Search

Begin New Search Topic Border Control

1. Jordan’s Escalating Border Threats Amid Regional Upheaval

Author:
Abdullah Hayek and Ahmad Sharawi
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
On January 8, the Royal Jordanian Air Force conducted strikes against suspected drug dealers and warehouses in Syria, their fourth such operation in recent months. The strikes occurred amid military reports of increased smuggling attempts—primarily involving drugs, but also weapons—across the kingdom’s northern border. Between January and August 2023 alone, a total of 194 smuggling and infiltration attempts were recorded, 88 of them involving drones. Some cross-border incidents have resulted in clashes with Jordanian security personnel, including three recent episodes: a December 12 clash in which one soldier was killed; a December 18 battle that lasted more than ten hours and marked the first seizure of antitank weaponry on the border; and a January 6 clash in which five smugglers were killed and fifteen arrested. Jordanian military officials attribute each of these attempts to pro-Iran proxy groups in Syria. Moreover, the increasingly advanced arms that smugglers are using—including rocket-propelled grenades, mines, and drones—have led Jordanian officials to conclude that these criminal endeavors pose a wider threat to national security. Greater U.S. assistance would reinforce the kingdom’s efforts to address this threat at a time of wider regional crisis.
Topic:
National Security, Border Control, Syrian War, Borders, Drug Trafficking, and Regional Security
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, and Jordan

2. North Korea’s 2023 Trade with China: Analysis and Forecasts

Author:
Jangho Choi and Yoojeong Choi
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
This article analyzes North Korea-China trade trends and statistics in 2023 to evaluate the extent of North Korea's trade normalization and its performance. North Korea's trade with China increased by more than 120% compared to the previous year as the country declared a COVID-19 Endemic and gradually eased border controls, but did not recover to 2018-19 levels, the year before the outbreak of COVID-19. Imports to China recorded 2.00 billion, 124.1% higher than the 0.89 billion in 2022. North Korea's imports from China in 2023 are estimated to be the maximum achievable given the lack of a full resumption of over-land trade. However, as the negative impact of UN sanctions on the North Korean economy is ongoing, making it difficult to normalize industrial production. North Korea mainly imported raw materials for processing trade (textile and garment raw materials), staple foods (rice and sugar), agricultural materials (fertilizer), and construction materials from China in 2023. North Korea’s exports to China stood at 0.29 billion, up 118.4% from 0.13 billion in 2023. Exports remain at the 16.9% of the level before the tightening of UN sanctions on North Korea, as the country has failed to diversify its products and expand exports of major export items. Exports were highly dependent on specific products, wigs and false eyelashes, a labor-intensive industry, accounting for 57.1% of total exports. In spite of increasing wigs export, North Korea failed to further expand its amount and diversify the export items in the second half of the year. According to the analysis of trade statistics, the main goals of North Korea's 2023 US foreign economic policy are: (1) resuming smuggling trade in textiles and clothing, (2) building irrigation canals in preparation for summer floods, (3) implementing state-led grain distribution, (4) building living houses in a rural area, and (5) increasing metal production for Russian arms exports. Despite the increase in imports from China in the transition to the coronavirus pandemic, it is difficult to say that it has yet led to the recovery of industrial production and economic development. The future of North Korea's trade with the rest of the world in 2024 will be determined by whether North Korea fully opens its borders and improves its relations with China. In 2024, both North Korea's exports and imports are expected to be slightly higher than in 2023. North Korea's exports are unlikely to increase significantly, as North Korea-Russia military cooperation is expected to continue and China is likely to maintain its checks on the growing Sino-Russian alignment. Increased imports will lead to a larger trade deficit, but it will be within North Korea's ability to manage for one to two years.
Topic:
Economics, Border Control, Trade, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and North Korea

3. The Mobility Key: Realizing the Potential of Refugee Travel Documents

Author:
Samuel Davidoff-Gore
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Governments are increasingly experimenting with new mobility pathways for refugees, beyond traditional resettlement operations. These include complementary pathways that connect refugees with work or study opportunities in a country other than the one in which they first sought safety—expanding their future prospects while easing pressure on top refugee-hosting countries. Refugees’ ability to take up these and other opportunities abroad depends to a significant extent on their access to the travel documents required to reach their destination. Yet refugees are generally unable to safely use the most common travel document: a passport issued by a person’s country of origin. This policy brief—part of the Beyond Territorial Asylum: Making Protection Work in a Bordered World initiative led by MPI and the Robert Bosch Stiftung—outlines the different types of travel documents that can facilitate refugees’ movement and key barriers to acquiring and using them. It also identifies steps that countries of asylum, transit, and destination, along with donors and international organizations, can take to overcome these challenges.
Topic:
International Cooperation, International Organization, Border Control, Refugees, Asylum, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Migrant Death and Disappearability at Sea: Mediterranean Necropolitics as a European Strategy of Migration Deterrence

Author:
Bertille Motte
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
The Mediterranean Sea has become the deadliest passage in the world over the past decade, as thousands of migrants lose their lives at sea each year. It has become a key actant of European border violence perpetrated against migrants, as European national and supranational migration institutions instrumentalize the Mediterranean’s natural properties through necropolitical strategies of deterrence. The sea must be understood as a wet ontology and a fluid hybrid border. It is shaped by dynamic and complex interactions between human actors and more-than-human elements through which European violence is passed onto non-European migrants’ bodies. It conceals migrants’ deaths and disappearances, as they become ‘inevitable accidents’ caused by natural and untamable elements. The Mediterranean Sea therefore invisibilizes European structural violence occurring at the border zone and acts as an archive and witness to this violence.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Refugees, Violence, Deterrence, Asylum, Necropolitics, and Refugee Policy
Political Geography:
Europe and Mediterranean

5. Ten Years of Democratizing Data: Privileging Facts, Refuting Misconceptions and Examining Missed Opportunities

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) initiated its “Democratizing Data” project in 2013 to make detailed demographic information widely available on the US undocumented, eligible to naturalize, and other non-citizen populations. The paper begins by outlining top-line findings and themes from the more than 30 CMS studies under this project. It then examines and refutes four persistent misconceptions that have inhibited public understanding and needed policy change: (1) migrants never leave the United States; (2) most undocumented migrants arrive by illegally crossing the US-Mexico border; (3) each Border Patrol apprehension translates into a new undocumented resident; and (4) immigrants are less skilled than US-born workers. The paper then offers new analyses in support of select policy recommendations drawn from a decade of democratizing data. It concludes with a short reflection and a case study on the failure of data, evidence-based policy ideas, and national ideals to translate into necessary reform.
Topic:
Border Control, Democracy, Data, and Migrants
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. Are Immigrants a Threat? Most Americans Don’t Think So, but Those Receptive to the “Threat” Narrative Are Predictably More Anti-immigrant

Author:
PRRI Staff
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
PRRI: Public Religion Research Institute
Abstract:
Joe Biden campaigned on a commitment to reverse many of the Trump administration’s strictest anti-immigration policies. Though many of these policies have either been reversed or halted — including the travel ban for people from various countries, the ban on temporary work visas, and the expansion of the public charge rule, among others —some remain in place.[1] One such policy is a public health rule known as Title 42, which allows for the immediate expulsion of migrants at the border in order to control the spread of COVID-19. The rule was set to be lifted in late December, but its suspension was delayed by the Supreme Court owing to public backlash and fears that illegal border crossings would increase significantly.[2] Meanwhile, independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis have proposed legislation that would both extend Title 42 and provide a pathway to citizenship for two million people who were illegally brought to the United States as children and are now classified as “Dreamers.” The proposal also includes new resources to speed the processing of asylum seekers.[3] As politicians struggle with how to address immigration issues, Americans’ views on immigration have become increasingly polarized, with Republicans becoming significantly more anti-immigrant in their attitudes over the past few years. Republicans have continually attacked the Biden administration’s handling of immigration, claiming that his policies will increase the flow of immigrants over the southern border and calling for U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas to resign. These criticisms are expected to increase now that Republicans have regained control of the House of Representatives.[4] Though the Trump-era narrative still resonates among certain portions of the American public, this report reveals that majorities of Americans do not view immigrants as a threat. But people who are more likely to think of immigrants as a threat — including those who most trust conservative media sources and Fox News — they are considerably more anti-immigrant and less supportive of open immigration policies.
Topic:
Politics, Immigration, Border Control, and Nativism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. Using Risk Analysis to Shape Border Management: A Review of Approaches during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author:
Kelley Lee, Julianne Piper, and Jennifer Fang
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The near universal adoption of travel measures by governments to control the spread of COVID-19 has proved controversial during the pandemic. National responses have been highly varied and frequently changing, and the use of travel measures—ranging from advisories and screening to quarantine, testing, immunity certification, and restrictions on entry—has been poorly coordinated across jurisdictions. Particularly in the early stages of the crisis, this created chaos for travelers and the travel sector, and caused significant economic and social harms. Many governments also failed to clearly communicate the rationale for using travel measures, the evidence underpinning them, and the measures’ role within overall pandemic response strategies. There is now substantial evidence that these measures’ early and stringent use by some governments during the initial stages of the pandemic slowed the importation of the virus and reduced its onward transmission. Yet, there is also growing recognition of weaknesses in the quality of evidence available to inform policy decisions. Evaluating the appropriateness of travel measures and applying them effectively during future public-health emergencies will depend on international consensus on methodologies that lead to a more harmonized and coordinated approach and to greater public trust in policy decisions. This report presents a comparative analysis of 11 publicly available methodologies used to assess travel-related risks during the pandemic—those of Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Air Transport Association, World Health Organization, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and European Union. It offers a set of lessons learned and recommendations, including a proposed decision instrument that could improve the use of risk analysis for border management during future public-health emergencies.
Topic:
Security, International Cooperation, International Organization, Governance, Border Control, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Taiwan, South Korea, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Global Focus, and United States of America

8. The Causes Behind the Ciudad Juárez Migrant Detention Center Fire

Author:
Josiah Heyman and Jeremy Slack
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
The fire that killed 40 people on March 27 is the foreseeable consequence of binational immigration enforcement measures by the United States and Mexico.
Topic:
Law Enforcement, Border Control, Immigration Policy, and Migrants
Political Geography:
Latin America, North America, Mexico, United States of America, and Ciudad Juarez

9. Militarized Security and a Cartel Apology in Matamoros

Author:
Philip Luke Johnson
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
The abduction and murder of U.S. citizens in the border city of Matamoros is part of a larger pattern of violence with impunity by state and criminal actors.
Topic:
Security, Crime, War on Drugs, Narcotics Trafficking, Border Control, Impunity, Violence, and Militarization
Political Geography:
Latin America, North America, Mexico, and United States of America

10. The Relationship between COVID-19 Entry Restrictions and Immigration

Author:
Youngook Jang and Dong-Hee Joe
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
In this paper, we investigate the relationship between COVID-19 entry restrictions and dependence on immigrants. In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, countries worldwide implemented international travel restrictions to reduce the entry of infected individuals. These measures included entry and exit bans, mandatory quarantine of travelers, and vaccination requirements, significantly altering global mobility patterns. Despite their proven effectiveness, entry restrictions also impose substantial economic costs, particularly evident in the form of reduced immigration and subsequent labor shortages in sectors reliant on immigrant labor. We introduce a theoretical framework to shed light on the factors influencing the determination of entry restrictions, encompassing both health and economic considerations. Empirical analyses reveal that countries heavily dependent on foreign labor are inclined to adopt less stringent border controls, balancing the economic costs associated with reduced immigrant workforce. Moreover, we argue that the strength of entry restrictions is determined by a government’s capacity to manage infection waves through means other than entry bans. Finally, we offer policy implications based on our research, on how to control the spread of infectious diseases while minimizing the costs imposed by reducing immigration and the cost imposed on the immigrants themselves.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Public Health, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

11. What Role Could Digital Technologies Play in the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum?

Author:
Lucía Salgado and Hanne Beirens
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Pressure on EU migration and asylum systems has grown considerably in recent years, with rising arrivals of asylum seekers and migrants and the level of asylum applications approaching those that threw the European Union into disarray in 2015–16. The arrival of more than 4 million displaced Ukrainians, meanwhile, has challenged already strained reception and integration systems. And across Europe, migration has become a flashpoint for political tensions and dominated electoral debates. Many policymakers and other stakeholders have pinned their hopes on the New Pact on Migration and Asylum to help Europe address these challenges. The pact, which was announced by the European Commission in 2020 and has recently entered the final stages of negotiation, is a series of legislative proposals aimed at revamping EU migration and asylum systems. Yet even if the pact is finalized, it has to pass another test before policymakers can claim victory: translating a complex legal construct into something that works in practice and can withstand spikes in arrivals and other challenges. This policy brief explores how digital technologies—already increasingly being used in European migration and asylum systems—could be leveraged to support the implementation of the pact and where caution is merited. It examines the role new digital tools could play in three key areas: decision-making at the border, relocation of asylum seekers/refugees among Member States, and return and reintegration. It also discusses the broader implications of digitalization in migration and asylum systems and reflects on how policymakers can set appropriate governance models and safeguards to ensure responsible use of new technologies.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Governance, Border Control, European Union, Refugees, Resettlement, Asylum, and Digitalization
Political Geography:
Europe

12. Betting on Legality: Latin American and Caribbean Responses to the Venezuelan Displacement Crisis

Author:
Luciana Gandini and Andrew Selee
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
More than half, and as many as two-thirds, of the estimated 6.4 million displaced Venezuelans who have settled in Latin America and the Caribbean since 2016 have been granted legal status in their host country. Most of the receiving countries in the region have responded with pragmatic measures that offer some form of legal status as well as the right to access the labor market, basic education, and emergency health care. The measures implemented are uneven and often not fully institutionalized, but they have been surprisingly generalized for a region with limited experience with large-scale immigration. This report explores the response to Venezuelan displacement in the 15 principal host countries in Latin America and the Caribbean between 2016 and 2022. It examines the reach of different mechanisms for providing legal status and humanitarian protection—asylum systems, mobility and residence agreements, regular visas, and regularization campaigns that offer temporary status—and offers estimates of the share of Venezuelans in each country who have obtained legal status. The report also considers the trend of governments coupling measures to provide legal status with new visa requirements that have made it increasingly difficult for more Venezuelans to arrive, pushing some into irregular migration channels. Finally, the report looks at variations in Venezuelans’ access to education and health care across the 15 countries.
Topic:
Education, Governance, Border Control, Employment, Displacement, Immigration Policy, Healthcare System, and Refugee Policy
Political Geography:
Latin America, Caribbean, and Venezuela

13. Migration restrictions in the West: Some ethical concerns

Author:
Emmanuel Comte
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
Migration policies have divided the world in two groups: the walled world of Western countries and the rest. The EU system of migration control is the most extensive, given that Europe is surrounded by a series of regions with high migration potential. Migration restrictions do not enhance and may serve to reduce the opportunities of the worse-off and, as such, are at odds with international fairness. Negative externalities from richer to poorer countries, triggered by migration policies themselves or monetary or climate policies, make migration restrictions even more unfair. The growth of the migration control system ends up threatening human rights within Western countries. It is necessary to explore all possible ways to reverse migration restrictions and promote more open migration policies.
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, Border Control, European Union, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Europe

14. Explaining immigration restrictions using a sequential path dependency model

Author:
Emmanuel Comte
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
This paper, by Emmanuel Comte, Senior Research Fellow, Ariane Condellis European Programme, analyses immigration restrictions by discussing major recent debates of historical political economy and proposing a new explanatory model. The conclusions in recent research on the subject of immigration restrictions converge in highlighting the natives’ fear of economic costs as a potent factor in immigration restrictions, despite evidence proving that actual costs are small and circumscribed, while the aggregate impact of immigration is generally positive. This paper develops existing scholarship to explain the magnitude of current immigration restrictions in Europe and North America by proposing a sequential path dependency model based on both historical insights and the insights of institutionalist theories of path dependence. In this model, the fears of adverse economic effects held by specific segments of the national workforce interact with a power structure dominated by the state and with the agency of union leaders and policymakers initiating a series of policy cycles that lead to complete restrictions on low-skilled immigration.
Topic:
Political Economy, Immigration, and Border Control
Political Geography:
Europe and North America

15. Making the Dominican Republic Great Again?

Author:
Lorgia García-Peña
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
The Dominican government has always aligned itself with white supremacism, following the United States’ lead on immigration policies towards Haitians.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, and White Supremacy
Political Geography:
Caribbean, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and United States of America

16. U.S. Immigration Detention System: “A Living Hell”

Author:
Joseph Nevins
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
A historical and contemporary look at migrant incarceration and the detainees pushing for change inside and beyond the system.
Topic:
Human Rights, Immigration, Border Control, and Detention
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

17. Putting Migrant Reintegration Programs to the Test: A Road Map to a Monitoring System

Author:
Lucía Salgado, Radu-Mihai Triculescu, Camille Le Coz, and Hanne Beirens
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
European policymakers have renewed their commitment to increase returns of migrants determined not to have a right to stay in the European Union, and to cooperate with returnees’ countries of origin to support their reintegration. And as investments in assisted voluntary return and reintegration (AVRR) initiatives have grown, so too has pressure to demonstrate that these programs are living up to the high expectations for them. Yet there is little clarity, let alone consensus, on what “successful” reintegration is or how best to achieve it. This MPI Europe report examines what is and is not known about returnees' economic, psychosocial, and social reintegration. It also discusses the need to build and strengthen monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems to help address pressing knowledge gaps, track the impact of AVRR investments, and inform program decision-making. To do so, it lays out a set of guiding principles and explores key questions about the design, ownership, funding, and impact of M&E efforts.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Governance, Border Control, European Union, Immigrants, Deportation, Immigration Policy, and Illegal Immigration
Political Geography:
Europe

