patterns in the region.22 Combined, these factors contribute to both regular and irregular migration patterns, with porous borders and limited access to regular pathways exacerbating the prevalence of irregular migration. Bangladesh, one of world’s largest migrant sending countries, accounting for 7.4 million migrants living abroad as of 20203 and host to 989,585 Rohingya refugees as of July 2024, faces economic pressures and protracted displacement that drive many individuals towards irregular migration. The route from Bangladesh to Malaysia, particularly via boat across the Bay of Bengal, is a prominent irregular migration pathway. Similarly, Indonesia is a major migrant-sending country, especially of migrant workers, with 4.6 million migrants globally as of 2020.5 The Indonesia-Malaysia migration corridor, which 55 per cent of Indonesian migrants travelled in 2017, is characterised by a high degree of irregularity, with nearly half lacking legal status.6 Malaysia and Thailand, known for their relative economic and political stability, comparatively welldeveloped economies and established diaspora communities, are key destination countries in Southeast Asia. However, they face distinct challenges related to irregular migration. Economic opportunities, especially in low-skilled sectors, attract migrants from neighbouring countries across porous borders, making both countries host to large populations of migrants in irregular situations. As of 2017, the World Bank estimated that Malaysia hosts approximately 1.23–1.46 million migrant workers who are in irregular situations, predominantly from Bangladesh and Indonesia.7 Malaysia also hosts 190,370 registered refugees and asylum seekers, 88 percent of whom are from Myanmar.8 Thailand, which hosts 4.9 million migrants, serves as a primary destination for migrant workers from neighbouring Southeast Asian countries and a transit and destination point for asylum seekers and refugees.9 As of 2018, Thailand hosted approximately 811,437 migrant workers in irregular situations from Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Myanmar, and Viet Nam,10 in addition to 86,539 refugees, including about 5,500 urban refugees, as of November 2024.11 Both Malaysia and Thailand are central to understanding the dynamics of irregular migration and the effectiveness of policies aimed at promoting safe and regular migration pathways. However, while there are estimates of the number of migrants in irregular situations across Southeast Asia, the often-covert nature of irregular migration makes accurate and timely estimations of its scale challenging. Despite their significant presence and contributions to the labour force and host societies, migrants in irregular situations face precarious conditions, including the constant threat of arrests, detention, and deportation due to their irregular status, as well as lack of access to education, healthcare, formal livelihoods, and sustainable housing. Additionally, those taking irregular pathways often encounter various protection risks along their journeys, including extortion, sexual and physical abuse, and trafficking in persons. Addressing the issue of irregular migration requires a multifaceted approach that recognises the diverse backgrounds and experiences of people on the move and addressing the motivations and drivers that compel individuals to undertake irregular journeys. A common narrative suggests that the lack of information about regular and safe migration pathways is a significant driver of irregular migration.12 This information gap, coupled with the lack of awareness of the risks associated with irregular journeys and limited accessible regular pathways, often compel many individuals to opt for irregular routes.13 In response, policy and programming initiatives have increasingly turned to information-dissemination and awareness-raising campaigns to mitigate irregular migration, as well as people smuggling and trafficking in persons. For example, between 2015 and 2019, European Union (EU) member states invested more than 23 million euros in 104 information and awarenessraising campaigns with the aim of reducing irregular migration towards Europe.14 In Bangladesh, the EU contributed 15.9 million euros to the five-year Prottasha project and a further 20 million euros in 2023 to Prottasha II15 which aims to promote sustainable reintegration and safe migration. The project includes awareness-raising about safe migration and the risks of migrating through irregular channels as a key component.16 In 2023, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the EU launched a series of audio-visual products as part of the ASEAN Safe and Fair Migration Campaign, aimed at better protection of migrant workers in Southeast Asia.17 In fact, the focus on information dissemination is not new; it was highlighted as one of the key strategies in a 2012 United Nations (UN) background paper on good practices in preventing people smuggling.18 However, despite the increase in policies and programming surrounding information dissemination on migration, there remains a challenge in assessing their effectiveness in preventing and reducing the risks associated with irregular migration. Under the mandate of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (Bali Process), the 2023 Adelaide Strategy for Cooperation (the Strategy) recognises ‘Irregular Migration’ and ‘Public Information Campaigns’ as two key cooperation areas across the Bali Process structure. The Strategy welcomes initiatives that build the preparedness of Bali Process Member States to respond to irregular migration and calls for support to ‘members to develop and implement effective public information campaigns, raise public awareness and promote digital literacy, including among youth, to reduce irregular migration and promote safe and legal migration’.19 As key origin, transit, and destination points across the Bali Process region, the four selected Bali Process Member States—Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand—provide valuable contextual insights for the purpose of this assessment. Against this background, this assessment aims to provide evidence-based insights and actionable policy recommendations on the information needs and perceptions surrounding irregular migration in key Bali Process Member States in South and Southeast Asia. It will identify the nuanced information needs of people on the move, assess their perceptions and motivations, and evaluate the role of information in migration decision-making, facilitating the design of information campaigns targeted at changing behaviours of persons at risk of irregular migration. Additionally, the assessment will examine interventions designed to bridge information gaps behind irregular migration.   

