The expansion of “crimmigration,” mass detention,and deportation

In recent years, the deportation and detention of immigrants has become a common phenomenon around the world. In this article, we shed light on the global expansion of crimmigration (the increasingly blurring of lines between immigration and criminal laws) and examine in depth the United States as an example of this trend. Crimmigration scholarship has largely focused on the processes in which laws, media narratives, and political discourses criminalize undocumented immigrants. We summarize the literature that demonstrates how these processes are predicated on the racialization and gendering of certain immigrants, in the United States and elsewhere. Using the US case as an example, we discuss how criminalization practices are closely tied to for profit prison interests. Finally, we provide suggestions for future research to critically examine the criminalization of immigration and immigrants.     

The Burden of Deportation on Children in Mexican Immigrant Families

In 2011, a record number of foreign‐born individuals were detained and removed from the United States. This article looks at the impact enforcement policies have had on Mexican families more broadly and children specifically. Drawing on interviews with 91 parents and 110 children in 80 households, the author suggests that, similar to the injury pyramid used by public health professionals, a deportation pyramid best depicts the burden of deportation on children. At the top of the pyramid are instances that have had the most severe consequences on children's daily lives: families in which a deportation has led to permanent family dissolution. But enforcement policies have had the greatest impact on children at the bottom of the pyramid. Regardless of legal status or their family members' involvement with immigration authorities, children in Mexican immigrant households describe fear about their family stability and confusion over the impact legality has on their lives.     

Unauthorized Migrants and the (Il)Logic of “Crime Control”: A Human Rights Perspective on US Federal and Local State Immigration Policies

Immigration control, widely regarded the sovereign right of nation states, has often been pursued at the expense of civil and human rights. More than a century ago, nativists legitimated a punitive approach to immigration control that treated migrants’ rights as secondary by branding millions of newcomers to the United States as a “dangerous class”. In many ways, recent policies similarly criminalize immigrants and deploy crime control strategies in response. This article reviews the most significant of these policies at the federal and local state level, including: border security measures, detention and deportation, the 287(g) program, anti‐immigrant city ordinances, and the Arizona law (SB1070). Each initiative has been framed as necessary to protect American citizens from serious crime. We focus on four ways in which these policies violate human rights: first, border security measures that result in migrant deaths violate the right to life; second, detention and deportation violate the right to liberty; third, detention and deportation punish unlawful residents as though they were guilty of criminal rather than civil violations of the law, imposing penalties that are arbitrary and disproportionately harsh; and fourth, local state policies to counter illegal immigration encourage racial profiling, a practice that violates the right to freedom from discrimination.     

The pains of immigrant imprisonment

The immigrant detention system in the United States is civil, rather than criminal, and therefore nonpunitive. However, in practice, detained immigrants lacking many basic constitutional protections find themselves in facilities that are often indistinguishable from prisons and jails. In this paper, we explore the crisis of immigrant imprisonment at the affective level, focusing on the painful experiences of immigrant detainees, while also emphasizing its systemic and racialized nature. Specifically, we place a review of a growing body of research that draws connections between immigrant detention and mass imprisonment alongside the findings from numerous reports issued by human rights organizations on the conditions of confinement within immigrant detention facilities. Using a “pains of imprisonment” framework, we highlight four particularly prominent “pains”: containment, exploitation, coercion, and legal violence. We suggest the infliction of such pain, especially when contextualized within a broader history of Latina/o oppression, demonstrates that immigration prisons are in fact punitive, “lawless spaces” where penal oppression is exercised. We conclude with a call for sociologists to become more attentive to this crisis, and to appreciate the similarities between immigration detention and other forms of racialized social control—namely, mass incarceration.     

Policing immigrants or policing immigration? Understanding local law enforcement participation in immigration control

As the United States has expanded its immigration control strategies, police participation in immigration enforcement has increased in scope and intensity. Local law enforcement agencies contribute to immigration enforcement in three key ways: through the direct enforcement of immigration law, through cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and through the everyday policing of immigrant communities. These enforcement approaches have consequences for unauthorized immigrants, and for the agencies and officers tasked with providing them police services. This article reviews local law enforcement practices and argues that future research should move away from an exclusive examination of police policies towards immigrants, to consider how the policing of immigrants actually occurs on the ground. Moreover, we argue that as long as discretionary arrests funnel removable immigrants into the deportation system, some immigrant communities will perceive policing as fundamentally unfair and discriminatory.     