18. Four Years of Profound Change: Immigration Policy during the Trump Presidency

Author:
Jessica Bolter, Emma Israel, and Sarah Pierce
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Over the course of four years, the Trump administration set an unprecedented pace for executive action on immigration, enacting 472 administrative changes that dismantled and reconstructed many elements of the U.S. immigration system. Humanitarian protections were severely diminished. The U.S.-Mexico border became more closed off. Immigration enforcement appeared more random. And legal immigration became out of reach for many. All of this was accomplished nearly exclusively by the executive branch, with sweeping presidential proclamations and executive orders, departmental policy guidance, and hundreds of small, technical adjustments. This report, which concludes a series of MPI reports providing an overview of policies at different points during the Trump administration, chronicles the immigration actions, large and small, that President Donald Trump and his administration took from January 20, 2017, through January 20, 2021. After an overview of the transformation of the U.S. immigration system during this historic period, the report breaks these hundreds of changes down by issue area: the administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic; border and interior enforcement; actions involving the Department of Justice and the immigration court system; the admission of refugees, asylum seekers, and other humanitarian migrants; changes to vetting and visa processes, which involve the State Department, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the Department of Labor; and actions involving agencies usually less central to immigration policy discussions. As the authors write, “While it may be possible for subsequent administrations to rescind many of these changes, others cannot simply be unwound.” Many are likely to remain on the books for years to come, with a lasting impact on the U.S. immigration system.
Topic:
Law Enforcement, Border Control, Employment, Refugees, Citizenship, Economy, Resettlement, Donald Trump, Asylum, Integration, Deportation, COVID-19, Immigration Policy, Illegal Immigration, and DREAM Act
Political Geography:
United States of America

19. The Challenge of Coordinating Border Management Assistance between Europe and the Maghreb

Author:
Matt Herbert
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Europe’s border security needs and interests do not stop at its frontiers. Over the last 25 years, the European Union and its Member States have increasingly partnered with and relied on neighboring countries to mitigate cross-border challenges, ranging from irregular migration to drug trafficking and terrorism. Within this transnational architecture, the states of the Maghreb—Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia—have come to play a critical role. Cultivating cooperation with these countries and building their border security capacity have become vital concerns for European policymakers. This Transatlantic Council on Migration report examines the border security situation within the Maghreb, including Maghrebi states’ cross-border priorities and the structural factors impeding the development of better border security. It then takes stock of efforts by the European Union and its Member States to work with partners in the region to address border security challenges and offers lessons learned from experiences to date. “While they have little choice but to engage,” the report’s author writes, “European states have great latitude in deciding how they engage with Maghrebi states.” To be effective, this cooperation must be shaped not only around European policy aims but also the needs and interests of governments and citizens in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Governance, Border Control, European Union, Trafficking, Smuggling, and Illegal Immigration
Political Geography:
Europe and North Africa

20. The Central Role of Cooperation in Australia’s Immigration Enforcement Strategy

Author:
Henry Sherrell
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Over the past three decades, cooperation with other countries has become a central part of Australia’s immigration enforcement strategy. These partnerships are central to Australian efforts to deter irregular maritime migration, tackle people smuggling, provide access to humanitarian protection while minimizing abuse of the asylum process, and return people without grounds to remain. International cooperation has not been without challenges, however. While effective in curbing irregular maritime arrivals, Australian policies—including boat turnbacks and offshore processing of asylum claims in other countries—have raised serious concerns about asylum seekers’ access to effective refugee status determination processes, human-rights violations, and the substantial costs of such policies. This report from MPI's Transatlantic Council on Migration examines the role cooperation plays within Australian immigration enforcement. It looks at bilateral cooperation with countries such as Indonesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Cambodia, and the United States, as well as regional cooperation through the Bali Process. Among the questions it asks: What should Australia prioritize for future cooperation? How can partnerships be made more sustainable? And how should Australia approach the tradeoffs inherent to this cooperation, particularly those surrounding access to humanitarian protection?
Topic:
International Cooperation, Governance, Border Control, Refugees, Smuggling, Asylum, Deportation, Immigration Policy, and Illegal Immigration
Political Geography:
Australia

21. 2020 American Community Survey: Use with Caution, An Analysis of the Undercount in the 2020 ACS Data Used to Derive Estimates of the Undocumented Population

Author:
Robert Warren
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This paper analyzes and provides estimates of the undercount of the foreign-born in the US Census Bureau’s 2020 American Community Survey (ACS). It confirms that a differential undercount occurred in the 2020 ACS. In particular, noncitizens that arrived from Central American countries after 1981 had undercount rates of 15–25 percent, but undercount of noncitizens that arrived from European countries in the same period was not detectable by the methods described in this paper. The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) and others use ACS data to derive annual estimates of the US undocumented population. The Census Bureau recently reported that the total population count for the 2020 Census was consistent with the count for recent censuses, despite the Covid-19 pandemic and the Trump administration’s interference in the 2020 Census. Nonetheless, the accuracy of 2020 ACS data for the noncitizen population that arrived after 1981 remains a major concern given the fear generated by the Trump administration’s abusive rhetoric and anti-immigrant policies. The estimates set forth in this paper were derived by analyzing trends in annual ACS data for 2016–2020 compiled from the IPUMS website (Ruggles et al. 2021). Decennial census data cannot be used for this purpose because data on country of birth, citizenship, and year of immigration are not collected in the census. However, it is reasonable to believe that the 2020 census and the 2020 ACS experienced similar challenges because they were conducted under comparable conditions. The patterns of undercount of noncitizens described here for the 2020 ACS are likely mirrored in the 2020 census and will reduce federal funding and representation to affected cities and states for the next decade.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Survey, and Undocumented Population
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

22. Migrating through the Corridor of Death: The Making of a Complex Humanitarian Crisis

Author:
Priscilla Solano and Douglas S. Massey
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Drawing on the concept of a “complex humanitarian crisis,” this paper describes how outflows of migrants from Central America were transformed into such a crisis by intransigent immigration and border policies enacted in both Mexico and the United States. We describe the origins of the migration in U.S. Cold War interventions that created many thousands of displaced people fleeing violence and economic degradation in the region, leading to a sustained process of undocumented migration to the United States. Owing to rising levels of gang violence and weather events associated with climate change, the number of people seeking to escape threats in Central America has multiplied and unauthorized migration through Mexico toward the United States has increased. However, the securitization of migration in both Mexico and the United States has blocked these migrants from exercising their right to petition for asylum, creating a growing backlog of migrants who are subject to human rights violations and predations both by criminals and government authorities, leading migrants to label Mexican routes northward as a “corridor of death.” We draw on data from annual reports of Mexico’s Red de Documentación de las Organizaciones Defensoras de Migrantes (Network for the Documentation of Migrant Defense Organizations) to construct a statistical profile of transit migrants and the threats they face as reported by humanitarian actors in Mexico. These reports allow us to better understand the practical realities of the “complex humanitarian crisis” facing undocumented migrants, both as unauthorized border crossers and as transit migrants moving between the southern frontiers of Mexico and the United States.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Humanitarian Crisis, and Migrants
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

23. Implications from the Guard's Extensive Use: A Cautionary Tale of 2020

Author:
Michael G. Anderson
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
From 2020–22, the National Guard saw extensive use domestically to respond to a wide variety of crises, including natural disasters, civil unrest, pandemics, and border security in addition to overseas deployments. As these emergencies perpetuate, balancing the National Guard’s use domestically and overseas is critical to preserving a sustainable and capable force. It is important for a broader understanding across local, state, and federal governments of the sustainability of these cumulative effects on this force.
Topic:
Armed Forces, Border Control, COVID-19, Civil Unrest, and National Guard
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

24. Beyond Border Security, Keeping Pace with Migrants, Refugees, and Climate Change

Author:
Marsha Michel
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS)
Abstract:
Mexico is no longer just a transit country for migrants, it has become a destination country for those seeking refuge from their home country. According to Refugee International, in 2021 Mexico saw over 70 percent increase in asylum cases. In addition, Mexico is seeing a growing number of internally displaced Mexicans due to religion, human rights violations, natural disasters, and clashes between rival gangs. While this has been an issue since the 1970s, it’s only in 2019 that it's been getting the official attention of the Mexican government, human rights organizations as well as international organizations.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Migration, Border Control, and Refugees
Political Geography:
Latin America, North America, and Mexico

25. Digital Health Credentials and COVID-19: Can Vaccine and Testing Requirements Restart Global Mobility?

Author:
Lawrence Huang
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, rising vaccination levels and widespread testing in many countries are giving governments and the public increasing confidence in international travel. A central part of efforts to restart mobility are digital health credentials, which verify a person’s vaccination, testing, and/or recovery status. These credentials help to minimize the risk of travelers carrying the virus, and unlike paper credentials that must be manually inspected in airports and at borders, digital credentials can be automatically verified. But even as digital health credentials are becoming increasingly common, gaps in international coordination and technical integration issues between different credential systems remain. As a result, migrants and travelers moving between—and at times within—countries must navigate a complex maze of digital systems. This report examines the implications of digital health credentials for international travel and for immigrants’ and travelers’ access to domestic services and venues that also use such credentials. It also explores the implications for specific groups: tourists and business travelers, students, labor migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and unauthorized migrants. Finally, it offers policy recommendations to facilitate mobility and minimize risks for people on the move.
Topic:
Health, Immigration, Border Control, Employment, Mobility, Vaccine, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

26. Rebooting the Asylum System? The Role of Digital Tools in International Protection

Author:
Hanne Beirens
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic is changing the way asylum systems use technology. After the initial pause on asylum processing in many countries, officials have turned to digital tools to revive these systems—and increasingly, to reimagine how they work. From the further digitalization of identification and security-check processes to chatbots that help asylum seekers register their protection claims and interviews conducted remotely via video call, such tools have permeated every corner of migration, asylum, and border management systems. This is particularly the case in Europe, where the 2015–16 migration and refugee crisis kickstarted a first round of growth in this area. With digital tools here to stay, the time is ripe to examine what impact their use has on people and processes, and how digitalization may interact with other developments in the international protection field. This report—part of the Beyond Territorial Asylum: Making Protection Work in a Bordered World initiative led by MPI and the Robert Bosch Stiftung—catalogues the use of digital tools in protection systems in Europe and elsewhere, and reflects on what the ramifications could be for humanitarian protection in the years to come. “Digitalization in and of itself is no universal cure,” the author writes, “and depending on how such efforts are carried out, they could obstruct the asylum process and violate asylum seekers’ rights as easily as they could facilitate or protect them.” This report highlights both the potential benefits of the increasing use of digital technology in different stages of asylum processes as well as key challenges and risks that need to be addressed, including concerns about data privacy, opaque decision-making, and how technology changes the nature of human communication.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Border Control, Refugees, Asylum, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Global Focus

27. Mass Migration as a Hybrid Threat? – A Legal Perspective

Author:
Sascha Dov Bachmann and Anthony Paphiti
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
Migration as a weapon sounds like a policy statement by resurgent nationalistic parties (and governments) in the West. However, politics and the human cost aside, what if an adversary (both state and non-state actor) does exploit the current global crisis of mass migration due to globalization, war, and political unrest? This article will look at the ongoing mass migration to the European Union within the wider security context of the so-called hybrid threats and/or ‘grey zone’ tactics. It looks at the various legal categories of migration as how the law can be weaponized as so-called ‘lawfare’ to undermine the existing legal frameworks distinguishing between legal and illegal migration. The authors recognize the possibility that this article will be used as an argument by the political actors involved for their nationalistic and anti-migration politics and policies. Yet, we believe that the potential of abusing the current vacuum for political gains along ideological party lines makes it necessary to provide a wider legal-security focused perspective on mass migration.
Topic:
Security, Migration, Immigration, Law, Border Control, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

28. The EU Settlement Scheme

Author:
Catherine Barnard and Fiona Costello
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
UK in a Changing Europe, King's College London
Abstract:
The EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) allows EU nationals who arrived by 31 December 2020 (and some others) to protect their rights to live and work in the UK. The aim of this report is to explain the scheme, its background, how it works, who has applied, who may not have, and the lessons we have learned so far.
Topic:
Border Control, European Union, Citizenship, and Immigration Policy
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

29. Why Europe Should Build Legal Migration Pathways with Nigeria

Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
The youth population within Nigeria is rapidly increasing, but despite their high levels of education and skills, many are struggling to find meaningful work opportunities at home. At the same time, Europe’s working-age population is declining, resulting in employers in these countries facing large and persistent skill shortages within a range of mid-skill professions. Despite the large benefits that facilitating migration between Nigeria and Europe could bring, and despite the overtures of both European governments and the European Union, few mutually beneficial migration partnerships exist. Over the last year, CGD has been working with the World Bank to understand how our Global Skill Partnership migration model could be implemented between Nigeria and Europe. The full results of this work have now been published in a new report, Expanding Legal Migration Pathways from Nigeria to Europe: From Brain Drain to Brain Gain. The report explores both why Nigeria and Europe should implement migration partnerships and develops a framework as to how they can do so. This framework is then applied to three sectors and partner countries: a healthcare partnership between Nigeria and the United Kingdom (UK), a construction partnership between Nigeria and Germany, and an ICT partnership with various European states. This brief focuses on the first part of this equation, the why: understanding the opportunity that lies before us to better link the labor markets of Nigeria and Europe and the innovation that could do just that.
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Border Control, and Immigration Policy
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, and Nigeria

30. Mobility and Empire in Japanese History

Author:
David Ambaras, Martin Dusinberre, Takahiro Yamamoto, Youjia Li, and Paul Kreitman
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University
Abstract:
This panel will gather four scholars engaged in ongoing research on the history of mobility (and immobility) within and beyond the borders of Imperial Japan. Takahiro Yamamoto (University of Heidelberg) will present on “Identification documents and human mobility in the Japanese empire,” exploring how foreign diplomatic pressure and the need to surveil the mobility of colonial populations influenced the Japanese government’s border control policy. Martin Dusinberre (University of Zurich) will present a paper titled "The Archiving of Japanese Mobility in late-nineteenth century Queensland", analysing the history of Japanese migration to Australia under British colonial rule. Youjia Li (Harvard University) will focus on the role of human locomotive power in Japan's formal empire in her paper "The Unexpected Network: Push-car Railways and the Change of Local Mobility in Colonial Taiwan" . David Ambaras (North Carolina State University) will serve as discussant.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Migration, Border Control, History, Colonialism, Empire, and Mobility
Political Geography:
Japan and Asia

31. Migration Management and Border Security: Lessons Learned

Author:
Alan D. Bersin
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Two decades into the 21st century, both the European Union and the United States have faced considerable challenges in managing migration and borders. Globally, the number of international migrants has grown considerably, reaching 281 million as of 2020. And large-scale irregular migration has strained the infrastructure, legal systems, and often the social and political fabric of the nations encountering it. This personal reflection, written by a former high-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, examines the strategic lessons that can be learned from recent migration events that have severely stressed border authorities in North America and Europe. Among the topics it explores are: the changing nature of borders and how nation states enforce them; the value of networks and cooperation within government, internationally, and with nongovernmental partners; the challenges of migrant smuggling and trafficking; and the importance of messaging and advanced preparation.
Topic:
Development, Migration, Law Enforcement, Border Control, European Union, Refugees, and Smuggling
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

32. Why U.S. Immigration Barriers Matter for the Global Advancement of Science

Author:
Ruchi Agarwal and Patrick Gaule
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
While talent can be born anywhere, few places specialize in nurturing it. Accordingly, talented individuals have pursued opportunities abroad for centuries. For instance, Aristotle moved from Northern Greece to Athens to attend Plato’s Academy and then to Macedonia to tutor a young Alexander the Great. More recently, the United States has emerged as a hub for foreign talent, playing an outsized role in the global knowledge network of scientific activity in recent decades. However, the recent introduction of restrictive immigration policies in the United States may adversely impact scientific activity. While studies have examined the potential negative impact of restrictive U.S. immigration policies on U.S. competitiveness in science and innovation, there has been less focus on understanding how U.S. immigration barriers may in turn impact scientific activity globally. In this context, our work studies the impact of U.S. immigration barriers on global knowledge production and examines which policy actions are more likely to help advance the global knowledge frontier.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Immigration, Border Control, and Research and Development
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

33. Obscure but Powerful: Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy through Attorney General Referral and Review

Author:
Sarah Pierce
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Over the course of four years, the Trump administration used a wide range of executive action tools to make sweeping changes to the U.S. immigration system. Among them is an obscure but powerful bureaucratic authority known as the attorney general’s “referral and review” power. By allowing the attorney general to review and overrule decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the immigration appellate body within the U.S. Department of Justice), referral and review makes it possible to alter or reinterpret the application of immigration laws—at times with wide-reaching effects. While the frequent and consequential use of this power by Trump-era attorneys general drew increased attention to it, many of the concerns that have been raised about it predate the Trump administration. Among them: that it allows the attorney general—the country’s chief law enforcement officer—to intercede in individual cases, raising questions about the independence of the immigration adjudication system; that referral and review decisions are made with minimal procedural safeguards or transparency; and that the power has remained in the Justice Department, even as most immigration functions were moved to the Department of Homeland Security when that agency was created nearly two decades ago. This report explores how referral and review has evolved over time, including under the Trump administration, whose attorneys general referred more cases to themselves for review than those in any prior administration, Republican or Democrat. The report also looks closely at the two areas of U.S. immigration policy most affected by Trump-era referral and review decisions: the U.S. asylum system and court procedures, including how immigration judges manage their own dockets. Finally, it looks ahead to how the power might be used in the future and recommends ways to improve its use and placement within the immigration bureaucracy.
Topic:
Immigration, Law, Border Control, and Asylum
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

34. The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Border Communities: The Case of Chipinge – Zimbabwe

Author:
Owen Mangiza and Joshua Chakawa
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD)
Abstract:
This Policy and Practice Brief (PPB) discusses the implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on border communities, principally in relation to border controls by governments and trans-border activities by community members living close to the border in Zimbabwe.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Government, Border Control, Pandemic, Community, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Africa and Zimbabwe