Bangkok:  Regional Support Office of the Bali Process ; Geneva: Mixed Migration Centre, 2025. 67p.

By Darlène Dubuisson, Patricia Campos-Medina, Shannon Gleeson, and Kati L. Griffith

This review examines the historical and contemporary factors driving immigrant worker precarity and the central role of race in achieving worker justice. We build from the framework of racial capitalism and historicize the legacies of African enslavement and Indigenous dispossession, which have cemented an exclusionary economic system in the United States and globally. We consider how racism and colonial legacies create migrant displacement and shape the experiences of immigrant workers. We also detail how racism permeates the immigration bureaucracy, driving migrant worker precarity. The traditional labor movement has played an important role in closing this gap, but increasingly so have worker centers and the immigrant rights movement as a whole. These partnerships have had to navigate coalitional tensions as they build new strategies for realizing immigrant worker rights.  

  Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2023. 19:109–29 pages

By  Krystlelynn Caraballo and Volkan Topalli

Research suggests undocumented immigrants are vulnerable to
robbery, burglary, and car theft, but studies have focused exclusively on victims’ perspectives rather than those of street offenders. This study draws from in-depth, semi-structured inter views of 25 active street offenders from a major southeastern US city to understand offenders’ perspectives and motivations for
deciding whether to target immigrants. Our findings support that some street offenders explicitly select targets based on perceived individual and socio-structural risk factors and the assumption of undocumented status. These include objective and subjective assessments of immigrants’ reliance on cash-intensive employment, fear of deportation, and inability to access formal justice systems. Our interviews with offenders reveal they and their acquaintances rely on mainstream stereotypes of immigrants (documented and undocumented) and of Latinx populations to determine vulnerability, select targets, and to a lesser extent.

Justice Quarterly, 40(1); 2023, 31p.

By Daniil MENSHYKOV, Tetiana PRODAN, Halyna LUTSYSHYN, Maksym IATSYNA, Arzu HADZHIIEVA

The aim of the study is to assess the impact of migration indicators on the crime rates in selected countries. The research employed cluster, correlation and regression analyses as the main methods. The analysis established that the impact of migration on crime in different countries differs significantly in terms of strength and direction. In particular, it was found that the increased share of refugees in the population of Egypt, Mauritius and the USA is associated with the decreased Crime Index. The obtained results indicate that the degree and direction of the influence of migration on crime depends on the specific situation in the country, which covers various aspects of social, political, economic and other dimensions. The conclusions of the research can be useful for shaping migration policy and preventing bias in this process