The role of bail and pretrial detention in the reproduction of racial inequalities

The role of bail systems in the United States has been understudied within the sociology of punishment. The use of monetary bail is pervasive in the United States, contributing to a rising number of pretrial detainees and, consequently, jail populations. Since 2000, 95% of the growth in jail populations has been the result of the growing number of people held in jail pretrial. Moreover, racial and ethnic minorities account for a disproportionate number of pretrial detainees. In this review, I first summarize the empirical literature on racial and economic disparities in the use of bail and pretrial detention , arguing that race and social class are important determinants of who is ultimately detained. I also highlight the literature on the downstream outcomes associated with pretrial detention, and several recent studies which suggest that pretrial detention has a causal effect on conviction. Second, I consider how inequalities in policing and arrests, in combination with pretrial processes, lead to cumulative disadvantages. Lastly, I highlight recent debates surrounding the use of pretrial risk assessment tools and whether they serve as panacea or pariah for mitigating discrimination in criminal processing.     

Transnational families and return in the age of deportation: The case of indigenous Ecuadorian migrants

Recent social science research has highlighted the chaos imposed by detention and deportation policies on migrant families and communities. This paper expands on these discussions by examining the role of transnational family dynamics as people experience detention, deportation, reintegration and/or remigration. Analysing five exemplary cases of indigenous Ecuadorian families drawn from a larger sample, we highlight the reconfigurations of transnational social relations resulting from these cycles of (im)mobility. We argue that transnational family support structures play a crucial role in the reconfiguration of families affected by deportation by combining material and emotional support and healing with social control. Our findings suggest that the social, emotional, and economic effects of deportation over time are shaped both by family and community contexts of reception and by migrants’ own gender, class, life-course stage, time spent in the United States, and migration experiences. These findings allow us to conclude that deportation is a heterogeneous social and temporal process that does not impact families uniformly but in fact unfolds in diverse ways within family situations where social relationships, gender roles, care arrangements, and social expectations for the most part are already profoundly transnationalised and reconfigured by migration.     

Managing International Migration in Australia: Human Rights and the “Last Major Redoubt of Unfettered National Sovereignty”

This article challenges the view of many commentators that the capacity of liberal democracies to regulate international migration has been significantly compromised by the growth of international human rights norms and the role of independent judiciaries in enforcing those norms. Focusing on three Australian case studies that deal with deportation, mandatory detention of refugee claimants, and judicial review of migration decisions, the article concludes that international and domestic legal constraints still leave very substantial latitude to liberal democratic States to regulate the size and composition of international immigration flows. With only modest qualifications, migration policy remains “the last major redoubt of unfettered national sovereignty.”     

The new grounds for deportation of European Union citizens in the United Kingdom

Politicians often mention immigration enforcement, and deportation in particular, as a means to assert state sovereignty. This article looks at deportation through exiting the European Union, an event that was interpreted as regaining sovereignty from the supra-national organisation. New immigration regulations in the United Kingdom were meant to end the EU Freedom of Movement and equalise the statuses of EU- and non-EU migrants in the United Kingdom. The research question this article addresses is the following: how do the new immigration regulations and policies affect the possibility of deportations of EU citizens in the United Kingdom? With the lens of Interpretive Policy Analysis, the article analyses primary sources and expert interviews. It concludes that the deportability of EU citizens has increased post-Brexit. It also anticipates that the deportability of EU citizens will be differentiated, as rough sleepers, former convicts and irregular migrants may be first to be targeted with deportation.     

Le bon,la brute et le migrant ? Le rôle négocié des acteurs religieux dans un dispositif policier d’enfermement des étrangers en Allemagne

Contrary to the French model, the German detention and deportation centre for irregular migrants that has been studied here does not allow for any third parties other than chaplains. However, their scope of action goes far beyond spiritual assistance and extends to the defence of detained aliens’ rights and political contestation of the confinement regime. The detention centre therefore brings together two professional groups, chaplains and police officers, whose goals are a priori irreconcilable. After explaining the origins of this unique juxtaposition, I will analyse here the impact of the presence of religious actors within the state confinement regime on the construction, by each group of actors, of its professional legitimacy and on the practices of assistance and control that go along with it.     