35. Cruel, costly and ineffective: The failure of offshore processing in Australia

Author:
Madeline Gleeson and Natasha Yacoub
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
‘Offshore processing’ is a method of border control which involves forcibly transferring asylum seekers to third States to have their claims processed.1 It is not a new phenomenon. 2 However, whereas offshore processing was previously viewed as ‘a significant exception to the normal practice’,3 Australia’s development of the policy over the past two decades has generated significant political interest elsewhere, such that other countries are looking to replicate it. 4 In light of this development, this policy brief critically assesses Australia’s experience of offshore processing against its stated policy objectives and other indicators of success or failure, including its cost, lawfulness and impact on the people subject to it. For most of the past two decades, offshore processing has been a hallmark of Australia’s approach to deterring people from seeking asylum by boat. First established by a conservative Coalition government in 2001, the policy operated until 2008 when it was dismantled by the new Labor government as an abject policy failure. Despite that assessment, Labor re-established offshore processing in 2012 following an increase in the number of people trying to reach Australia by boat, and a political impasse in Parliament as to how this should be addressed. In its second iteration, offshore processing saw asylum seekers transferred to Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) for two years, under shifting policy settings, before Australia ceased new transfers in 2014 and reoriented its border protection policies to maritime interception. While offshore processing formally remains part of Australia’s asylum policy in 2021, Australia has spent considerable effort and money since 2014 trying unsuccessfully to extract itself from its arrangements in Nauru and PNG. This policy brief explores the objectives and practice of offshore processing since 2012, highlighting four distinct phases of the policy. It analyses the failure of offshore processing to achieve its border protection, humanitarian and foreign policy aims. In particular, it finds that the Australian model of offshore processing: • does not deter irregular maritime migration, ‘stop the boats’ or ‘break the business model’ of people smuggling networks; • does not ‘save lives at sea’ or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and • suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty.
Topic:
Border Control, Offshoring, Migration Policy, and Asylum Seekers
Political Geography:
Australia

36. Transnational Impacts of Muslim Bans and US Sanctions

Author:
Azadeh Shahshahani
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR), Rutgers University School of Law
Abstract:
This lecture focuses on the harm that US sanctions as well as the Muslim Ban have caused Iranians and Iranian-Americans, and ways in which the public can help put an end to US threats of aggression and sanctions as well as work towards repealing the Muslim Ban and other discriminatory policies.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sanctions, Border Control, Immigrants, Discrimination, and Immigration Policy
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

37. Reverse Migration to Mexico Led to US Undocumented Population Decline: 2010 to 2018

Author:
Robert Warren
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This report presents estimates of the undocumented population residing in the United States in 2018, highlighting demographic changes since 2010. The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) compiled these estimates based primarily on information collected in the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). The annual CMS estimates of undocumented residents for 2010 to 2018 include all the detailed characteristics collected in the ACS. [1] A summary of the CMS estimation procedures, as well as a discussion of the plausibility of the estimates, is provided in the Appendix. The total undocumented population in the United States continued to decline in 2018, primarily because large numbers of undocumented residents returned to Mexico. From 2010 to 2018, a total of 2.6 million Mexican nationals left the US undocumented population; [2] about 1.1 million, or 45 percent of them, returned to Mexico voluntarily. The decline in the US undocumented population from Mexico since 2010 contributed to declines in the undocumented population in many states. Major findings include the following: The total US undocumented population was 10.6 million in 2018, a decline of about 80,000 from 2017, and a drop of 1.2 million, or 10 percent, since 2010. Since 2010, about two-thirds of new arrivals have overstayed temporary visas and one-third entered illegally across the border. The undocumented population from Mexico fell from 6.6 million in 2010 to 5.1 million in 2018, a decline of 1.5 million, or 23 percent. Total arrivals in the US undocumented population from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — despite high numbers of Border Patrol apprehensions of these populations in recent years — remained at about the same level in 2018 as in the previous four years. [3] The total undocumented population in California was 2.3 million in 2018, a decline of about 600,000 compared to 2.9 million in 2010. The number from Mexico residing in the state dropped by 605,000 from 2010 to 2018. The undocumented population in New York State fell by 230,000, or 25 percent, from 2010 to 2018. Declines were largest for Jamaica (−51 percent), Trinidad and Tobago (−50 percent), Ecuador (−44 percent), and Mexico (−34 percent). The results shown here reinforce the view that improving social and economic conditions in sending countries would not only reduce pressure at the border but also likely cause a large decline in the undocumented population. Two countries had especially large population changes — in different directions — in the 2010 to 2018 period. The population from Poland dropped steadily, from 93,000 to 39,000, while the population from Venezuela increased from 65,000 to 172,000. Almost all the increase from Venezuela occurred after 2014.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, North America, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador

38. What’s Wrong with Temporary Protected Status and How to Fix It: Exploring a Complementary Protection Regime

Author:
Bill Frelick
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) became part of the US protection regime in 1990 to expand protection beyond what had been available under the US Refugee Act of 1980, which had limited asylum to those who met the refugee definition from the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention. The TPS statute authorized the attorney general to designate foreign countries for TPS based on armed conflict, environmental disasters, and other extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent designated nationals from returning in safety. While providing blanket protection that very likely has saved lives, TPS has nonetheless proven to be a blunt instrument that has frustrated advocates on both sides of the larger immigration debate. This article evaluates the purpose and effectiveness of the TPS statute and identifies inadequacies in the TPS regime and related protection gaps in the US asylum system. It argues that TPS has not proven to be an effective mechanism for the United States to protect foreigners from generalized conditions of danger in their home countries. It calls for changing the US protection regime to make it more responsive to the risks many asylum seekers actually face by creating a broader “complementary protection” standard and a more effective procedure for assessing individual protection claims, while reserving “temporary protection” for rare situations of mass influx that overwhelm the government’s capacity to process individual asylum claims. The article looks at alternative models for complementary protection from other jurisdictions, and shows how the US asylum and TPS system (in contrast to most other jurisdictions) fails to provide a mechanism for protecting arriving asylum seekers who do not qualify as refugees but who nevertheless would be at real risk of serious harm based on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment or because of situations of violence or other exceptional circumstances, including natural or human-made disasters or other serious events that disturb public order, that would threaten their lives or personal security. The article proposes that the United States adopt an individualized complementary protection standard for arriving asylum seekers who are not able to meet the 1951 Refugee Convention standard but who would face a serious threat to life or physical integrity if returned because of a real risk of (1) cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; (2) violence; or (3) exceptional situations, for which there is no adequate domestic remedy.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Citizenship, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

39. The Use of Executive Orders and Proclamations to Create Immigration Policy: Trump in Historical Perspective

Author:
Michele Waslin
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This article examines presidential immigration policy making through executive orders (EOs) and proclamations. Donald Trump’s overall volume of EOs has been remarkably similar to that of other presidents, while his number of proclamations has been relatively high. His immigration-related EOs and proclamations, however, diverge from those of his predecessors in several ways. Of the 56 immigration-related EOs and 64 proclamations issued since 1945, Trump has issued 10 and nine, respectively. Overall, about 1 percent of all EOs and proclamations during this period have been immigration related, compared to 8 percent of Trump’s EOs and 2.4 percent of Trump’s proclamations. In a sharp departure from previous presidents, a greater share of his EOs and proclamations have been substantive policy-making documents intended to restrict admissions of legal immigrants and increase enforcement along the border and in the interior of the United States. This article explores Trump’s unorthodox use of executive tools to make immigration policy, circumventing Congress and even members of his own administration. It recommends that: Congress should hold oversight hearings and should consider revoking or modifying EOs and proclamations that have been issued pursuant to the authority provided to the president by Congress, as opposed to those based on the executive’s constitutional authority. Advocacy organizations should continue to challenge the president’s executive actions, the insufficient process and consultation leading to them, their statutory or constitutional justification, and their impact. Congress should take an inventory of the immigration authorities it has delegated, both explicitly and implicitly, to the executive branch and determine when this authority can and should be limited. Congress should pass legislation to update and reform the US immigration system, and thus clarify its intentions regarding US immigration law, policy, and executive authority in this area.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Domestic Politics, and Federalism
Political Geography:
United States, North America, Washington, and D.C.

40. Illegal Immigration and Crime in Texas

Author:
Alex Nowrasteh, Andrew C. Forrester, and Michelangelo Landgrave
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Donald J. Trump launched his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in June 2015 by comments on illegal immigrants and the crime they commit in the United States. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you,” he said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.” A few weeks after Trump’s announcement, 32‐​year‐​old Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant Jose Inez Garcıa Zarate in San Francisco, California. Although Zarate was later acquitted of all murder and manslaughter charges due to mistakes made by the prosecutor, his shooting of Steinle seemed to support Trump’s worry about illegal immigrants causing a crime spree and helped win him the election in 2016.
Topic:
Crime, Immigration, and Border Control
Political Geography:
North America, Texas, and United States of America

41. A new Gaza: Turkey’s border policy in northern Syria

Author:
Asli Aydıntaşbaş
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
Turkey now controls a long stretch of Syrian territory along its southern border that hosts nearly four million people, most of them Sunni Arabs. The challenges for Turkey there include a difficult balancing act with Russia, the huge financial costs of direct rule, the presence of radical Islamist factions, and the lack of a modus vivendi with the Kurds. Turkey faces the risk of the “Gazafication” of the area – the emergence of a militarily controlled territory that is perennially poverty-stricken and unstable. EU member states can find ways to cooperate with Turkey to support stabilisation in parts of the safe zone, without violating their interests and core principles. They should single out the Euphrates Shield Zone for stabilisation work, on the understanding that other areas captured from the Kurds are politically sensitive for European governments and voters alike. Europe should aim to strike a grand bargain with Turkey: in return for targeted European reconstruction aid to the safe zone, the country would lift its veto on stabilisation in Kurdish-controlled areas, allow trade between these zones, or agree to Kurdish participation in the UN-led political process on Syria.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, Border Control, Geopolitics, and Syrian War
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, Gaza, Syria, and Idlib

42. What North Korea’s Coronavirus Measures Say About Its System

Author:
Benjamin Katzeff Silberstein
Publication Date:
02-2020
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:
The North Korean government response to the coronavirus has been extreme, but prudent and reasonable in context. It has closed the border to China almost entirely to both goods and people though surely some transports are still getting through. No travel is allowed to or from China although there must be exceptions to this rule as well. The state (under the banner of the Red Cross, whose branch in North Korea operates as a government entity) has dispatched people around the country to inform people about the virus. No reports have been confirmed at this time of writing, but exile journalists based in South Korea have reported several deaths from the virus from North Korea. Its actions have been blunt and all-encompassing, mainly because the state lacks the necessary capacity to act differently. North Korea doesn’t have the sort of equipment required to monitor people coming from China or to test people at the pace required.
Topic:
Government, Health, Authoritarianism, Border Control, Coronavirus, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Asia and North Korea

43. European migration and border management: Future reforms reassert symbolic solidarity

Author:
Saila Heinikoski
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In 2021, major symbolic changes are expected to be made to European migration and border policies, as Frontex standing corps is established in January and regulations for the New Pact on Migration and Asylum should be adopted by June. The Migration Pact proposed by the Commission in September 2020 would obligate member states to help each other in the event of migratory pressure, disembarkations or situations of crisis. Despite “mandatory solidarity” in the New Pact, there is no common migration policy, but the recognition rates continue to vary from country to country. Whereas common solutions to migration and asylum policy have not been found since 2015, countries were quick to adopt a Regulation on the European Border and Coast Guard 2019/1896, which stipulates the progressive deployment of Frontex’s own 10,000 European border guards from 2021 onwards. Both migration and border management reforms are symbolically important for European integration, but member states retain their sovereign competence to decide who can stay and who should return.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Asylum, and Integration
Political Geography:
Europe

44. A Study and Analysis of the Treatment of Mexican Unaccompanied Minors by Customs and Border Protection

Author:
Kiera Coulter, Samantha Sabo, Daniel E. Martinez, Katelyn Chisholm, Kelsey Gonzalez, Edrick Villalobos, Diego Garcia, Taylor Levy, and Jeremy Slack
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The routine human rights abuses and due process violations of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have contributed to a mounting humanitarian and legal crisis along the US–Mexico border. In the United States, the treatment of UAC is governed by laws, policies, and standards drawn from the Flores Settlement, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), and CBP procedures and directives, which are intended to ensure UAC’s protection, well-being, and ability to pursue relief from removal, such as asylum. As nongovernmental organizations and human rights groups have documented, however, CBP has repeatedly violated these legal standards and policies, and subjected UAC to abuses and rights violations. This article draws from surveys of 97 recently deported Mexican UAC, which examine their experiences with US immigration authorities. The study finds that Mexican UAC are detained in subpar conditions, are routinely not screened for fear of return to their home countries or for human trafficking, and are not sufficiently informed about the deportation process. The article recommends that CBP should take immediate steps to improve the treatment of UAC, that CBP and other entities responsible for the care of UAC be monitored to ensure their compliance with US law and policy, and that Mexican UAC be afforded the same procedures and protection under the TVPRA as UAC from noncontiguous states.
Topic:
Human Rights, Migration, Border Control, Children, Youth, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

45. Immigration and U.S. National Security: The State of Play Since 9/11

Author:
Amy Pope
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The wide-ranging reforms that followed the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States significantly strengthened the national security capabilities of immigration agencies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created to bridge gaps between the intelligence community and immigration functions. Yet, the restructuring was not comprehensive, and threats to national security continue to evolve. In addition, while the tendency to frame immigration policy through a security lens predates the Trump administration, this now routine practice clouds the picture of who and what pose a threat. This report takes a critical look at the increasingly complex security threats U.S. immigration policy must manage—from public-health emergencies, such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, to the activities of transnational criminal organizations. It assesses the tools available to respond to these threats, and the successes and challenges to date in innovating as risks evolve. To do so, it traces the evolution of the country’s immigration and border control system, with a focus on how institutions and processes have developed since 9/11. While the U.S. government has made important progress in shoring up weaknesses in its defenses at the nexus of immigration processes and national security, this analysis identifies a number of critical gaps that remain—from a need to more clearly define mission space, to effectively sharing information and transitioning to electronic-based systems. Under the Trump administration, resources and political will have also been steered away from core DHS national security missions, including disaster response, cyber security, and general policy and planning in favor of immigration enforcement measures focused on low-risk unauthorized migrants and asylum seekers. The challenge ahead, the author writes, is to “rebuild the department’s credibility at home and with foreign partners, while recalibrating resource allocations and strengthening its capacity to respond to and manage the most pressing national security threats.” This report is part of MPI’s multiyear Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, which aims to generate a big-picture, evidence-driven vision for the role immigration can and should play in America’s future. To learn more about the initiative and read related research, check out the initiative's home page.
Topic:
International Cooperation, National Security, Immigration, Infrastructure, Governance, Border Control, Refugees, Resettlement, and Asylum
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

46. Managing the Pandemic and Its Aftermath: Economies, Jobs, and International Migration in the Age of COVID-19

Author:
Demetrios G. Papademetriou
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic’s immediate costs, measured in lives lost and damaged, have been appalling and continue to rise. In addition, its effects on individuals’ livelihoods and economies around the world have been deep and are likely to be long lasting. While saving lives was the near-exclusive focus during the first phase of the crisis, governments are now trying to strike a delicate balance between preventing further economic damage by reopening parts of their economies, while managing the obvious health risks of doing so. In the international mobility and migration arenas—policy areas enormously affected by the health and economic effects of the pandemic—this reflection considers both how these fields have fared thus far and the challenges that lay ahead. It first examines how measures put in place to stop the spread of the virus have affected family, labor, and humanitarian migration. It then highlights the thorny questions, as well as some opportunities, policymakers will face going forward. Among the critical questions: How will countries protect those most vulnerable to the disease and to economic precariousness? Will this become a moment in which governments seek to recalibrate the global trading system, aiming to increase economic self-reliance without falling into protectionism? And will the pandemic prompt countries to rethink aspects of their immigration systems, including how they screen arrivals, the number and types of foreign workers admitted, and the strategies for helping newcomers integrate into a new society?
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Refugees, Economy, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

47. Building a New Regional Migration System: Redefining U.S. Cooperation with Mexico and Central America

Author:
Andrew Selee and Ariel G. Ruiz Soto
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Migration between the United States and neighboring countries to the south is an enduring if ever-shifting phenomenon. While the COVID-19 pandemic and measures put in place to stop the spread of the virus have severely limited mobility, longer-standing questions about how best to manage regional migration remain as important as ever. These include how to address the mixed movement of unauthorized economic migrants and those fleeing persecution, with many families and unaccompanied children among them, and how to facilitate the legal movement of workers to meet labor demand and make the most of the region’s human capital. The Trump administration has largely focused on enhancing border controls and sharply narrowing access to asylum at the border, with the aim of deterring migration and turning back those who arrive without authorization to enter. Yet this heavily enforcement-focused strategy is unlikely to be sustainable in the long run. This report puts forward another approach, one that reflect the many faces of migration through the region and that is rooted in closer cooperation with Mexico and Central American countries. Its key element are: expanding opportunities for legal movement by extending seasonal work visas to nationals of countries in Central America that have the greatest migration pressures; re-establishing asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, but streamlining processes to ensure fair and timely decisions; professionalizing border enforcement in Mexico and the United States to make it both more effective and more humane; and investing in economic and institutional development in Central America to address the forces driving people to leave their homes. While a transition from one approach to another cannot happen overnight—and indeed careful sequencing of policy changes will be essential to avoid triggering a surge in migration throughout the region—it is essential if the United States and its partners are to move the needle towards safer, more orderly, and legal migration.
Topic:
Development, Migration, Regional Cooperation, Border Control, Refugees, and Economy
Political Geography:
Central America, North America, Mexico, and United States of America

48. One Year after the U.S.-Mexico Agreement: Reshaping Mexico’s Migration Policies

Author:
Ariel G. Ruiz Soto
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
On June 7, 2019, after months of heightened Central American migration through Mexico to the United States, the Mexican and U.S. governments signed an agreement to work together to manage the migration of Central American asylum seekers and other migrants. This ushered in an intense period of policy and institutional change that is reshaping Mexico’s immigration enforcement and humanitarian protection systems. After being threatened with steep tariffs on Mexican goods, Mexico agreed to step up enforcement efforts, accepted the expansion of the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP, also known as Remain in Mexico) along the U.S.-Mexico border, and promised to increase collaboration with the United States to disrupt migrant-smuggling networks. In turn, the United States pledged to expedite the asylum cases of migrants waiting in Mexico under MPP and invest in economic development efforts in southern Mexico and Central America to address the drivers of migration. While the full impact of the deal will likely take years to unfold, this policy brief takes stock of what has changed in the first year since its signing. It charts trends in migrant apprehensions and returns by Mexican authorities, and the volume of asylum applications filed in Mexico. The brief also examines challenges that have intensified during this time, including the precarious conditions many migrants face while waiting in Mexican border communities for their U.S. asylum cases to be heard and the COVID-19 pandemic that hit in early 2020. Looking ahead, the brief highlights opportunities for further policy development.
Topic:
Treaties and Agreements, Immigration, Border Control, Refugees, Asylum, Deportation, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Central America, North America, Mexico, and United States of America