Revista Jurídica Portucalense nº 36 (2024) - Transnational Law

By Luisa Feline Freier & Leda M. Pérez

This article examines how Venezuelan forced migrants in Peru experience xenophobic discrimination, which has become increasingly linked to their criminalisation as thieves and murderers. Based on 12 months of qualitative fieldwork, including 72 in-depth interviews, five focus groups, and a survey (N116) in five Peruvian cities, we explore how Venezuelans experience, and make sense of, discrimination and criminalisation in everyday life. First, we discuss how criminalisation compares to general xenophobic discrimination, and other types of discrimination experiences. Second, we juxtapose the prevalence of xenophobic discrimination and criminalisation experiences across the five cities of our study, and between public spaces and the workspace. We then move to the qualitative discussion of the criminalisation experience in these different spaces. Fourth, we discuss how Venezuelan migrants perceive this criminalising discrimination as linked to their villanisation in the media and political discourses. Finally, we discuss our findings and make suggestions for further research. The paper contributes to the literature on migrant criminalisation by exploring how criminalisation processes play out in the context of large-scale intraregional forced displacement in the global South.

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

Volume 27, pages 113–133, (2021)

By Brian G. Knight and Ana Tribin 

This paper investigates the link between violent crime and immigration using data from Colombian municipalities during the recent episode of immigration from Venezuela. The key finding is that, following the closing and then re-opening of the border in 2016, which precipitated a massive immigration wave, homicides in Colombia increased in areas close to the border with Venezuela. Using information on the nationality of the victim, we find that this increase was driven by homicides involving Venezuelan victims, with no evidence of a statistically significant increase in homicides in which Colombians were victimized. Thus, in contrast to xenophobic fears that migrants might victimize natives, it was migrants, rather than natives, who faced risks associated with immigration. Using arrests data, there is no corresponding increase in arrests for homicides in these areas. Taken together, these results suggest that the increase in homicides close to the border documented here are driven by crimes against migrants and have occurred without a corresponding increase in arrests, suggesting that some of these crimes have gone unsolved.  

Working Paper 27620

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020. 34p.

By Dinu Ostavciuc, Gina Aurora Necula

The Art. in question is dedicated to the specificity of detecting the evidence of an offence and its prosecution, particularly referring to the organised illegal migration, both from the point of view of criminal science and from the point of view of the criminal lawsuit. The subject under investigation here is both practically and legislatively sensitive. The aim of the research is to establish and elucidate the legal interactions, as well as to develop a practical algorithm for law enforcement authorities to detect evidence of organised illegal migration. The study comes with recommendations for law enforcement and prosecution bodies applicable both to the stage of establishing reasonable suspicion of committing the crime of organised illegal migration and to the stage of criminal prosecution initiation. At the same time, we aim at pointing out those features of the initial actions of the law enforcement bodies to which attention should be drawn and the indicated actions should be carried out in order to decide whether or not the conditions of the specified crime are met. The research comes up with findings, recommendations and proposals of lex ferenda, in order to reach the top effectiveness of the organised illegal migration investigation, implicitly that the investigating and prosecuting authorities detect the evidence of organised illegal migration crime within a reasonable extend of time and expeditiously start the prosecution, with respect to the principle of formality of the criminal process.

Fiat Iustitia, Issue Year: 2/2023, 16p.