(Dis)unity and Diversity in Post-9/11 America

Drawing inspiration from the work of Robin M. Williams Jr., I map out the complexities of ethnic and racial relations in the contemporary United States by focusing on the impacts of 9/11—particularly in relation to immigration policy. Because the attackers entered the country through regular immigration channels (i.e., as foreign students) the U.S. government has introduced policies to enhance border security, restrict immigration, increase the surveillance of immigrant populations, and more actively enforce immigration policy. These national-security-related immigration policies, however, are exacerbating existing tensions and producing new sets of ethnic and racialized conflicts in the United States. In this article, I first provide an overview of the key national-security-related immigration policies that were passed in the wake of September 11, 2001. Then, I review some of the recent sociological literature, as well as draw from my own preliminary research in the State of New Jersey, to illustrate the social impacts of these policies on ethnic and racial relations. I conclude with an outline of the ways the sociology of ethnic and racial relations specifically, as well as other subfields of the discipline, might approach analyses of social conflict in the contemporary United States, post–September 11.     

Immigration Detention under the Global Compacts in the Light of Refugee and Human Rights Law Standards

The article explores how immigration detention is addressed in the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) and Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) and investigates the potential implications of the compacts on the existing legal framework regulating the use of immigration detention. While Objective 13 of the GCM largely reflects detention‐related standards under international human rights law, the GCR makes only scarce references to detention in §60. Overall, the compacts risk inhibiting gradual endorsement of the norm of non‐detention of children. On the other hand, they rightly restate the priority for alternatives to detention for adults. States should implement the provisions of the compacts in line with their obligations under international human rights and refugee law. The compacts cannot be used as a pretext to lower domestic detention‐related standards or to diminish the validity of the existing framework governing immigration detention.     

The Real Crisis at the Mexico-U.S. Border: A Humanitarian and Not an Immigration Emergency

Misguided U.S. policies since 1980 have created a large undocumented population within the United States. Border militarization curtailed circular undocumented migration from Mexico, and Cold War politics precluded the acceptance of refugees from Central America fleeing violence and economic turmoil unleashed by America’s intervention in the region. Although undocumented migration from Mexico has ended, resources devoted to border apprehensions and internal deportations continue to rise, pushing an ever larger number of Central Americans into an immigrant detention system that is ill-equipped to handle them. Although the Trump administration portrays the situation as an immigration crisis, what is really unfolding along the border and within the United States is an unprecedented humanitarian cross that in so many ways is one of our own making.     

Exploring parent–child communication in the context of threat: immigrant families facing detention and deportation in post-9/11 USA

This paper explores whether and how documented and undocumented migrant parents communicate with their children about the threats posed by the intensified enforcement of 1996 and 2001 US immigration reforms; whether parents facing potential detention and deportation plan for the care of their children; and whether their children learn from other sources about detention and deportation. The focus of this paper emerged in the context of a multiyear participatory and action research (PAR) process as one effort to understand the multiple meanings and divergent perspectives on parental–child communication that arose among and between participants and coresearchers. The aim is to better understand, in parents' own voices, their embrace of and resistance to direct communication with their children about the threat of deportation. Data are triangulated from in-depth interviews with 18 Central American immigrant coresearchers (Study 1), responses of 132 Latino/a immigrant parents to a survey with open-ended questions (Study 2), and conversations in a series of community meetings and workshops. Findings confirm the importance for advocates, service providers, and researchers to understand migrant parents' decisions about communication within the context of family and community values; gender expectations; lived and psychological experiences of being criminalized; and strategies to manage daily challenges of living without documents while parenting US-citizen children.     

Lives in limbo: Temporary Protected Status and immigrant identities

The United States formulates much of its immigration and refugee policy to match economic and political circumstances. We interpret these policy shifts as a set of graduated positions on immigration and refugee flows that attempts to discipline the lives of newcomers and, in so doing, shapes immigrant identities. In this article, we analyse the interplay between the US government and Salvadoran asylum applicants negotiating procedures that grant only temporary relief from deportation via the policy of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). We find that each policy shift results in the strategic renegotiation of asylum applicants’ identities so as to achieve the best opportunity for a successful outcome. Based on Foucault’s ideas of governmentality and Ong’s concept of flexible citizenship, we argue that what appears more superficially as a patchwork strategy of immigration laws and asylum practices may be theorized more deeply as a set of flexible responses by the state that turn on identity construction at different scales, and that aim to mediate transnational relations.     