49. Venezuelan Migration, Crime, and Misperceptions: A Review of Data from Colombia, Peru, and Chile

Author:
Dany Bahar, Brian Dooley, and Andrew Selee
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
More than 5 million Venezuelans have left their country, and the majority—more than 4 million—have moved elsewhere in Latin America and the Caribbean. While some politicians and pundits have claimed the new arrivals are leading to an uptick in crime, few studies conducted in the region have examined whether and what type of relationship exists between immigration and crime. This issue brief explores these questions by looking at migration and crime data from the three countries with the largest number of Venezuelan migrants: Colombia, Peru, and Chile. To do so, it draws on a mix of national and subnational datasets, some publicly available and others obtained by the authors through requests to government agencies. Analysis of data from 2019 suggests that, for the most part, Venezuelan migrants commit substantially fewer crimes—and certainly fewer violent crimes—than the native born, relative to their share in the overall population. This signals that public perceptions that immigration is driving up crime rates are misplaced. In discussing the policy implications of this analysis, the authors point to areas for further research and policy discussion, including the need to pay special attention to border regions, in which migration and crime dynamics often differ from those elsewhere in the country, and the value of actively addressing newcomers’ legal status and labor market integration.
Topic:
Crime, Migration, Border Control, Employment, Trafficking, Immigrants, and Integration
Political Geography:
Colombia, South America, Venezuela, Chile, and Peru

50. Rethinking the U.S.-Mexico Border Immigration Enforcement System: A Policy Road Map

Author:
Doris Meissner
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The immigration enforcement regime at the U.S.-Mexico border offers a vivid example of how existing policies, laws, and resource investments are markedly out of step with new migration realities and future needs. A border enforcement system designed to address the once-dominant flows of single adults from Mexico seeking to enter the United States illegally for work is ill prepared to deal with more complex mixed flows of families and unaccompanied children from Central America, some seeking humanitarian protection, others opportunity. Consistent with its world view of immigration as threat, the Trump administration has responded by shutting down any meaningful access to humanitarian protection and asylum, by invoking a public health authority to expel more than 205,000 arrivals during the COVID-19 pandemic, and by constructing hundreds of miles of border barriers. Yet these strategies cannot succeed over the long term, nor are they consistent with U.S. law and international agreements and principles on protection. In this road map, MPI Senior Fellow and former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner Doris Meissner outlines some of the steps to a more effective approach, one that builds on border management as an enduring function. Rather than a sole focus on thwarting illegal arrivals, successful border management requires cross-agency and cross-governmental collaboration that marries effective border security with fair, humane enforcement. This report is part of MPI’s multiyear Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, which is generating a big-picture, evidence-driven vision for the role immigration can and should play in America’s future. To learn more about the initiative and read related research, check out the initiative’s home page.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Immigration, Governance, Border Control, Asylum, and Deportation
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

51. At the Starting Gate: The Incoming Biden Administration’s Immigration Plans

Author:
Doris Meissner and Michelle Mittelstadt
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
President-elect Joe Biden pledged during the campaign to reverse some of the most restrictive immigration actions undertaken during Donald Trump’s four years in office, including family separation and a travel ban on nationals from majority-Muslim countries. He also vowed to temporarily halt deportations, reinstate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, increase refugee admissions, and halt construction of the border wall. This policy brief outlines some of the incoming administration’s top immigration priorities and examines challenges and opportunities ahead. Drawing on existing and forthcoming policy ideas from MPI’s Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy initiative, the brief sketches several proposals that could begin to shape a U.S. immigration system that advances the national interest going forward. The near-total shutdown of asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, for example, does not represent a long-term strategy nor is it consistent with longstanding U.S. values. Effective long-term solutions to deal with mixed flows of economic and humanitarian migrants entail processes to provide fair, efficient processing of asylum cases, including by having the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Division oversee the merits of border asylum cases to completion—an MPI recommendation the Biden campaign embraced. The brief, among other proposals, also recommends the creation of multiagency reception centers near the border for one-stop screening of arrivals and speedy turnover to the relevant agencies.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Border Control, Employment, COVID-19, and Labor Market
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

52. Immigration Policy as Foreign Policy

Author:
Howard Duncan
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
Immigration policy has taken centre stage in the social sciences over the past 20 years. Despite the proliferation of articles and books in this field, very little attention has been paid to immigration policy as foreign policy. It is domestic policy that prevails in the literature, most notably about the effects of immigration on destination societies. This article distinguishes the domestic and foreign policy aspects of immigration policy, acknowledging as it does so that foreign policy is virtually always an expression of national self-interest. It concludes with observations on the realist and idealist/liberal approaches to international relations theory including with respect to the recently adopted United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration and the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees. Its purpose is to draw attention to this neglected aspect of immigration policy and to encourage others to explore it in greater detail, from the perspectives of both individual states and the world’s international institutions.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Migration, Sovereignty, United Nations, Immigration, and Border Control
Political Geography:
Global Focus

53. The Traumas of Ethiopian Male Migrants: Re-integration efforts must put vulnerabilities at the centre

Author:
Adam Moe Fejerskov and Meron Zeleke
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
Every year, several hundred thousand migrants return to Ethiopia, where they struggle to integrate back into society. They must deal with the traumatic events of their journeys while also facing social stigma and exclusion. KEY FINDINGS ■ All Ethiopian migrants using irregular routes have experienced or witnessed violence and trauma ■ Sexual violence and abuse are widespread among Ethiopian male migrants yet taboo, and psychosocial support should address the vulnerabilities of men ■ Livelihood interventions should address the problem of social stigma ■ Re-integration is difficult as social positions and relationships will never be as they were before migration
Topic:
Development, Migration, Border Control, and Fragile States
Political Geography:
Africa and Ethiopia

54. From legal to administrative subsidiarity: Diagnosing enforcement of EU border control

Author:
Adriaan Schout and Ingrid Blankesteijn
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
Enforcement is a major challenge in the EU’s multilevel system. Solving the tensions between sovereignty and interdependencies requires internalisation of the core values and objectives embodied in EU legislation. Internalisation depends on strong involvement in all phases of policy-making through teamwork. States in the EU’s multilevel administrative system have to regard themselves as fully responsible for EU policies. High levels of interaction among experts in enforcement contribute to the required professional cultures. In organisational terms, a multilevel (subsidiarity-based) administrative system is based on cooperation in which the centre (the Commission and/or EU agencies) assumes essential managerial roles without eroding the integrity of the member countries. Subsidiarity is generally seen as a legal principle. This paper presents the practical governance consequences of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is well grounded in the EU treaties. Yet, the implications are little understood by policymakers when it comes to creating the conditions for effective EU policies at the shop floor of national administrations.
Topic:
International Relations, Law Enforcement, Border Control, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe

55. New Gaza Crossing Raises Questions About Blockade Policies

Author:
Neri Zilber
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The items being moved from Egypt through Salah al-Din Gate underline the contradictions and long-term unsustainability of the current stalemate regarding Gaza assistance. The Gaza Strip has been blockaded for more than a decade now, owing primarily to the violent takeover and continued militant rejectionism of the territory’s Hamas rulers. Even after certain restrictions were eased after the 2014 Gaza war, Israel and Egypt maintained tight limits on the entry of goods into the coastal enclave. This policy began to fray in early 2018 as conditions inside Gaza further deteriorated, culminating in the “Great March of Return” border demonstrations and short-lived rounds of escalation between Israel and Hamas. Indirect negotiations over a long-term truce have since provided some relief, yet the impact of one of the most noteworthy concessions has been under-examined—namely, the opening in 2018 of Salah al-Din Gate, a commercial border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. This crossing puts the lie to the narrative of a “besieged” Gaza, yet also raises questions about Israel’s continuing blockade policy and Hamas’s pretensions to be a responsible ruling entity.
Topic:
Border Control, Borders, Trade, and Hamas
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and Egypt

56. The Real Solution: Regional Response Rather than Border Closures, Mass Incarceration, and Refugee Returns Share

Author:
Eleanor Acer
Publication Date:
04-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
The Trump Administration has purposefully mismanaged the refugee and humanitarian challenges pushing people to flee political repression, human rights abuses, economic deprivation, and climate displacement in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Trump Administration policies have actually made things worse, cutting programs countering displacement, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, encouraging crossings between official ports of entry, and punishing people seeking U.S. protection through punitive and traumatizing family separations and detention. These harmful policies have aggravated humanitarian challenges—deliberately provoking disorder, chaos, and confusion. Congress must take swift action to push real solutions, and over the longer term the next administration will need to ensure these solutions are enduring. Congress should champion a new initiative to strengthen protection across the region. This initiative must truly tackle the rights abuses and deprivations pushing people to flee, greatly enhance the capacity of Mexico and other countries to provide asylum and host refugees, and set a strong example at home by upholding America’s own refugee protection commitments. Upholding human rights commitments is not only the right thing to do, it is also in the U.S. national interest. These commitments have saved millions of lives and encourage countries around the world—including front-line countries that host the vast majority of the world’s refugees—to continue hosting refugees. The heroic work of many Americans—working and volunteering with faith-based shelters, community groups, legal representation, and other organizations—should be supported. They are, and always have been, an essential part of the solution. The measures outlined below would restore order to the region and the U.S. border while upholding the United States’ legal and humanitarian commitments. Key steps include: 1. Address the actual causes of displacement in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The United States should increase support for effective programs that counter violence, strengthen justice systems, spur economic opportunities, and safeguard communities from climate displacement, so that people do not need to flee in search of safety or survival. In addition, U.S. diplomats must press the leaders of these countries to safeguard rights, support anti-corruption efforts, and address abuses from security forces. 2. Strongly support increased asylum and refugee-hosting capacity in Mexico and other Latin American countries, so that these countries—which are already hosting growing numbers—have the ability to continue accepting refugees. Asylum filings in Mexico, for example, have increased by over 700 percent since 2014. The United States should sharply increase support for the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) to increase regional capacity, to develop strong asylum and refugee protection systems, and to better integrate refugees in Mexico and the region. U.S. diplomacy, law enforcement cooperation, and rule of law assistance should be leveraged to reduce violence against refugees and migrants in Mexico. In addition, the United States should launch a regional resettlement effort, providing some refugees with routes to safety in the United States as well as other countries, and relaunch the Central American Minors (CAM) program to allow some children with family in the United States to come to our country safely. 3. Combat smuggling in the region while safeguarding access to protection. U.S. agencies must ensure anti-smuggling and anti-trafficking efforts do not block escape from dangerous countries and include measures to safeguard human rights and access to asylum. By strengthening asylum, resettlement, and work visas in the region, more refugees and migrants will have alternate routes to protection. 4. Manage U.S. asylum arrivals effectively through a genuine humanitarian response that upholds U.S. law and provides order, including: Restore timely and orderly asylum processing at ports of entry and ensure humane conditions at all Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facilities; End the Remain in Mexico scheme and “metering” policies that push people to cross between ports of entry and put the lives of asylum seekers at risk as they wait in danger in Mexico; Support and fund NGOs and shelters in the United States—including faith-based groups that have been effectively partnering with DHS in U.S. cities along the border—to address humanitarian needs, a typical and necessary move in managing refugee arrivals; and Launch a community-based case management program that supports appearance, as recommended by ICE’s own advisory group, rather than jailing asylum seekers for even longer. 5. Restore order through measures providing timely, fair, and effective U.S. adjudications, including: Increase, rather than “get rid of,” immigration judges and interpreters. In order to understand what is being said in their courtrooms and ensure due process, judges must be supported by interpreters. And, since a judge set on furthering a politicized agenda is worse than no judge at all, safeguards against politicized court hiring must be immediately restored. Additional measures to support judges include: increased recruitment of interpreters who speak indigenous dialects to assure accurate hearings and prevent continued adjournments, ensuring the time necessary to gather evidence to prove cases, and rejecting absurd schemes that would entrust protection determinations to border agents or rush cases through adjudications; Support a major legal representation initiative to ensure eligible refugees receive protection at the earliest stages of the process and institute universal legal orientation presentations (LOPs)—including for families released from DHS/Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody—to explain appearance obligations, the legal system, and how to secure counsel; Enable more cases to be granted efficiently at the USCIS asylum office by providing initial decision-making authority to the asylum office in all asylum cases, changing policies and practices that have prompted asylum officers to refer, rather than grant, cases that meet the asylum criteria— unnecessarily adding them to the immigration court caseload—and assure the availability of an application process for “cancellation of removal” relief so these cases do not clog the asylum system; Make the immigration courts independent, as the American Bar Association recommends, to secure due process and judicial independence, ensuring that political appointees can no longer attempt to improperly influence the courts’ decisions in asylum and other cases; and Reverse Trump Administration efforts to prevent refugees from receiving asylum in the United States—including former Attorney General Sessions’ ruling attempting to deny protection to women who have fled domestic violence and families escaping from deadly gangs. The measures outlined above would restore order and bring about real and enduring solutions. As the president and top Trump Administration officials are doubling down on punitive policies and political rhetoric that fail to solve these challenges, Congress must demand effective strategies that are consistent with America’s ideals.
Topic:
Human Rights, Prisons/Penal Systems, and Border Control
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, North America, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador

57. Protecting Refugees and Restoring Order: Real Solutions to the Humanitarian Crisis

Author:
Eleanor Acer
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
Families and children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—fleeing human rights abuses, deadly violence, climate displacement and economic deprivations—continue to seek refuge in the United States and other countries. This is a regional humanitarian crisis—a manageable one that should be addressed using proven strategies, as are humanitarian challenges around the world. Yet instead of taking the steps necessary to address the crisis, the Trump Administration is making things worse, threatening cuts to effective programs that could reduce the problems forcing people to flee, sending refugees back to danger, canceling rather than expanding case management, and cutting orderly processing at ports of entry, increasing crossings between ports of entry. The Trump Administration’s actions appear designed to generate chaos. The regional crisis requires real solutions in several key areas: tackling the rights abuses and deprivations pushing people to flee, enhancing the capacity of Mexico and other countries to provide asylum and host refugees, and managing U.S. refugee protection requests in fair, effective and orderly ways—ways that uphold America’s refugee laws and treaty commitments. Most immediately, the United States must end the dysfunction at the border by launching a public-private humanitarian initiative and a long overdue case management system, which would keep asylum seekers informed and ensure they appear for their hearings. At the same time, the U.S. government should fix the asylum and immigration court adjudication systems to provide fair, non-politicized, and timely decisions. To effectively manage border and adjudication systems, the United States must upgrade to manage new realities, instead of pushing mass detention and other outdated, inadequate and ineffective responses that are also costly, cruel, and inhumane. As part of this strategy, the United States should launch a major initiative, with other countries, to expand regional protection so that Mexico and others, which are already hosting growing numbers, have the ability to continue accepting refugees. Critically, the United States and other donors should increase support for efforts to build the capacity of these countries to provide asylum, host, protect, and integrate refugees. In addition, the United States should work with other resettlement countries to launch a robust regional initiative that provides orderly routes to protection in the United States and other third countries. The United States must also advance a targeted strategy—leveraging both diplomacy and aid - to address the actual root causes of migration and displacement in the Northern Triangle. This should focus on programs that reduce violence, combat corruption, strengthen rule of law, decrease femicide and other gender-based harms, address gang violence, protect vulnerable populations, and promote sustainable economic development. By helping to build real protections for women, children, LGBTQ, indigenous, and other at-risk people in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, while expanding protection of refugees in Mexico and other countries, this strategy will ultimately reduce the numbers fleeing to the United States. The measures outlined below would restore order to the region and the U.S. border while upholding U.S. legal and humanitarian commitments. Congress—and over the longer term, the next administration—must push real solutions.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Prisons/Penal Systems, Border Control, and Refugees
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, North America, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador

58. Is Regular Migration Safer Migration? Insights from Thailand

Author:
Maryann Bylander
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
In the context of sharply increasing levels of international migration, development actors across Southeast Asia have begun to focus their attention on programming intended to make migration safer for aspiring and current migrant workers. These projects, however, typically begin with the assumption that more regular, orderly migration is also safer for migrants, an idea built into the language of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Compact on Migration. This article questions this assumption. It takes as its starting point the observation that migrant workers who move through legal channels do not systematically experience better outcomes among a range of indicators. Based on data collected from Cambodian, Burmese, Laotian, and Vietnamese labor migrants recently returned from Thailand, this work highlights the limits of regular migration to provide meaningfully “safer” experiences. Although migrants moving through regular channels report better pay and working conditions than those who moved through irregular channels, they also systematically report working conditions that do not meet legal standards, and routinely experience contract substitution. In other areas, regular migrants generally fare similarly to or worse than irregular migrants. They are more likely to experience deception and to have written or verbal agreements broken in migration processes. On arrival in Thailand, they routinely have their documents held, and they are more likely than irregular migrants to experience harassment and abuse both in the migration process and at their worksites. They are also more likely to return involuntarily and to struggle with financial insecurity and indebtedness after returning. These findings challenge mainstream development discourses seeking to promote safer migration experiences through expanding migration infrastructure. At the same time, they highlight the need for policymakers, development actors, and migration practitioners to reconsider the conflation of “safe” with “regular and orderly” migration throughout their programming.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Asia, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos

59. US Undocumented Population Continued to Fall from 2016 to 2017 and Visa Overstays Significantly Exceeded Illegal Crossings for the Seventh Consecutive Year

Author:
Robert Warren
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This article presents estimates of the US undocumented population for 2017 derived by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS). It focuses on the steep decline in the undocumented population from Mexico since 2010. While the president has focused the nation’s attention on the border wall, half a million[1] US undocumented residents from Mexico left[2] the undocumented population in 2016 alone, more than three times the number that arrived that year, leading to an overall decrease of nearly 400,000 undocumented residents from Mexico from 2016 to 2017. From 2010 to 2017, the undocumented population from Mexico fell by a remarkable 1.3 million. For the past 10 years, the primary mode of entry for the undocumented population has been to overstay temporary visas. This article provides estimates of the number of noncitizens who overstayed temporary visas and those who entered without inspection (EWIs) in 2016 by the top five countries of origin. Summary of Findings The US undocumented population from Mexico fell by almost 400,000 in 2017. In 2017, for the first time, the population from Mexico constituted less than one half of the total undocumented population. Since 2010, the undocumented population from Mexico has declined by 1.3 million. In California, the undocumented population from Mexico has declined by 26 percent since 2010, falling from 2.0 to 1.5 million; it also dropped by 50 percent in Alabama, and by one third in Georgia, New York, and New Mexico. The undocumented population from Venezuela grew rapidly after 2013, increasing from 60,000 to 145,000 in just four years. Visa overstays have significantly exceeded illegal border crossings during each of the last seven years. Mexico was the leading country for overstays in 2017, with about twice as many as India or China. The estimates presented here were derived by CMS based on information collected in the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey (ACS). The procedures used to derive detailed estimates of the undocumented population are described in Warren (2014). CMS used its annual estimates of the undocumented population for 2010 to 2017 — by state of residence, country of origin, and year of entry — to compile the information described here. Additional methodological details appear as footnotes or as notes in the tables.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