By Olivier Marie and Paolo Pinotti

In the late 1920s, President Herbert Hoover appointed a National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement to address rising concerns about crime. The Commission dedicated one of its final reports to the issue of “Crime and the Foreign Born,” which begins by noting that “[t]he theory that immigration is responsible for crime . . . is almost as old as the colonies planted by Englishmen on the New England coast” (National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement 1931, p. 23). Almost a century later, concerns about crime remain one of the most frequently expressed reasons for public opposition to immigration in countries around the world. Figure 1 plots the share of respondents in OECD countries worried that “immigrants increase crime” against the share of respondents worried that “immigrants take jobs away from natives,” which is another prominent public opinion concern (for example, Mayda 2006; Haaland and Roth 2020). Most countries lie  well above the 45-degree line, meaning that more people worry about the crime effects of immigration than about its labor market effects. This pattern holds especially for countries with a higher share of migrants over total population, indicated by larger circles. Evidence on the evolution of beliefs concerning immigrants and crime over time can be documented using survey evidence from the United States. For the past 30 years, Gallup has regularly surveyed a representative sample of Americans, asking them to consider various topics and “say whether immigrants to the United States are making the situation in the country better or worse, or not having much effect.” 1 When the topic is “the crime situation,” half or more of the Americans surveyed have answered “worse” in almost every wave. If these views have lately somewhat improved, with 42 percent of respondents choosing “worse” in 2019, this answer was still 18 points higher than the proportion answering that immigrants worsen their job opportunities in the same year. Perhaps surprisingly, economists have only recently begun to investigate the links between immigration and crime in a systematic way. Advances in methodology and data quality during the past few decades have made it possible to go beyond simple correlations and to assess the causal impact of immigration on crime. This evolution has had much in common with the study of the labor market effects of migration depicted in this journal by Peri (2016). In this paper, we first describe recent international trends in immigration and crime, exploring why migrants may at first appear much more criminally active in certain countries. We then discuss the theoretical framework and methodological tools that economists have used in thinking about the relationship between immigration and crime. We assess what these approaches have produced in various contexts as to the causal impact of immigration levels on crime rates. We review the evidence on this point so far, which overwhelmingly suggests that immigrants do not increase crime levels in the communities where they settle, and confirm this overall null-effect conclusion using newly collected international data. Finally, we consider the evidence on the links between access to legal work and the crime propensity of different kinds of immigrants, including refugees and those with irregular legal status. The relatively few papers that have probed this issue all conclude that legal status and work permits strongly decrease the probability that immigrants will become involved in crime.      

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 38, Number 1—Winter 2024—Pages 181–200 

By Dany Bahar; Meagan Dooley; Andrew Selee

The sudden, large-scale movement of nearly 5.2 million Venezuelans out of their country, most since 2014, with more than 4.2 million of them settling in other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, has raised concerns about how this is affecting receiving communities, with some politicians and pundits claiming that these new arrivals are leading to a rise in crime. Yet few studies have been conducted in the region that examine whether and what type of link may exist between immigration and crime, in part because immigration at this scale is a relatively new phenomenon in most Latin American countries, and this particular mass migration is so recent.1 This issue brief explores data in the three countries with the largest number of Venezuelan migrants and refugees as of 2020—Colombia, Peru, and Chile, which together host more than 2 million Venezuelan nationals—to better understand whether and what sort of relationship exists between this immigration and crime rates. Some of the datasets used are publicly available, while others were obtained by the authors through direct requests to government agencies. For each country, this study analyzes crime data, when possible disaggregated by nationality, and data on the presence of Venezuelans at the subnational level (though the available data do not allow for this to be done in exactly the same way in all three countries). For the most part, analysis of data from 2019 suggests that Venezuelan immigrants commit substantially fewer crimes than the native born, relative to their share in the overall population, signaling that public perceptions on newcomers driving up crime rates are misleading. In Chile, for example, only 0.7 percent of people indicted for crimes in 2019 were Venezuelan nationals, even though Venezuelans made up 2.4 percent of the population. Similarly, in Peru, where this analysis uses imprisonment data as a proxy for crime rates, 1.3 percent of those in prison were foreign born—of any nationality—as of 2019, whereas Venezuelan nationals make up 2.9 percent of the country’s overall population. For the most part, analysis of data from 2019 suggests that Venezuelan immigrants commit substantially fewer crimes than the native born. In Colombia this relationship holds true for violent crimes, as Venezuelan nationals comprised 2.3 percent of arrests for violent crimes in 2019, while they represent 3.2 percent of the population. For crimes overall, however, the picture is more mixed, as 5.4 percent of all arrests were of Venezuelans, a rate higher than their share of the population. Most of these crimes were reported in border regions, perhaps a reflection of the illicit smuggling networks that operate across the Colombian-Venezuelan border. In exploring plausible explanations for crime rates in different parts of the country, it appears that the regions in which Venezuelans were responsible for higher shares of crimes are also those where Venezuelans face higher rates of unemployment. This finding is consistent with the literature that suggests granting migrants and refugees formal labor market access can reduce the incidence of crime among this population. The data in this study provide strong evidence that the presence of Venezuelan immigrants is not leading to increased crime in the region—certainly not in the three countries that have received the largest number of Venezuelan migrants and refugees. Indeed, in most cases they tend to commit a smaller share of crimes than their proportion of the population. Even in the one case where the results are more ambiguous—Colombia—they are more involved in minor crimes and far less involved in major crimes than their population share. These results suggest that fears about Venezuelan newcomers driving up crime are simply misplaced. Sudden mass migration certainly presents challenges to receiving societies, but, at least in this case, a major crime wave is not one of them. 