Power,capital, and immigration detention rights: making networked markets in global detention governance at UNHCR

With the expanded use of immigration detention and migration management practices worldwide, detention has emerged as a key issue for United Nations and international human rights institutions. A growing international rights movement seeks to make the practice fairer and more humane, leading to the dominance of a mainstream detention rights agenda and counter‐hegemonic system of governance. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Geneva and elsewhere, this article examines the capital, knowledge, and technological expertise that went into the construction of UNHCR's Global Detention Strategy. I highlight the rational calculation undergirding this global detention rights agenda, including the transnational policy networks of NGOs, INGOs, and academics that facilitate the movement's moral authority and capitalist growth. Their practices have become powerful neoliberal development tools, which give veracity to human rights agendas and attract oppositionally‐figured abolitionist praxis.     

Subnational Migration States and the New Politics of Immigration

Using Catherine Dauvergne's The New Politics of Immigration and the End of Settler Society (2016) as a starting point, this article explores subnational policy dynamics in Canada, Australia and the United States. It considers whether the trends associated with legalization, two-step programmes, rapid policy changes and economic discourses are present in Canadian provinces as well as in U.S. and Australian states. It shows that the forces described by Dauvergne contribute to a further rescaling of policymaking and to the emergence of subnational migration states. However, this article also demonstrates that this common movement varies in its consequences and identifies two central subnational policy responses typical of the new politics of immigration: 1) the “economic subnational migration state” (Canada and Australia) and 2) the “access subnational migration state” (United States). The models and the global trends described in this article have implications for immigration policymaking in federations.     

The production of trans illegality: Cisnormativity in the U.S. immigration system

Drawing from critical scholarship on immigrant illegality and transgender studies, this paper examines how trans immigrants may be more prone to vulnerabilities in the U.S. immigration system. Cisnormativity, a hierarchical system of power that structures legal, administrative, and policing systems, produces the “hypervisibility” of gender variance. We add to migration scholarship by analyzing how cisnormativity can intersect with the production of immigrant illegalities and can render trans immigrants as hypervisible and, where possible, attend to the ways in which, paradoxically, trans subjectivity is also erased. Trans immigrants can be more susceptible to arrest, criminal prosecution, detention, deportation, blocked paths to citizenship, or adjustment of status. With trans studies' insights on the criminalization of gender variance and administrative documentation, we investigate the particularities of visibility for trans immigrants as they inform legalities and social exclusions. We end with a call for more empirical research on the experiences of trans immigrants and the complex inclusions and exclusions that structure U.S. immigration policy.     

The Effect of Immigration from Mexico on Social Capital in the United States

Has mass migration from Mexico since the 1980s contributed to a well‐documented decline in US social capital? Theories linking ethnic diversity to lower social cohesion and participation (e.g., Putnam 2007, 30, 137) would strongly predict this effect. Yet the impact of immigration in particular, rather than ethno‐racial diversity generally, on US social capital has not been examined. Assessing the impact of immigration is important because some have speculated that associations between measures of diversity and social capital found in the United States are a byproduct of the country's distinctively fraught history of black–white relations. This scope condition would greatly limit the applicability of Putnam's thesis. To assess the impact of Mexican immigration, this study leverages a dynamic measure of social capital and an instrumental variables design. The results address an important recent methodological critique of the broader literature and strongly corroborate the hypothesis that immigration erodes social capital.     

AN ACCOUNT OF IMMIGRATION STUDIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, 1990–2004

The growth and proliferation of sociological immigration research has garnered sufficient attention to warrant a review and evaluation of the development of the field. This study took the first step by collecting detailed information about work published in the area of immigration research from major journals between 1990 and 2004. We explored three major areas: research topics addressed, theoretical frameworks employed, and population groups studied in the published literature. We compared the development of the field in the United States and Canada. The studies reveal several important patterns in the sociological publications of the United States and Canada. First, the topics studied and population groups included in the sociological publications on immigration are closely associated with the demographic and immigrant integration context of the country. Second, the publications as a whole show that in the development of immigration literature, researchers in the field are engaging in the general sociological theoretical discussion.