60. Bodily Inertia and the Weaponization of the Sonoran Desert in US Boundary Enforcement: A GIS Modeling of Migration Routes through Arizona’s Altar Valley

Author:
Geoffrey Alan Boyce, Samuel Chambers, and Sarah Launius
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Since 2000, 3,199 human remains of unauthorized migrants have been recovered from the Sonoran Desert of southern Arizona (Coalición de Derechos Humanos 2018). These recovered remains provide only one indicator of the scope of death and suffering affecting unauthorized migrants and their loved ones — something that also includes thousands of individuals whose whereabouts or remains are never encountered (and who therefore remain disappeared) (ibid.). Just as significantly, the number of human remains recovered in southern Arizona has remained consistently high despite a significant decline during the past decade in the number of apprehensions (a figure frequently used as a proxy for unauthorized migration) in the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector. This condition has led scholars and commentators alike to observe an increase in the ratio of deaths to migration, even as unauthorized border crossing fluctuates (Martínez et al. 2014; Reineke and Martínez 2014; International Organization for Migration 2018). In 2012, the southern Arizona humanitarian organization No More Deaths began systematically tracking the use and vandalism of cached drinking water it supplies at 512 sites across an 800-square-mile area of southern Arizona’s Altar Valley, a high-traffic migration corridor bisected by the US–Mexico border (Ferguson, Price, and Parks 2010; Regan 2010; Boyce 2016; Chambers et al. 2019). On an almost daily basis, volunteers with No More Deaths travel this migration corridor to resupply caches of 5–20 gallons of clean drinking water, physically hauling this water by truck and by foot. Each cache site is tracked using a Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinate to make navigation of the remote desert borderlands and the location of dispersed and frequently hidden cache sites easier for new volunteers. In 2015, the authors began working with No More Deaths to digitize and conduct spatial and statistical analysis on the data entered into these desert aid logs, with the express aim of seeing what this archive can reveal about everyday activity related to boundary enforcement and migration, as well as the efficacy of the organization’s activities throughout time. In total, No More Deaths’ desert aid archive contains 4,847 unique entries from March 2012 to December 2015, logging the date when an individual cache site was visited, the number of new water gallons deposited during this visit, the number of water gallons encountered intact and unused from previous resupply visits, the conditions of any empty water bottles left behind (including telltale signs of human vandalism, as well as occasional animal damage), and any subjectively unusual conditions or noteworthy events that were observed at the site or during the visit. Combined, this archive provides remarkable and uncommon insight into subtle changes in migration routes and patterns within the Altar Valley desert corridor, as well as those quotidian forms of harassment and vandalism of water supplies that we believe are intended to amplify and maximize hardship for unauthorized border crossers. Indeed, scholars have long argued that the US Border Patrol’s enforcement strategy of “Prevention Through Deterrence” (PTD), first launched in 1994, is premised on instrumentalizing the difficult climate and terrain of the US–Mexico border by pushing migration routes away from traditional urban crossing areas and into increasingly rugged and remote desert areas (Andreas 2001; Cornelius 2001; Rubio-Goldsmith et al. 2006; Nevins 2008; Martínez et al. 2014; De León 2015; Slack et al. 2016). The Border Patrol’s own policy documents make this case. Observing that migrants “crossing through remote, uninhabited expanses of land and sea along the border can find themselves in mortal danger,” the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS — at the time, the Border Patrol’s parent agency) argued that by channeling migration routes into “harsh terrain less suitable for crossing and more suitable for enforcement,” the Border Patrol would eventually obtain a “tactical advantage” over would-be border crossers (INS 1994, 7). Then–INS Commissioner Doris Meissner later reflected, “We did believe that geography would be an ally for us. It was our sense that the number of people crossing through the Arizona desert would go down to a trickle once people realized what [it’s] like” (quoted in Cornelius 2005). In this article, we conduct geospatial modeling and statistical analysis of No More Deaths’ desert aid archive. This involves measuring changes in the distribution of water use throughout time across the 62 cache sites consistently visited during all four calendar years included in the dataset, and then reading this measurement against a model of ruggedness that incorporates multiple variables including slope, vegetation, “jaggedness,” and ground temperature while controlling for Euclidian distance. Adjusting for seasonal variation and the overall volume of water use, we find a statistically meaningful increase in the cumulative ruggedness score of migration routes associated with cache sites during the four calendar years included in No More Deaths’ desert aid logs. These findings reveal a steady pressure toward more rugged and difficult crossing routes throughout time, an outcome that provides important context for the vandalism and harassment that target migrants and humanitarian aid workers alike (see No More Deaths and Coalición de Derechos Humanos 2018). In what follows, we first provide greater detail on the context of our study and of the authors’ collaboration with No More Deaths. Next, we discuss our research methodology, including the contours of the geographic information system (GIS) modeling through which we conduct our analysis. We then present our findings, and discuss and contextualize these, before turning to some of the limitations of our study and directions for future research. We conclude by considering some of the policy implications of our findings, as well as their implications for studies of mobility, border policing, and state violence, including in contexts when states are instrumentalizing environmental features and conditions for the purposes of boundary enforcement.
Topic:
Migration, Water, Border Control, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

61. Fixing What’s Most Broken in the US Immigration System: A Profile of the Family Members of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents Mired in Multiyear Backlogs

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The US Department of State (DOS) reports that as of November 2018, nearly 3.7 million persons had been found by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to have a close family relationship to a US citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) that qualified them for a visa, but were on “the waiting list in the various numerically-limited immigrant categories” (DOS 2018). These backlogs in family-based “preference” (numerically capped) categories represent one of the most egregious examples of the dysfunction of the US immigration system. They consign family members of US citizens and LPRs that potentially qualify for a visa and that avail themselves of US legal procedures to years of insecurity, frustration, and (often) separation from their families. Often criticized in the public sphere for jumping the visa queue, it would be more accurate to say that this population, in large part, comprises the queue. While they wait for their visa priority date to become current, those without immigration status are subject to removal. In addition, most cannot adjust to LPR status in the United States, but must leave the country for consular processing and, when they do, face three- or 10-year bars on readmission, depending on the duration of their unlawful presence in the United States. This population will also be negatively affected by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) proposed rule to expand the public charge ground of inadmissibility (Kerwin, Warren, and Nicholson 2018). In addition, persons languishing in backlogs enjoy few prospects in the short term for executive or legislative relief, given political gridlock over immigration reform and the Trump administration’s support for reduced family-based immigration. In this paper, the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) offers estimates and a profile based on 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data of a strongly correlated population to the 3.7 million persons in family-based visa backlogs: i.e., the 1.55 million US residents potentially eligible for a visa in a family-based preference category based on a qualifying relationship to a household member. CMS data represents only part of the population in family-based backlogs. In particular, it captures only a small percentage of the 4th preference, brothers and sisters of US citizens.[1] However, everybody in CMS’s data could be petitioned for, if they have not been already. Among this population’s ties and contributions to the United States, the paper finds that: Fifty-nine percent has lived in the United States for 10 years or more, including 23 percent for at least 20 years. Nearly one million US-born children under age 21 live in these households, as well as 111,600 US-born adults (aged 21 and over) who have undocumented parents. 449,500 arrived in the United States at age 15 or younger. 139,100 qualify for the DREAM Act based their age at entry, continuous residence, and graduation from high school or receipt of a GED. Seventy-two percent aged 16 and older are in the labor force, and more than two-thirds (68 percent) are employed; these rates exceed those of the overall US population. Two-thirds of those aged 18 or older have at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, including 25 percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 295,100 aged three and older are enrolled in school. The median income of their households is $63,000, slightly above the US median. More than two-thirds (68 percent) have health insurance, including 51 percent with private health insurance. Nearly one-third (32 percent) live in mortgaged homes, and 12 percent in homes owned free and clear. The paper provides several recommendations to reduce family-based backlogs. In particular, it proposes that Congress pass and the President sign into law legislation to legalize intending family-based immigrants who have been mired in backlogs for two years or more. In addition, this legislation should define the spouses and minor unmarried children of LPRs as immediate relatives (not subject to numerical limits), not count the derivative family members of the principal beneficiary against per country and annual quotas, and raise per country caps. The administration should also re-use the visas of legal immigrants who emigrate each year, particularly those who formally abandon LPR status. This practice would reduce backlogs without increasing visa numbers. Congress should also pass legislation to advance the entry date for eligibility for “registry,” an existing feature of US immigration law designed to legalize long-term residents. In particular, the legislation should move forward the registry cutoff date on an automatic basis to provide a pathway to status for noncitizens who have lived continuously in the United States for at least 15 years, have good moral character, and are not inadmissible on security and other grounds. In fact, Congress advanced the registry date on a regular basis during most of the 20th century, but has not updated this date, which now stands at January 1, 1972, for 33 years.
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Border Control, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

62. The Effects of Immigration Enforcement on Faith-Based Organizations: An Analysis of the FEER Survey

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Mike Nicholson
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The effects of US immigration enforcement policies on immigrants, US families, and communities have been well-documented. However, less attention has been paid to their impact on faith-based organizations (FBOs). Faith communities provide a spiritual home, and extensive legal, resettlement, social service, health, and educational services for refugees and immigrants. This report presents the findings of the FEER (Federal Enforcement Effect Research) Survey, which explored the effects of US immigration enforcement policies on immigrant-serving Catholic institutions.[1] Many of these institutions arose in response to the needs of previous generations of immigrants and their children (Kerwin and George 2014, 14, 74-75). Most strongly identify with immigrants and have long served as crucial intermediaries between immigrant communities and the broader society (Campos 2014, 149-51).[2] Over its first two years, the Trump administration has consistently characterized immigrants as criminals, security risks, and an economic burden. Among its policy initiatives, the administration has supported major cuts in family-based immigration, attempted to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, reduced refugee admissions to historic lows, instituted admission bars on Muslim-majority countries, attempted to strip Temporary Protection Status (TPS) from all but a fraction of its beneficiaries, erected major new barriers to asylum, and proposed new rules regarding the public charge grounds of inadmissibility that would make it more difficult for poor and working class persons to obtain permanent residence. US immigration enforcement policies have separated children from their parents, criminally prosecuted asylum-seekers, expanded detention, increased arrests of non-citizens without criminal records, and militarized the US-Mexico border. These policies have failed to stem the flow of migrants and asylum-seekers: instead these flows have increased dramatically in recent months. These policies have succeeded, however, in devastating children, instilling fear in immigrant communities, blocking access to the US asylum system, and undermining immigrant integration (Kerwin 2018).[3] The FEER survey points to a paradox. On one hand, US enforcement policies have increased the demand for services such as legal screening, representation, naturalization, assistance to unaccompanied minors, and support to the US families of detainees and deportees. Many Catholic institutions have expanded their services to accommodate the increased demand for their services. On the other hand, their work with immigrants has been impeded by federal immigration policies that effectively prevent immigrants from driving, attending gatherings, applying for benefits, and accessing services for fear that these activities might lead to their deportation or the deportation of a family member. Among other top-line findings, 59 percent of 133 FEER respondents reported that “fear of apprehension or deportation” negatively affected immigrants’ access to their services, and 57 percent of 127 respondents reported that immigrant enforcement very negatively or negatively affected the participation of immigrants in their programs and ministries.
Topic:
Migration, Religion, Border Control, Immigrants, and Catholic Church
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

63. Do Immigrants Threaten US Public Safety?

Author:
Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Opponents of immigration often claim that immigrants, particularly those who are unauthorized, are more likely than US natives to commit crimes and that they pose a threat to public safety. There is little evidence to support these claims. In fact, research overwhelmingly indicates that immigrants are less likely than similar US natives to commit violent and property crimes, and that areas with more immigrants have similar or lower rates of violent and property crimes than areas with fewer immigrants. There are relatively few studies specifically of criminal behavior among unauthorized immigrants, but the limited research suggests that these immigrants also have a lower propensity to commit crime than their native-born peers, although possibly a higher propensity than legal immigrants. Evidence about legalization programs is consistent with these findings, indicating that a legalization program reduces crime rates. Meanwhile, increased border enforcement, which reduces unauthorized immigrant inflows, has mixed effects on crime rates. A legalization program or other similar initiatives not currently under serious consideration have more potential to improve public safety and security than several other policies that have recently been proposed or implemented.
Topic:
Crime, Migration, Immigration, and Border Control
Political Geography:
United States and North America

64. Paradoxes of Protection: Compassionate Repression at the Mexico–Guatemala Border

Author:
Rebecca Galemba, Katie Dingeman, Kaelyn DeVries, and Yvette Servin
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Anti-immigrant rhetoric and constricting avenues for asylum in the United States, amid continuing high rates of poverty, environmental crisis, and violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, have led many migrants from these countries to remain in Mexico. Yet despite opportunities for humanitarian relief in Mexico, since the early 2000s the Mexican government, under growing pressure from the United States, has pursued enforcement-first initiatives to stem northward migration from Central America. In July 2014, Mexico introduced the Southern Border Program (SBP) with support from the United States. The SBP dramatically expanded Mexico’s immigration enforcement efforts, especially in its southern border states, leading to rising deportations. Far from reducing migration or migrant smuggling, these policies have trapped migrants for longer in Mexico, made them increasingly susceptible to crimes by a wide range of state and nonstate actors, and exacerbated risk along the entire migrant trail. In recognition of rising crimes against migrants and heeding calls from civil society to protect migrant rights, Mexico’s 2011 revision to its Migration Law expanded legal avenues for granting humanitarian protection to migrants who are victims of crimes in Mexico, including the provision of a one-year humanitarian visa so that migrants can collaborate with the prosecutor’s office in the investigation of crimes committed against them. The new humanitarian visa laws were a significant achievement and represent a victory by civil society keen on protecting migrants as they travel through Mexico. The wider atmosphere of impunity, however, alongside the Mexican government’s prioritization of detaining and deporting migrants, facilitates abuses, obscures transparent accounting of crimes, and limits access to justice. In practice, the laws are not achieving their intended outcomes. They also fail to recognize how Mexico’s securitized migration policies subject migrants to risk throughout their journeys, including at border checkpoints between Guatemala and Honduras, along critical transit corridors in Guatemala, and on the Guatemalan side of Mexico’s southern border. In this article, we examine a novel set of data from migrant shelters — 16 qualitative interviews with migrants and nine with staff and advocates in the Mexico–Guatemala border region, as well as 118 complaints of abuses committed along migrants’ journeys — informally filed by migrants at a shelter on the Guatemalan side of the border, and an additional eight complaints filed at a shelter on the Mexican side of the border. We document and analyze the nature, location, and perpetrators of these alleged abuses, using a framework of “compassionate repression” (Fassin 2012) to examine the obstacles that migrants encounter in denouncing abuses and seeking protection. We contend that while humanitarian visas can provide necessary protection for abuses committed in Mexico, they are limited by their temporary nature, by being nested within a migration system that prioritizes migrant removal, and because they recognize only crimes that occur in Mexico. The paradox between humanitarian concerns and repressive migration governance in a context of high impunity shapes institutional and practical obstacles to reporting crimes, receiving visas, and accessing justice. In this context, a variety of actors recognize that they can exploit and profit from migrants’ lack of mobility, legal vulnerability, and uncertain access to protection, leading to a commodification of access to humanitarian protection along the route.
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Border Control, Violence, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, North America, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador

65. Venezuelan Migration and the Border Health Crisis in Colombia and Brazil

Author:
Shannon Doocy, Kathleen Page, Fernando de la Hoz, Paul Spiegel, and Chris Beyer
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Venezuela’s economic crisis has triggered mass migration; more than 3.4 million Venezuelans have fled to other countries in the region and beyond. An assessment mission to Cúcuta, in the Colombian border state of North Santander, was undertaken from July 26 to August 1, 2018, and to Bôa Vista and Pacaraima, in the state of Roraima, Brazil, between August 24 and 28, 2018. Interviews were conducted with key informants, including health providers and organizations engaged in the humanitarian response. Secondary analysis of gray literature and data shared by key informants was also undertaken. Surveillance data demonstrate increases in infectious diseases, as well as adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes, among Venezuelans in North Santander and Roraima. Summary of Findings for North Santander Reportable public health surveillance events among Venezuelans increased from 182 in 2015 to 865 in the first half of 2018. In 2018, the most common reported events included gender-based and intrafamiliar violence (17 percent), malaria (15 percent), and acute malnutrition in children <5 years (9 percent). There were 14 measles cases reported between January and June 2018 (compared to none in the previous years), the majority associated with migration from Venezuela. Thirty-six cases of maternal morbidity and two cases of maternal mortality among Venezuelans were observed in the first half of 2018 (compared to three cases of maternal morbidity and no maternal deaths in 2015). Low-birth-weight Venezuelan births rose from three in 2015 to 34 in 2017. Between January 2017 and June 2018, emergency medical attention was provided to 19,108 Venezuelans in government health facilities. Summary of Findings for Roraima In 2018, there were 355 cases of measles in Roraima (compared to none in previous years) — all cases had the genotype lineage originating in the 2017 Venezuelan measles outbreak. Children younger than one year old (812.1/100,000) had the highest measles incident rate in Roraima, followed by children 1–4 years old (245.7/100,000). Malaria cases among Venezuelans increased 3.5-fold from 2015 to 2018 (1,260 vs. 4,402 cases). As of August 2018, 171 HIV-infected Venezuelans were receiving HIV care at the Coronel Motta Clinic in Bôa Vista, Roraima. In 2018, 1,603 Venezuelan women gave birth at the Hospital Materno-Infantil in Bôa Vista, and by mid-2018, 10,040 Venezuelans had received outpatient care and 666 had been hospitalized at the Hospital General Roraima. In Colombia, primary healthcare is not available to Venezuelans, and provision of emergency care is perceived as unsustainable given current funding mechanisms. In Brazil, primary care is available to Venezuelans, but the healthcare system is under severe strain to meet the increased demand for care and is facing unprecedented shortages in medications and supplies. There is an urgent need to expand the humanitarian health response in Colombia and Brazil, both to ensure health among Venezuelans and to protect public health in border areas.
Topic:
Health, Migration, Financial Crisis, Border Control, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Brazil, South America, Central America, Venezuela, and North America