Washington, DC; Brookings Institute, 2020. 27p.

By Abdihakim Hussein, Emily Nye

Forced migration is an increasingly common feature in international relations, and the mass migration of Venezuelans to Colombia provides an opportunity to analyze how strategic narratives can support a welcoming migration and integration policy. Because Colombia is a country with no history of immigration and no established anti-immigrant group, its experience provides unique insight into the impact and limitations of positive migration narratives. While Colombia's migration policy and humanitarian narrative have garnered praise internationally, this praise has not been matched by a sense of urgency for action, attention, or funding. Domestically, the policy response to mass Venezuelan migration has met international standards. Moreover, the country has experienced relatively little unrest compared to other host countries in Latin America. There is, however, ample evidence that Colombian perceptions of increased Venezuelan migration are negative and that tension and scapegoating are on the rise. Given these contradictions, this article reviews and discusses how and why Colombia's positive, humanitarian narratives have succeeded, as well as these narratives' limitations and need for adjustments. Together, these insights can help other host nations craft more effective and truthful migration strategic narratives.

Global Policy. 2024;15(Suppl. 3):83–92

By Robert M. Adelman , Yulin Yang , Lesley Williams Reid , James D. Bachmeier & Mike Maciag

The debate about undocumented immigration and its potential relation to crime continues to boil in the United States. We study this relationship by using two sets of estimates for the 2014 undocumented foreign-born population in U.S. metropolitan areas acquired from the Pew Research Center and the Migration Population Institute, 2013-2015 FBI Uniform Crime Report data, and 2011-2015 American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau, to model the association between undocumented immigration and violent and property crime. Findings are consistent across all estimates of metropolitan undocumented populations. Net of relevant covariates, we find negative effects of undocumented immigration on the overall property crime rate, larceny, and burglary; effects in models using violent crime measures as the outcomes are statistically non-significant. Although the results are based on cross-sectional data, they mirror other research findings that immigration either reduces or has no impact on crime, on average, and contributes to a growing literature on the relationship between immigration and crime.

Journal of Crime and Justice, Volume 44, Issue 4 (2021)

By American Immigration Council

Over the past decade, an increasing number of states, counties, and cities have adopted a variety of policies intended to promote a greater level of trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and communities with sizeable immigrant populations, regardless of immigration status. These policies include offering English-language classes; issuing municipal identification documents and driver’s licenses to all residents; ensuring that immigrants have equal access to bail; establishing policies to make it easier for noncitizen victims of crime to obtain necessary documents from law enforcement agencies in order to pursue certain immigration relief; and training criminal prosecutors and public defenders on the immigration consequences of convictions and plea deals.  

One subset of these policies concerns a state’s or locality’s role in cooperating with federal authorities to enforce immigration law. These laws, policies, or resolutions are sometimes referred to as “sanctuary” policies, although no legal or standard definition of the term exists. There are many reasons jurisdictions adopt sanctuary policies, such as: a desire to protect public safety by allowing immigrants to work with police in reporting and investigating crimes without fear of retribution or potential deportation; allowing state and local governments to determine how they will prioritize and allocate their resources; and shielding local law enforcement agencies from liabilities resulting from local enforcement of federal immigration laws. 

Despite the nationwide debate, there is no one clear definition of what it means for a state or local government to adopt sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies take many forms and generally fall into the following categories: 

• policies restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal civil immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrants;  

• policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law; 

• policies that prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention; 

• policies preventing immigration detention centers; 

• policies restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status; 

• policies restricting the sharing of certain information on immigrants with the federal government; 

• policies restricting local police responses to federal immigration detainers; and 

• policies refusing to allow ICE into local jails without a judicial warrant. 

The common theme behind these categories is that under a sanctuary policy, state and local officials will limit their cooperation with federal immigration officials but do not actively prevent federal officials from carrying out their immigration enforcement duties. 

One of the most common forms of sanctuary policy is a restriction on holding immigrants in state or local jails following a “detainer” issued by ICE. A detainer is an official but nonbinding request from ICE that a state or local law enforcement agency maintain custody of an individual for up to 48 hours beyond the time the individual otherwise would have been released so that ICE can arrange to take over custody.  

Washington DC: American Immigration Council, 2025. 9p.

By Sasha Jesperson, Henrik Alffram, Lisa Denney and Pilar Domingo

 Labour migration and trafficking in persons: a political economy analysis Key messages Multiple scam centres have been identified in Southeast Asia, where recruits are often forced to groom victims online and encourage them to invest in fraudulent schemes, such as cryptocurrency. Targeting more highly skilled and educated individuals seeking work opportunities, recruitment is more organised than other forms of labour exploitation, with individuals trafficked into forced criminality. Scams challenge the existing counter-trafficking response in several ways: The profile of recruits as more highly educated and skilled workers. The existence of two sets of victims – the recruits and their targets. The presence of scam centres, often in poorer countries, reversing conventional labour migration flows. The location of scam centres in Special Economic Zones, which are beyond conventional national jurisdictions.

London: ODI, 2023. 29p.

By Humanity Research Consultancy

In early 2023, campaigners in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia lodged a formal complaint with the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, the region’s main human rights institution, regarding potentially thousands of victims of trafficking in persons (TIP) for forced criminality in scam compounds, from every single ASEAN country.  A 2023 United Nations report also estimates that hundreds of thousands have fallen victim to this growing trend of human trafficking for forced criminality, trapped in scamming compounds across the Asia region and beyond.  According to media reports and previous investigations undertaken by Humanity Research Consultancy (HRC),  Thailand has been an important hub for this type of crime, acting as a transit, destination and source country due to its geographical proximity to scamming compound hotspots across the region. Nevertheless, the extent of Thailand and its citizens’ involvement in these crimes, namely Thai authorities’ responses to the issue, remain unclear to the public, as well as to counter-human trafficking organisations. This research aims to address this gap, forming a valuable contribution to the current body of knowledge in order to enhance understanding and develop effective strategies, by identifying best practices, to combat human trafficking for forced criminality in Thailand. This report provides an overview of trafficking for forced criminality involving Thailand, covering the trafficking routes, modus operandi and trends related to TIP for forced criminality. It also outlines the legal frameworks in Thailand to address forced criminality at the domestic, bilateral and regional levels. Additionally, the report encompasses a breakdown of demographics and characteristics of vulnerable groups targeted by traffickers, including disaggregated data of Thai and non-Thai victims of TIP for forced criminality in Thailand. Finally, the report outlines the challenges and obstacles faced in addressing trafficking for forced criminality, particularly with regard to the actions of Thai law enforcement and government bodies, as well as local nongovernmental organizations working to counter these crimes in the region    

Little Rick, AR: Winrock International, 2024.   38p.

By Felipe Gon ̧calves Elisa and J ́acome Emily Weisburst

We study the role of victim reporting in the production of public safety. We examine the Secure Communities program, a crime-reduction policy that involved police in
detecting unauthorized immigrants and increased deportation fears in immigrant communities. We find that the policy reduced the likelihood that Hispanic victims report crimes to police and increased offending against Hispanics. The number of reported crimes is unchanged, masking these opposing effects. We show that reduced reporting drives the offending increase and provide the first elasticity of offending to victim reporting in the literature, calculating that a 10% decline in reporting increases offending by 7.9%.

Unpublished paper 2025. 95p.