66. An Overview and Critique of US Immigration and Asylum Policies in the Trump Era

Author:
Paul Wickham Schmidt
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This article provides an overview and critique of US immigration and asylum policies from the perspective of the author’s 46 years as a public servant. The article offers a taxonomy of the US immigration system by positing different categories of membership: full members of the “club” (US citizens), associate members (lawful permanent residents, refugees, and “asylees”), friends (nonimmigrants and holders of temporary status), and persons outside the club (the undocumented). It describes the legal framework that applies to these distinct populations and recent developments in federal law and policy that relate to them. It also identifies a series of cross-cutting issues that affect these populations, including immigrant detention, immigration court backlogs, state and local immigration policies, and constitutional rights that extend to noncitizens. It ends with a series of recommendations for reform of the US asylum system, and a short conclusion.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Domestic Politics, and Asylum
Political Geography:
United States and North America

67. Universal Representation: Systemic Benefits and the Path Ahead

Author:
Lindsay Nash
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
At a time when politics, financial considerations, and a push for expediency put pressure on the US immigration system, it can be difficult to have faith in the adjudicatory process. Case resolution quotas, directives that constrain courts’ ability to render justice in individual cases, and executive decisions that contract immigration judges’ discretion contribute to an immigration system that looks less and less like judicial adjudication of some of the highest-stakes cases in our legal system and more like a ministerial claims-processing scheme. A ray of hope exists, however, in the proliferation of public defender–style systems that offer universal representation to those facing deportation. This essay describes the genesis and expansion of the universal representation movement — a project based on the idea that indigent individuals should be entitled to counsel regardless of the apparent merits or political palatability of their case. It describes the benefits of such a program to the immigration adjudication system writ large. Beyond the oft-cited increase in success rates for individuals represented and the benefits to the communities in which such programs are located, universal representation promotes the integrity of the court system and strengthens an adjudicatory procedure that, for too long, has functioned primarily to expeditiously churn through cases. Finally, looking forward, it considers some of the challenges this movement faces as it grows and it identifies areas for further expansion.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, and Legal Theory
Political Geography:
United States and North America

68. DACA and the Supreme Court: How We Got to This Point, a Statistical Profile of Who Is Affected, and What the Future May Hold for DACA Beneficiaries

Author:
Daniela Alulema
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
In June 2012, the Obama administration announced the establishment of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which sought to provide work authorization and a temporary reprieve from deportation to eligible undocumented young immigrants who had arrived in the United States as minors. Hundreds of thousands of youth applied for the program, which required providing extensive evidence of identity, age, residence, education, and good moral character. The program allowed its recipients to pursue higher education, to access more and better job opportunities, and to deepen their social ties in the United States. This article provides a statistical portrait of DACA recipients based on administrative data from US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and estimates drawn from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) Census data. It finds the following: As of September 30, 2019, there were 652,880 active DACA recipients. Sixty-six percent of recipients are between the ages of 21 and 30. The top five countries of birth for DACA recipients are Mexico (80 percent), El Salvador (4 percent), Guatemala (3 percent), Honduras (2 percent), and Peru (1 percent). DACA recipients reside in all 50 states and Washington, DC, and in US territories including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The top five states with the highest number of DACA recipients are California (29 percent), Texas (17 percent), Illinois (5 percent), New York (4 percent), and Florida (4 percent). Eighty-one percent of DACA recipients has lived in the United States for more than 15 years. Six percent is married to US citizens, 4 percent to lawful permanent residents (LPRs), and 13 percent to undocumented immigrants. Among US-born children younger than 18 years, 346,455 have at least one DACA parent. Fifty-five percent of DACA recipients graduated from high school, 36 percent has some college education, and 7 percent a bachelor’s degree or higher. Ninety-five percent is employed. The Trump administration rescinded the DACA program in September 2017, leaving recipients and their families in a legal limbo. Federal litigation led to a nationwide preliminary injunction and DACA’s partial reinstatement for existing recipients. At this writing, the case is before the US Supreme Court, which will determine the program’s fate. Beyond its statistical portrait, the article provides testimonies from DACA recipients who recount how the program improved their lives and their concerns over its possible termination. It also provides recommendations for Congress, local and state governments, and immigration advocates. In particular, it recommends passage of legislation that would create a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and programs and policies to support and empower young immigrants.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, and DACA
Political Geography:
United States and North America

69. Maximizing the Shared Benefits of Legal Migration Pathways: Lessons from Germany’s Skills Partnerships

Author:
Michael Clemens, Helen Dempster, and Kate Gough
Publication Date:
07-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
The world is experiencing significant demographic shifts. By 2100, Europe’s working-age population will have declined, and sub-Saharan Africa’s working-age population will have greatly increased. Many of these new labor market entrants will seek opportunities in Europe, plugging skill gaps and contributing to economies in their countries of destination. Germany is one country piloting and implementing projects that can help alleviate such demographic pressures and maximize the potential mutual benefits of legal labor migration. We discuss these projects, and highlight differences in their potential impact on development in the country of origin. We recommend that European governments build on, adapt, and pilot-test one of Germany’s approaches, also known as the Global Skill Partnership model: training potential migrants in their countries of origin before migration, along with non-migrants. Ideally, governments should pursue such pilot-tests with those countries that exhibit rising future migration pressure to Europe, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Neither the conclusion nor the results of this analysis reflect the opinion of the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) or Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).
Topic:
Migration, Labor Issues, Immigration, and Border Control
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, Germany, and Sub-Saharan Africa

70. Fleeing Violence in Central America: Time to Implement Canada’s Resettlement Policies

Author:
Rachel Kiddell-Monroe and Celine de Richoufftz
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University
Abstract:
Canada should take proactive and concrete actions to protect Northern Central American refugees fleeing violence including: Implementing its policy to offer resettlement to Central American refugees caught in legal limbo in Mexico. Ensuring it welcomes asylum seekers who are at risk under the US immigration system. Supporting Northern Central American states in their efforts to build fairer and more efficient immigration systems. Advocating for safe passages, legal pathways and for an end to the criminalization of clandestine immigration.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Refugees, Violence, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Central America, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador

71. All at sea: Europe’s crisis of solidarity on migration

Author:
Shoshana Fine
Publication Date:
10-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
The European Union’s approach to migration has created a crisis of solidarity. While migrant arrivals in Europe have declined, so has cooperation and responsibility sharing within the EU. Member states’ reluctance to take sustained responsibility for search and rescue operations has exacerbated voters’ sense that the EU has lost control of the situation. The bloc seems to favour informal, ad hoc initiatives on migration governance that have little transparency, as seen in its disembarkation arrangements and the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. The EU threatens to undermine its credibility in driving reform in north Africa when it cherry-picks its commitments to international obligations, and when it legitimises and funds counterproductive migration practices. The bloc requires bold leadership in telling a story about migration as a normal and necessary phenomenon, and in promoting inclusive, sustainable policies among member states and with third countries.
Topic:
Migration, Foreign Aid, Border Control, and European Union
Political Geography:
Europe

72. Border games: Has Spain found an answer to the populist challenge on migration?

Author:
Shoshana Fine and José I. Torreblanca
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
Spain, and Europe, need a new story about migration – there is some recognition of this in Spain but it remains to be seen how the country will put this into practice. Spaniards are relatively open towards migration, but the policy challenge for their government should be to allay, and not provoke, fears of migrant invasion. The Spanish government has called for reform of the EU asylum system, favouring solidarity and shared responsibility as opposed to simply stopping ‘secondary movements’. Spain’s migration diplomacy aspires to work with origin and transit countries rather than acting in a coercive way towards them. The Spanish experience should inform EU member states’ efforts to seek to answers to the populist challenge: they should enact comprehensive, planned, and proactive policies that see migration as normal and necessary.
Topic:
Government, Migration, Border Control, European Union, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Europe and Spain

73. Immigration-Related Policy Changes in the First Two Years of the Trump Administration

Author:
Sarah Pierce
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Since entering office in January 2017, the Trump administration has pressed one of the most assertive agendas on immigration in modern times. And though enforcement actions at the U.S.-Mexico border and in the interior of the country have drawn the most attention, a much more wide-ranging set of immigration-related policy changes has taken place over the past two years. This document chronicles these changes, large and small, broken down by major issue area. Among other things, it includes Justice Department policies that affect how the immigration courts operate, humanitarian programs and statuses, adjustments to how the State Department processes visa applications and admits foreign nationals to the United States, and enforcement changes. These policy changes have been accomplished unilaterally by the executive branch at a time when Congress has largely avoided taking on immigration-related legislation. They have come in the form of hundreds of policy memos, regulatory changes, and more. Some of these changes have been slowed or stopped by the courts, including attempts to prevent foreign nationals who cross the U.S. border illegally from receiving asylum, but most have gone into effect.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Employment, Economy, Public Policy, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

74. From Control to Crisis: Changing Trends and Policies Reshaping U.S.-Mexico Border Enforcement

Author:
Randy Capps, Doris Meissner, Ariel G. Ruiz Soto, Jessica Bolter, and Sarah Pierce
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border could approach the 1 million mark for fiscal 2019, a remarkable turnaround for a U.S. border security environment that just two years ago had witnessed the lowest levels of illegal immigration since 1971. How did what was once a major but often unrecognized success story become an out-of-control humanitarian and border security crisis? What are the push factors in Central America and the pull factors in the United States that have led to near-record migration flows in the past few months, when many of these factors have been present for years? This report draws on enforcement and other data from the United States, Mexico, and Central America, as well as analysis of changing migration trends and Trump administration policies to comprehensively tell this story. An enforcement system designed for the main challenge at the border for decades—illegal immigration of Mexican adults—has not been repointed to address the rapidly changing flows of families and unaccompanied children from Central America, many seeking humanitarian protection, others wanting work or to reunite with relatives already in the United States. The change has been dramatic: In 2008, Mexicans comprised more than 90 percent of apprehensions. By fiscal 2019, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans represented nearly three-quarters of apprehensions, with two-thirds composed of families or unaccompanied children. The border enforcement model must be urgently re-envisioned given the changing characteristics of today’s mixed flows, and with migration from Central America and potentially from other parts of the hemisphere and regions of the world, constituting today’s major and longer-term challenge to U.S.-Mexico border security and border management, the authors write. Rather than taking on ever more enforcement-oriented and punitive measures, which paradoxically have made the situation at the border worse, the U.S. government must turn its attention to a range of other elements. These include focusing on improving the asylum system to make processing more timely while remaining fair; reconfiguring border enforcement strategies and operations; increasing the use of supervised release pending asylum decisions; and an increased focus on regional cooperation in migration management and in tackling root causes of migration.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Immigration, Infrastructure, and Border Control
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

75. Investing in the Neighborhood: Changing Mexico-U.S. Migration Patterns and Opportunities for Sustainable Cooperation

Author:
Andrew Selee, Silvia E. Giorguli-Saucedo, Ariel G. Ruiz Soto, and Claudia Masferrer
Publication Date:
09-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
Current tensions between Mexico and the United States over migration—complete with divisive political rhetoric and unilateral U.S. actions affecting border communities—obscure an important reality: the migration challenges these two countries face are increasingly similar. Both are contending with large-scale mixed flows of humanitarian and other migrants from Central America, including many families and children travelling alone, and both have asylum systems struggling to keep up with a surge in requests for protection. They are also home to large numbers of each other’s nationals and grapple with similar policy questions when it comes to integrating these and other immigrants into local communities, schools, and economies. To build understanding of the changing migration landscape and begin to develop a shared vision for future cooperation, the Migration Policy Institute and El Colegio de México convened the Study Group on Mexico-U.S. Migration in late 2018 and early 2019. The group’s members include leading experts from government, academia, civil society, and the private sector. Informed by the study group’s discussions, this report begins with a snapshot of how migration patterns have changed—with the Mexican immigrant population in the United States shrinking since 2014, more Mexicans and their U.S.-born children moving from the United States to Mexico, and increasing numbers of Central Americans travelling to and applying for asylum in both countries. The report then explores policy options that could help Mexican and U.S. policymakers rethink key issues, including strategies for reforming asylum systems to enable timely and fair decision-making; and improving coordinated border management to facilitate the regular flow of goods and people, while preventing migrant smuggling, drug trafficking, and other illicit activities.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Infrastructure, Border Control, Trafficking, Borders, and Smuggling
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

76. Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy: New Realities Call for New Answers

Author:
Doris Meissner
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Migration Policy Institute (MPI)
Abstract:
The U.S. immigration system is in desperate need of an overhaul—and has been for many years. What has been missing is an alternate vision for a path forward that treats immigration as a comparative advantage and strategic resource, while also accounting for heightened security and rule-of-law imperatives, that can together further U.S. interests, values, and democratic principles as a society. This concept note outlines a new MPI initiative, Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy, that seeks to fill this gap. The multiyear initiative will generate a big-picture, evidence-driven vision of the role immigration can and should play in the future of the United States, acknowledging policymakers are operating against a backdrop of globalization challenges, tech-induced disruptions reshaping the future of work, growing competition for talent, and national polities increasingly skeptical of government’s ability to manage migration. The initiative's starting point is to recognize that there are new realities facing the United States that should drive immigration policymaking in the coming period, not a return to the tired debates of the past 20 years that have foundered again and again amid rising partisanship and polarization. Among these new realities: a rising old-age dependency ratio, changing challenges at the U.S.-Mexico border, need for greater flexibility in the immigration systems as other countries have modernized their immigrant-selection systems, and a shattering of the bipartisan consensus that for decades has seen legal immigration as a positive. Historically, immigration policymaking and legislation have only succeeded through across-the-aisle cooperation and a search for common ground. This initiative is committed to re-energizing such bipartisanship and recapturing a new center in formulating and advancing fresh, feasible solutions.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Employment, and Economy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

77. Cross-Border Trade and Corruption along the Haiti-Dominican Republic Border

Author:
Mary Speck
Publication Date:
03-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
Illegal trade across the Haiti/Dominican Republic border has serious financial and security implications. Contraband undermines legitimate business on both sides of the border and deprives the public sector—especially the cash-strapped government of Haiti—of much-needed revenues. It also undermines rule of law and public security by fueling corruption and strengthening criminal organizations. After two research trips to both Haiti and the Dominican Republic, CSIS Americas has produced a summary report of the issue of illicit border trade between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, incorporating several case studies and policy recommendations for preventing further cross-border illicit trade and revenue loss.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Regional Cooperation, Border Control, and Illegal Trade
Political Geography:
Caribbean, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and North America

78. EU Pressure on Niger to Stop Migrants is Reshaping Cross-Border Economies: From migrants to drugs, gold, and rare animals

Author:
Hans Lucht and Luca Raineri
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
Though the four-by-fours with migrants still leave regularly for Libya, there’s little doubt that EU driven anti-migration efforts in the Agadez region of Niger has been a blow to the local cross-border economy. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ■ EU interventions in Niger have had an unintended negative effect on the safety of migrants. It’s therefore important to maintain focus on rescue missions in the desert. ■ Europe must ensure that conflict and context sensitivity remain paramount as well as promoting alternative development opportunities and good governance. ■ National, local and traditional authorities should continue to avoid conflicts linked to natural resources, including gold, uranium, pasturelands and water, by promoting transparency and participatory decision-making.
Topic:
International Relations, Development, Migration, Poverty, Border Control, European Union, Inequality, Fragile States, and Global Political Economy
Political Geography:
Africa, Libya, North Africa, and Niger

79. Hostile Environment: How Immigrants Became Scapegoats with Dr. Maya Goodfellow

Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Mile End Institute, Queen Mary University of London
Abstract:
In this event, Maya Goodfellow discussed her new book 'Hostile Environment: How Immigrants Became Scapegoats' in conversation with Tim Bale, Co-Director of the Mile End Institute.m
Topic:
Border Control, Immigrants, Discrimination, and Xenophobia
Political Geography:
Global Focus

80. MESA and the Muslim Ban

Author:
Beth Baron and Judith Tucker
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS)
Abstract:
The Middle East Studies Association (MESA) recognized early on that the “Muslim Ban”—so called for its banning of individuals from predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States—posed specific threats to its mission and its commitments to academic freedom, intellectual exchange, and the fostering of scholarly research. As the current and past presidents of MESA, we take great pride in the fact that the association decided to take a clear and active stand against all iterations of this ban.
Topic:
Government, Border Control, Courts, Trump, Borders, and Higher Education
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

81. The Niger-Libya Border: Securing It without Stabilising It?

Author:
Mathieu Pellerin
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Often described as an “ungoverned area”, the Niger-Libya border is nevertheless at the centre of major economic, political and security challenges. Both the Libyan authorities and the Nigerien state are struggling to establish tight control over this particularly isolated area. However, local actors who live there are making their own modes of governance, based on individual and so far, barely institutionalised relationships. These local forms of regulation provide states in the sub-region and their international partners with the opportunity to consider the possibilities of indirect administration. The current priority appears to be for outsourced forms of security, as the agendas of these actors are geared towards anti-terrorism and the fight against so-called irregular immigration. Indeed, this area is nowadays facing unprecedented militarisation, raising a key question: does excessive militarisation not risk producing more insecurity than it fights in the medium or long term? The stability of this border area is partly based on maintaining economic, political and social balance which risks being challenged by a purely security-based approach. Designing a holistic governance of security requires states being able to arbitrate sovereignly on the cornerstone of long-term human security.
Topic:
Security, Governance, Border Control, Counter-terrorism, and Borders
Political Geography:
Africa, Libya, North Africa, and Niger

82. How the United States Should Address Refugee Protection at its Border

Author:
Eleanor Acer
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights First
Abstract:
Instead, the Trump Administration and Congress should focus on effective solutions that safeguard both American ideals and interests—including: Address the Actual Causes of Displacement. Instead of threats to cut aid to programs in Central America, the United States should increase targeted support for effective programs that decrease gang and other violence in these countries, promote the rule of law, and build accountability for human rights abuses. A task force co-chaired by former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Tom Ridge and former USAID Administrator Gayle Smith warned that cuts to foreign assistance “risk creating greater problems and greater flows of people later,” ultimately “weakening our security.” They recommended the United States increase development aid to address root causes, encourage other countries, institutions, and the private sector to invest in fragile states, and focus foreign assistance on governance and other reforms that enable private sector growth. Strengthen Refugee Protection in Other Countries in the Region. As the UN Refugee Agency has reported, Central American refugees are seeking asylum in Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and Belize, as well as the United States. The United States should increase support for the UN Refugee Agency and the development of strong refugee protection systems in Mexico and other countries. These asylum systems must actually grant protection to refugees, conduct fair and timely adjudications, and eliminate barriers that block refugees from asylum. In Mexico for instance, many are blocked from asylum by a counterproductive filing deadline, low recognition rates, lack of effective appeal procedures, and migration officers who deport asylum seekers rather than refer them for asylum processing. In addition to encouraging Mexico and other countries to uphold human rights standards by providing protection to refugees, the United States should provide a strong example by upholding its own refugee protection obligations. If Mexico and other countries build strong and rights-respecting systems, more refugees will be able to choose to seek protection in those countries. Follow U.S. and International Law at Borders. The Trump Administration and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must stop blocking, turning away, or threatening to bar from asylum people seeking refuge at U.S. border posts or after crossing the U.S. border. Instead, the Trump Administration and U.S. agencies must uphold U.S. law, end the orchestrated blockade and slow-down on processing at ports of entry, and ensure timely CBP processing of asylum seekers. Refugees turned away from U.S. ports face deadly dangers from traffickers, smugglers, and other criminals in Mexico, and the country is far from meeting the legal standards for a “safe third country.” By blocking or turning away people seeking protection, U.S. officials are violating and attempting to evade both U.S laws and treaty obligations. Given its historic role as a global leader, the United States’ failure to protect refugees at home reverberates around the world, discouraging other nations from providing refuge at their borders. This practice is also counterproductive from a border protection perspective. DHS’s own Office of the Inspector General recently reported evidence that CBP’s practice of turning away and limiting entry of asylum seekers at official border posts “leads some aliens who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States to cross the border illegally.” A supervisor confirmed that the agency “sees an increase in illegal entries when aliens are metered at ports of entry.” Receive and Manage Refugee Arrivals While Upholding American Ideals. The United States must stop responding to the increase in refugee protection requests with punitive and threatening actions like family separation, family detention, bans on asylum, criminal prosecutions, and military deployments. These actions conflict with American ideals (confirmed by recent polling), violate U.S. law, and harm children—as the American Academy of Pediatrics has repeatedly warned. They also don’t address the real problem. As former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson explained in 2018, “[i]t is basic human instinct to save yourself and your family by fleeing a burning building.” He concluded that attempts to deter people from fleeing have ultimately proven ineffective because the “push” factors of violence and poverty persist in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In addition to taking the steps outlined above to address root causes, the United States should launch effective, humane, and fiscally prudent strategies for receiving and managing people seeking U.S. protection—including: A Comprehensive Case Management Program. Instead of wasting more money on immigration jails and trying to overturn safeguards on detaining children, ICE should launch a community-based case management program using specially trained case managers to oversee asylum seeker cases. The Family Case Management Program operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) resulted in 99% attendance for ICE check-ins and appointments, and 100% attendance at court. DHS’s own advisory committee recommended expansion of community-based programs rather than detention. This approach is cost effective and enjoys strong support from Americans according to 2018 polling. Support Access and Funding for Legal Representation. Congress should support increased funding for legal information and funds for legal counsel. Statistical studies have repeatedly confirmed that asylum seekers represented by counsel overwhelmingly appear for their hearings, making legal representation a more fiscally prudent expenditure than detention. Assure Fair, Timely, and Adequately Staffed Asylum Adjudications. Congress and the administration must ensure necessary staff levels to reduce backlogs and ensure fairness of asylum and immigration court adjudications. Reforms should include: rolling back use of expedited removal for high protection populations, a fast-track process for urgent humanitarian cases delayed by USCIS’s use of the “last in first out” approach, and removal of “cancellation” cases from the asylum system by creating a process for such applications. Critically, political appointees leading agencies conducting these adjudications must stop painting asylum claims as false or lacking in merit and altogether halt the politicization of immigration judge hiring.
Topic:
Security, Border Control, Refugees, and Asylum
Political Geography:
United States and North America

83. Perspectives on the Content and Implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration

Author:
Kevin Appleby
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Kevin Appleby, senior director of international migration policy at CMS and SIMN, highlights issues that have been controversial in negotiations on the Global Compact on Migration in his piece, “The Global Compact on Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration: Will It Live Up to Its Name?” The author — who has been centrally involved in the process leading to the compact — offers recommendations to resolve issues related to regularization, border enforcement and return, the rights of irregular migrants, information firewalls, and the protection of migrants in vulnerable situations.
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Border Control, and Regulation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

84. Proposed Public Charge Rule Would Significantly Reduce Legal Admissions and Adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident Status of Working Class Persons

Author:
Donald Kerwin, Robert Warren, and Mike Nicholson
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
On October 10, 2018, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued its long-anticipated proposed rule on inadmissibility on public charge grounds.1 The rule seeks to “better ensure” that applicants for admission to the United States as immigrants (permanent residents) and nonimmigrants (temporary residents),2 as well as applicants for adjustment to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status within the United States, will be “self-sufficient” and “not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their family, sponsor, and private organizations.”3 Under the proposed rule, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers would consider receipt of cash benefits and, in a break from the past, non-cash medical, housing, and food benefits in making public charge determinations. The proposed DHS rule details the factors — positive and negative — to be weighed in these decisions. Many commentators have sharply criticized the proposed rule, arguing that it would: • Deny admission and adjustment to large numbers of low-income persons who contribute substantially to the US economy, have US citizen and LPR family members, and present a very low risk of becoming financially dependent on the government. • Create a disincentive to the use of public benefits to meet the essential food, housing, and medical needs of US citizen, LPR, and other family members of persons who are directly affected by the rule. • Impede the legal immigration and integration of low-income, working-class immigrants and their families to the detriment of US communities and society. The authors share these concerns, but the study focuses more narrowly on the potential effect of the proposed rule on two populations, undocumented immigrants and nonimmigrants that would otherwise be eligible for LPR status based on a legally qualifying relationship to a US citizen or LPR living in their household. The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) report analyzes how these populations in 2016 would have fared under the proposed rule. 1 Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 83 Fed. Reg. 51114 (proposed October 10, 2018) (to be codified at 8 CFR Parts 103, 212, 213, 214, 245 and 248) [hereinafter “DHS Proposed Public Charge Rule”]. 2 Nonimmigrants are noncitizens admitted for a temporary period and a particular purpose, such as foreign students or temporary workers. 3 DHS Proposed Public Charge Rule § III A. 2 CMS Report November 2018 After placing the rule in historic context, the paper profiles these two populations and examines the characteristics that would mitigate in favor of and against their inadmissibility. The study offers a snapshot of these two groups based on estimates derived from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS). It concludes that: • 2.25 million undocumented persons and 212,000 nonimmigrants would be directly affected by the proposed rule because they live with a US citizen or LPR family member who can petition for them. • These two groups live in households with an additional 5.32 million and 456,000 persons respectively, who would be indirectly impacted by the rule. • CMS’s estimates exclude several populations — such as the millions residing abroad who are waiting for a visa to become current (available) — that would be subject to the rule. Thus, the study substantially understates the number of persons who would be directly and indirectly affected by the rule. • A large percentage of the 2.25 million undocumented persons examined would be found inadmissible under the rule, although this population overwhelmingly consists of working- class persons. • As a result, the proposed rule should be viewed as a significant barrier to legal immigration and the integration of low-income immigrants and their US families. • Far lower rates of nonimmigrants — who earn more than the undocumented and have higher levels of education — would be found inadmissible under the rule. • The numbers and percentages of persons who would be found inadmissible under the rule cannot be predicted with precision due primarily to the discretion afforded USCIS officials in making inadmissibility determinations.
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, and Border Control
Political Geography:
United States and North America

85. Solutions to Fight Private Prisons’ Power Over Immigration Detention

Author:
Michael Sozan
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
For-profit private prison companies have been showering members of Congress and organizations related to President Donald Trump with campaign cash, while simultaneously lobbying lawmakers on immigration detention matters.1 These companies are set to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from Trump’s inhumane and ineffective policy of locking up asylum-seeking families, including small children and others seeking better lives in the United States.2 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) oversees approximately 200 immigration detention centers nationwide, including facilities run by the federal, state, and local governments, as well as facilities operated by for-profit private prisons. In November 2017, 71 percent of detained immigrants were confined in private detention facilities, at a reported cost of more than $ 2 billion dollars per year.3 With huge amounts of cash and incentives for pay-to-play arrangements flowing between politicians and the industries they regulate, it is little wonder that voters believe their elected representatives are more attuned to the priorities of big-money corporate interests than to everyday Americans. It is time to adopt bold anti-corruption solutions to help rein in the power of wealthy special interests so that the views and priorities of the general public are more fairly represented when their government formulates important policies.
Topic:
Immigration, Prisons/Penal Systems, Border Control, Humanitarian Crisis, and Detention
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

86. Immigration and the War on Crime: Law and Order Politics and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

Author:
Partisia Macias-Rojas
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was a momentous law that recast undocumented immigration as a crime and fused immigration enforcement with crime control (García Hernández 2016; Lind 2016). Among its most controversial provisions, the law expanded the crimes, broadly defined, for which immigrants could be deported and legal permanent residency status revoked. The law instituted fast-track deportations and mandatory detention for immigrants with convictions. It restricted access to relief from deportation. It constrained the review of immigration court decisions and imposed barriers for filing class action lawsuits against the former US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). It provided for the development of biometric technologies to track “criminal aliens” and authorized the former INS to deputize state and local police and sheriff’s departments to enforce immigration law (Guttentag 1997a; Migration News 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Taylor 1997). In short, it put into law many of the punitive provisions associated with the criminalization of migration today. Legal scholars have documented the critical role that IIRIRA played in fundamentally transforming immigration enforcement, laying the groundwork for an emerging field of “crimmigration” (Morris 1997; Morawetz 1998, 2000; Kanstroom 2000; Miller 2003; Welch 2003; Stumpf 2006). These studies challenged the law’s deportation and mandatory detention provisions, as well as its constraints on judicial review. And they exposed the law’s widespread consequences, namely the deportations that ensued and the disproportionate impact of IIRIRA’s enforcement measures on immigrants with longstanding ties to the United States (ABA 2004). Less is known about what drove IIRIRA’s criminal provisions or how immigration came to be viewed through a lens of criminality in the first place. Scholars have mostly looked within the immigration policy arena for answers, focusing on immigration reform and the “new nativism” that peaked in the early nineties (Perea 1997; Jacobson 2008).Some studies have focused on interest group competition, particularly immigration restrictionists’ prohibitions on welfare benefits, while others have examined constructions of immigrants as a social threat (Chavez 2001; Nevins 2002, 2010; Newton 2008; Tichenor 2009; Bosworth and Kaufman 2011; Zatz and Rodriguez 2015). Surprisingly few studies have stepped outside the immigration policy arena to examine the role of crime politics and the policies of mass incarceration. Of these, scholars suggest that IIRIRA’s most punitive provisions stem from a “new penology” in the criminal justice system, characterized by discourses and practices designed to predict dangerousness and to manage risk (Feeley and Simon 1992; Miller 2003; Stumpf 2006; Welch 2012). Yet historical connections between the punitive turn in the criminal justice and immigration systems have yet to be disentangled and laid bare. Certainly, nativist fears about unauthorized migration, national security, and demographic change were important factors shaping IIRIRA’s criminal provisions, but this article argues that the crime politics advanced by the Republican Party (or the “Grand Old Party,” GOP) and the Democratic Party also played an undeniable and understudied role. The first part of the analysis examines policies of mass incarceration and the crime politics of the GOP under the Reagan administration. The second half focuses on the crime politics of the Democratic Party that recast undocumented migration as a crime and culminated in passage of IIRIRA under the Clinton administration. IIRIRA’s criminal provisions continue to shape debates on the relationship between immigration and crime, the crimes that should provide grounds for expulsion from the United States, and the use of detention in deportation proceedings for those with criminal convictions. This essay considers the ways in which the War on Crime — specifically the failed mass incarceration policies — reshaped the immigration debate. It sheds light on the under-studied role that crime politics of the GOP and the Democratic Party played in shaping IIRIRA — specifically its criminal provisions, which linked unauthorized migration with criminality, and fundamentally restructured immigration enforcement and infused it with the resources necessary to track, detain, and deport broad categories of immigrants, not just those with convictions.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Domestic Politics, and Deportation
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

87. DREAM Act-Eligible Poised to Build on the Investments Made in Them

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This paper presents the results of a study by the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) on potential beneficiaries of the DREAM Act of 2017 (the “DREAM Act” or “Act”). The study reveals a long-term, highly productive population, with deep ties to the United States. In particular, it finds that: More than 2.2 million US residents would qualify for conditional residence under the DREAM Act. An additional 929,000 — who are now age 18 and over — arrived when they were under 18, but have not graduated from high school and are not enrolled in school and, thus, would not currently qualify for status under the Act. The DREAM Act-eligible can be found in large numbers (5,000 or more) in 41 states and more than 30 counties, metropolitan areas, and cities. Potential DREAM Act recipients have lived in the United States for an average of 14 years. Sixty-five percent (age 16 and above) participate in the labor force, with far higher rates in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Utah, Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee, and Oregon. This population works heavily in sales and related occupations; food preparation and serving; construction and extracting; office and administrative support; production; transportation and material moving; and building/grounds cleaning and maintenance. Many of the DREAM Act-eligible are highly skilled and credentialed. 70,500 are self-employed. Eighty-eight percent speaks English exclusively, very well, or well. 392,500 have US-citizen children, and more than 100,000 are married to a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. Twenty-nine percent has attended college or received a college degree. The DREAM Act-eligible include 50,700 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients from El Salvador, Haiti, and Honduras, 45 percent of whom live in the Miami metro area, Los Angeles County, the Washington, DC area, Houston, New York City, the San Francisco metro area, and the City of Dallas. The study also underscores the immense investment — $150 billion — that states and localities have already made in educating these young Americans. It argues that over time and with a path to citizenship the return on this investment will increase by virtually every indicia of integration — education levels, employment rates, self-employment numbers, US family members, and English language proficiency.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Refugees, and Citizenship
Political Geography:
United States

88. Twenty Years After IIRIRA: The Rise of Immigrant Detention and Its Effects on Latinx Communities Across the Nation

Author:
Melina Juarez and Sonia Bettez
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This paper studies the dynamics of detention, deportation, and the criminalization of immigrants. We ground our analyses and discussion around the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996’s (IIRIRA’s) detention mandate, the role of special interest groups and federal policies. We argue that these special interest groups and major federal policies have come together to fuel the expansion of immigrant detention to unprecedented levels. Moreover, we aim to incite discussion on what this rapid growth in detention means for human rights, legislative representation and democracy in the United States. This study analyzes two main questions: What is the role of special interests in the criminalization of immigrants? And does the rapid increase in detention pose challenges or risks to democracy in the United States? Our study is grounded within the limited, yet growing literature on immigrant detention, government data, and “gray” literature produced by nonprofits and organizations working on immigration-related issues. We construct a unique dataset using this literature and congressional reports to assess what factors are associated with the rise of immigrant detention. A series of correlations and a time series regression analysis reveal that major restrictive federal immigration policies such as IIRIRA, along with the increasing federal immigration enforcement budget, have had a significant impact on immigrant detention rates. Based on these findings, we recommend three central policy actions. First, the paper recommends increased transparency and accountability on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and on lobbying expenditures from for-profit detention corporations. Second, it argues for the repeal of mandatory detention laws. These mandatory laws have led to the further criminalization and marginalization of undocumented immigrants. And lastly, it argues that repeal of the Congressional bed mandate would allow for the number of detainees to mirror actual detention needs, rather than providing an incentive to detain. However, we anticipate that the demand for beds will increase even more given the current administration’s push for the criminalization and increased arrests of undocumented individuals. The rhetoric used by the present administration further criminalizes immigrants.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Criminal Justice, and Mass Incarceration
Political Geography:
United States

89. Immigration Governance for the Twenty-First Century

Author:
Ruth Ellen Wassem
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The governance of immigration has a checkered past, and policy makers’ efforts at reform rarely meet expectations. Critiques have echoed over the years and across the political spectrum. The current system of immigration governance is scattered around the federal government, with no clear chain of command. No single government department or agency captures the breadth of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s reach. At the crux of understanding immigration governance is acknowledging that immigration is not a program to be administered; rather, it is a phenomenon to be managed. The abundance of commissions that have studied the issues and the various administrative structures over time offers some wisdom on ingredients for successful governance. Based upon this research, options for effective immigration governance emerge. This paper studies the administration of immigration law and policy with an eye trained on immigration governance for the future. It opens with a historical overview that provides the backdrop for the current state of affairs. It then breaks down the missions and functions of the Immigration and Nationality Act by the lead agencies tasked with these responsibilities. The paper concludes with an analysis of options for improving immigration governance. Each of these options poses unique challenges as well as political obstacles.
Topic:
Immigration, Governance, and Border Control
Political Geography:
United States

90. From Right to Permission: Asylum, Mediterranean Migrations, and Europe’s War on Smuggling

Author:
Maurizio Albahari
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The European Union (EU) and its member states have sought to curb unauthorized maritime migrant arrivals through a proactive combination of deterrence, intelligence, surveillance, anti-smuggling activities, border enforcement, and policing and readmission collaboration with Turkey, Libya, and Libya’s African neighbors. Through these actions, the right to seek asylum is being de facto transformed into a state-granted permission to seek asylum. Containment policies ensure that one cannot ask for sovereign permission without first paying smugglers. In support of their policies, EU and national authorities widely employ an anti-smuggling discourse that focuses on the ruthlessness of smugglers and the passive victimhood of migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees. This rhetoric aligns itself with what is perceived to be politically palatable, and contributes to preserving a volatile status quo. EU and national policies have failed to curb significantly maritime arrivals. Migrants face worsened conditions on Libyan soil, and death at sea. In recent memory, 2011 was seen as the deadliest year on record for Mediterranean migrations, only to be surpassed first by 2014 and then by 2016. During 2017, at least 3,119 persons died or went missing in the Mediterranean Sea (UNHCR 2017b). Deterrence, containment, and the related war on smuggling prove ineffective, and do not justify such a heavy cost. They quell the outrage cyclically generated by powerful images of Mediterranean carnage, even as they fail to mitigate the carnage itself. European and other liberal-democratic governments can act in more pragmatic, just, and dignified ways, including by attending to migrant agency and to local civic engagements. Provisions for family reunification, refugee resettlement, study visas and temporary protection should be enhanced. More ambitiously, governments need to reverse the very policies that eviscerate the right to seek asylum. Additionally, labor immigration quotas should be set that go beyond attracting skilled “talent” and seasonal workers, to reflect the demands of the job market and of Europe’s ageing societies, while protecting worker rights. Such measures would lessen unauthorized arrivals and the demand for smugglers, ease asylum workloads, and challenge nativist arguments. There is always a political market for effective policies such as these, but until European authorities begin to reject easy resort to tropes of ruthless smuggler criminality, that market will remain disturbingly untapped.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, European Union, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, and North Africa

91. The Case for a National Legalization Program without Legislation or Executive Action

Author:
Jeanne M. Atkinson and Tom Wong
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This article presents the results of a study that finds that as many as two million unauthorized immigrants in the United States could have a path to permanent legal status. However, these immigrants may not know that they are eligible for legal status, much less be able to afford the costs or take the necessary steps to obtain it. The two million figure is drawn from an analysis of screening data from 4,070 unauthorized immigrants from 12 states. The study highlights the profound impact that a national project to screen for legal status would have on the entire US population, including eligible immigrants, their family members, and the country at large. The need for legal screening has become particularly acute in light of the Trump administration’s focus on apprehension and deportation of unauthorized immigrants without regard to their length of residence in the United States, family relationships to US citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs), or other positive factors. The proposed termination of benefits for many Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)1 recipients would add more than one million individuals — approximately 325,000 (Warren and Kerwin 2017), and 700,000 (Krogstad 2017) people, respectively — to the pool of unauthorized immigrants.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, and Citizenship
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

92. Family Matters: Claiming Rights across the US-Mexico Migratory System

Author:
Jacqueline Maria Hagan, Ricardo Martinez-Schuldt, Alyssa Peavey, and Deborah Weissman
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) created an immigration system favoring the immigration of spouses, children, and parents of US citizens, thereby establishing family unity as the cornerstone of US immigration policy. Despite this historical emphasis on family unity, backlogs and limited visas for non-immediate relatives of US citizens and legal permanent residents, the militarization of the US-Mexico border, punitive measures for those who enter without inspection, such as the forced separation of children from their parents at the US border, and an aggressive policy of deportation have made it more difficult for members of Mexican binational families to unify. How do members of Mexican binational families manage the hardships that result from US immigration policies that prolong and force family separation? Immigrants and return migrants alike may not be aware of their rights and the legal remedies that exist to enforce them. Structural barriers such as poverty, legal status, fear of deportation, lack of proficiency in English, and lack of familiarity with government bureaucracies no doubt prevent many migrants in the United States and return migrants in Mexico from coming forward to request legal assistance and relief in the courts. Despite these barriers, when it comes to family matters, members of some Mexican binational families can and do assert their rights. In this article, we analyze an administrative database of the Department of Legal Protection of the Mexican consular network that documents migrant legal claims resulting from family separation, along with findings from 21 interviews with consular staff and community organizations in three consular jurisdictions — El Paso, Raleigh, and San Francisco — to investigate the sociolegal processes of claims. Our investigation centers on the mediating role the Mexican state — via its consular network — has developed to assist binational families as they attempt to assert their rights and resolve child support and child custody problems resulting from prolonged and forced family separation. We find that the resolution of binational family claims in part depends on the institutional infrastructure that has developed at local, state, and federal levels, along with the commitment and capacity of the receiving and sending states and the binational structures they establish. These binational structures transcend the limitations of national legal systems to achieve and implement family rights and obligations across borders.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Immigration, Border Control, and Family
Political Geography:
United States, North America, and Mexico

93. Post-Conflict Peace-Building in a Contested International Border: The Nigeria-Cameroon Border Conflict Settlement and Matters Arising

Author:
Kenneth Chukwuemeka Nwoko
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Brazilian Journal of African Studies
Institution:
Brazilian Journal of African Studies
Abstract:
The political solution under the Green Tree Agreement which led to the handover of the contested Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon by Nigeria following the International Court of Justice (2002) ruling signaled the end of the protracted Nigeria/Cameroon border conflict, at least on the surface. However, some analysts believed that it marked the beginning of what may result into a future conflict (Agbakwuru 2012; The Guardian 2006). From the analysis of the verdict of the Court, it would appear that while the interests of the two states involved in the conflict appeared to have been taken into cognizance, the interest of the indigenes and inhabitants of Bakassi was not. Apart from alienating these local people from their ancestral homes, cultural sites and livelihood opportunities, activities such as fishing; interstate water transportation, trading etc, which were operated as early as the precolonial days by the local inhabitants, appear to have been disrupted, thus, endangering their means of livelihood and survival. The Anglo-German agreement of March 1913 which the ICJ ruling relied on for its verdict on the Nigeria-Cameroon border conflict represents the earliest milestone in the process of alienation of the inhabitants of the Bakassi Peninsula, the causus bellum; especially since the kings and chiefs of Old Calabar exercised sovereignty over the Bakassi3 , a title which was subsumed in that part of Nigeria as the sovereign state during the period of this conflict. While the ICJ ruling gave precedence to contemporary western constructions of the notions of boundaries and sovereignty to the detriment of the historical consolidation (Sama & Johnson-Ross 2005-2006, 111), “protectorate treaty made without jurisdiction should not have taken precedence over a community title rights and ownership existing from time immemorial” (Nigerian Information Service Centre 2002; The Guardian 2002, 1-2) In other words, Germany transferred to Cameroon what it did not derive from Britain, since the right to title ownership lay with the kings and chiefs of Old Calabar. The focus of this article is not to delve into the juridical issues relating to legal ownership of the territory since the ICJ ruling had put that to rest. Rather the objective is to analyse matters arising from the settlement that could jeopardise the “cold peace” between the two countries; issues relating to psychological, socio-economic and political fallouts which the method of settlement of the conflict and its application brought on the indigenes and inhabitants of the Bakassi Peninsula as well as proffer recommendations for lasting peace in this troubled region.
Topic:
Territorial Disputes, Border Control, Conflict, Peace, and Settlements
Political Geography:
Africa, Nigeria, and Cameroon

94. The Diversity of Citizenship of Palestinians and its Impact on their Mobility: Passport and Visa Issues

Author:
Maciej Cesarz
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
This article explores the formal impact of various citizenships and travel docu- ments held by Palestinians on their freedom to engage in international travel. Based on a theoretical analysis of passports and the global visa regime, it claims that international recognition is not only pre-requisite of statehood but also affects the scope of mobility in cases of citizens of de facto states, including the Palestinian Authority. The research is fo- cused on the following themes: the status of the population holding a Palestinian Authority Passport in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in comparison to Palestinians who are citizens of Israel and carry passports of this state, the exceptional situation of East Jerusalemites as well as the case of Palestinians with Jordanian passports. Visa availability and other formal barriers for international travel are also examined. The argumentation is supported by the analysis of visa restriction indexes referring to the Palestinian Authority and to Israel. The article concludes that the mobility of Palestinians varies to a large extent depending on trav- el documents held and the recognition of a citizenship and the passport that comes with it is strictly dependent of the recognition of state sovereignty. Although in some cases citizenship can be divorced from the international recognition, the scope of visa-free mobility related to passports is always impaired.
Topic:
Border Control, Citizenship, Mobility, and Travel
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Palestine

95. Israel Is Not Deporting Refugees

Author:
Emmanuel Navon
Publication Date:
02-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
Abstract:
Israel’s policy is legal and justified. Citizens’ well-being must come before that of illegal immigrants.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Refugees, and Humanitarian Crisis
Political Geography:
Middle East and Israel

96. Multilateral Damage: The impact of EU migration policies on central Saharan routes

Author:
Jérôme Tubiana, Clotilde Warin, and Gaffar Mohammud Saeneen
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
This online report studies the effects of EU migration policies and the externalisation of EU border control on Saharan migration routes and on practices in the border regions connecting Niger, Chad, Sudan and Libya. Authors Jérôme Tubiana, Clotilde Warin and Gaffar Mohammud Saeneen find that, in response to the obstacles and opportunities that border externalisation policies present for migrants, migration routes diversify and move to other countries. Beyond the fact that migration is a transnational phenomenon not linked to one particular route or itinerary, this continuous moving of routes is made possible by cross-border Saharan trade and trafficking networks that have put in place the necessary logistics to facilitate migration and which often fall outside government control. Pushed by EU efforts to curtail migration, states such as Niger, Chad and Sudan have shored up border patrols and anti-smuggling operations in the border regions under study here. The report shows that this has been done in a manner that is often not conducive to stability in the region and which contributes to the ‘militia-isation’ – the growing power of militias whose presence undermines the state – of the countries at issue.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, European Union, and Trafficking
Political Geography:
Sudan, Libya, Chad, Niger, Sahara, and Africa

97. Redefining American Families: The Disparate Effects of IIRIRA’s Automatic Bars to Reentry and Sponsorship Requirements on Mixed-Citizenship Couples

Author:
Jane Lily López
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
With passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the goal of discouraging illegal immigration and the legal immigration of the poor triumphed over the longstanding goal of family unity in US immigration policy. This shift resulted in policy changes that prevent some mixed-citizenship families from accessing family reunification benefits for the immigrant relatives of US citizens. Two specific elements of IIRIRA — (1) the three- and 10-year bars to reentry, and (2) the minimum income thresholds for citizen sponsors of immigrants — have created a hierarchy of mixed-citizenship families, enabling some to access all the citizenship benefits of family preservation and reunification, while excluding other, similar families from those same benefits. This article details these two key policy changes imposed by IIRIRA and describes their impact on mixed-citizenship couples seeking family reunification benefits in the United States. Mixed-citizenship couples seeking family reunification benefits do not bear the negative impacts of these two policies evenly. Rather, these policies disproportionately limit specific subgroups of immigrants and citizens from accessing family reunification. Low-income, non-White (particularly Latino), and less-educated American families bear the overwhelming brunt of IIRIRA’s narrowing of family reunification benefits. As a result, these policy changes have altered the composition of American society and modified broader notions of American national identity and who truly “belongs.” Most of the disparate impact between mixed-citizenship couples created by the IIRIRA would be corrected by enacting minor policy changes to (1) allow the undocumented spouses of US citizens to adjust their legal status from within the United States, and (2) include the noncitizen spouse’s income earning potential toward satisfying minimum income requirements.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, Citizenship, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

98. Immigration Policy and Agriculture: Possible Directions for the Future

Author:
Philip Martin
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
Presidential candidate Trump in 2016 promised to prevent unauthorized migration and deport unauthorized foreigners in the United States, and President Trump issued executive orders after taking office in January 2017 that could lead to a 2,000-mile wall on the Mexico-US border and the removal of many of the 11 million unauthorized foreigners, including one million who work in US agriculture. This paper emphasizes that, especially agriculture in the western United States, has long relied on newcomers to fill seasonal farm jobs. The slowdown in Mexico-US migration since 2008-09 means that there are fewer flexible newcomers to supplement the current workforce, which is aging and settled. Farm employers are responding by offering bonuses to satisfy current workers, stretching them with productivity-increasing tools, substituting machines for workers, and supplementing current workforces with legal H-2A guest workers. Immigration policy will influence the choice between mechanization, guest workers, and imports. Several factors suggest that the United States may be poised to embark on another large-scale guest worker program for agriculture. If it does, farmers should begin to pay Social Security and Unemployment Insurance (UI) taxes on the wages of H-2A workers to foster mechanization and development in the workers’ communities of origin by dividing these payroll taxes equally between workers as they depart and commodity-specific boards. Worker departure bonuses could be matched by governments in migrant-sending areas to promote development, and commodity-specific boards could spend monies to reduce dependence on hand labor over time. The economic incentives provided by payroll taxes could help to usher in a new and better era of farm labor.
Topic:
Migration, Border Control, Refugees, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

99. You are Not Welcome Here Anymore: Restoring Support for Refugee Resettlement in the Age of Trump

Author:
Todd Scribner
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
After descending an escalator of his hotel at Central Park West on a June day in 2015, Donald Trump ascended a podium and proceeded to accuse Mexico of “sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us (sic). They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists” (Time 2015). It was a moment that marked the launch of his bid for president of the United States. From that point forward, Trump made immigration restriction one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Paired with an economically populist message, the nativist rhetoric shaped a narrative that helped launch him to the White House. His effectiveness partly lay in his ability to understand and exploit preexisting insecurities, partly in his outsider status, and partly in his willingness to tap into apparently widespread public sentiment that is uneasy with, if not overtly hostile to, migrants. This paper will try to make sense of the restrictionist logic that informs the Trump administration’s worldview, alongside some of the underlying cultural, philosophical, and political conditions that inspired support for Trump by millions of Americans. This paper contends that the Clash of Civilizations (CoC) paradigm is a useful lens to help understand the positions that President Trump has taken with respect to international affairs broadly, and specifically in his approach to migration policy. This paradigm, originally coined by the historian Bernard Lewis but popularized by the political theorist Samuel Huntington (Hirsh 2016), provides a conceptual framework for understanding international relations following the end of the Cold War. It is a framework that emphasizes the importance of culture, rather than political ideology, as the primary fault line along which future conflicts will occur. Whether Trump ever consciously embraced such a framework in the early days of his candidacy is doubtful. He has been candid about the fact that he has never spent much time reading and generally responds to problems on instinct and “common sense” rather than a conceptually defined worldview developed by academics and intellectuals (Fisher 2016). Nevertheless, during the presidential campaign, and continuing after his victory, Trump surrounded himself with high-level advisers, political appointees, and staff who, if they have nothing else in common, embrace something roughly akin to the Clash of Civilizations perspective (Ashford 2016).[1] The paper will focus primarily on Trump’s approach to refugee resettlement. One might think that refugees would elicit an almost knee-jerk sympathy given the tragic circumstances that drove their migration, but perceptions of refugees are often tied up with geopolitical considerations and domestic political realities. Following 9/11, the threat of Islamic-inspired terrorism emerged as a national security priority. With the onset of the Syrian Civil War and the significant refugee crisis that ensued in its wake, paired with some high-profile terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe, the “Islamic threat” became even more pronounced. The perception that Islamic-inspired terrorism is a real and imminent threat has contributed to a growing antagonism toward the resettlement of refugees, and particularly Muslims. When viewed through the lens of the CoC paradigm, victims of persecution can easily be transformed into potential threats. Insofar as Islam is understood as an external and even existential threat to the American way life, the admission of these migrants and refugees could be deemed a serious threat to national security. This paper will begin by examining some of Trump’s campaign promises and his efforts to implement them during the early days of his administration. Although the underlying rationale feeding into the contemporary reaction against refugee resettlement is unique in many respects, it is rooted in a much longer history that extends back to the World War II period. It was during this period that a more formal effort to admit refugees began, and it was over the next half century that the program developed. Understanding the historical backdrop, particularly insofar as its development was influenced by the Cold War context, will help to clarify some of the transitions that influenced the reception of refugees in the decades after the fall of the Soviet Union. Such an exploration also helps to explain how and why a CoC paradigm has become ascendant. The decline of the ideologically driven conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union has, according Huntington’s thesis, been superseded by culturally based conflicts that occur when competing civilizations come into contact. The conceptual framework that the CoC framework embodies meshes well with the cultural and economic dislocation felt by millions of Trump supporters who are concerned about the continued dissolution of a shared cultural and political heritage. It is important to keep in mind that the CoC paradigm, as a conceptual framework for understanding Donald Trump and his approach to refugee resettlement and migration more broadly, is at its core pre-political; it helps to define the cultural matrix that people use to make sense of the world. The policy prescriptions that follow from it are more effect than cause.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, and Refugees
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

100. National Interests and Common Ground in the US Immigration Debate: How to Legalize the US Immigration System and Permanently Reduce Its Undocumented Population

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The conventional wisdom holds that the only point of consensus in the fractious US immigration debate is that the system is broken. Yet, the US public has consistently expressed a desire for a legal and orderly immigration system that serves compelling national interests. This paper describes how to create such a system. It focuses on the cornerstone of immigration reform,[1] the legal immigration system,[2] and addresses the widespread belief that broad reform will incentivize illegal migration and ultimately lead to another large undocumented population. The paper begins with an analysis of presidential signing statements on seminal immigration legislation over nearly a century. These statements reveal broad consensus on the interests and values that the United States seeks to advance through its immigration and refugee policies. They constitute additional common ground in the immigration debate. To serve these interests, immigration and refugee considerations must be “mainstreamed” into other policy processes. In addition, its policies will be more successful if they are seen to benefit or, at least, not to discriminate against migrant-sending states. Not surprisingly, the US immigration system does not reflect the vast, mostly unanticipated changes in the nation and the world since Congress last meaningfully reformed this system (27 years ago) and last overhauled the law (52 years ago). The paper does not detail the well-documented ways that US immigration laws fall short of serving the nation’s economic, family, humanitarian, and rule of law objectives. Nor does it propose specific changes in categories and levels of admission. Rather, it describes how a legal immigration system might be broadly structured to deliver on its promises. In particular, it makes the case that Congress should create a flexible system that serves compelling national interests, allows for real time adjustments in admission based on evidence and independent analysis, and vests the executive with appropriate discretion in administering the law. The paper also argues that the United States should anticipate and accommodate the needs of persons compelled to migrate by its military, trade, development, and other commitments. In addition, the US immigration system needs to be able to distinguish between undocumented immigrants, and refugees and asylum seekers, and to treat these two populations differently. The paper assumes that there will be continued bipartisan support for immigration enforcement. However, even with a strong enforcement apparatus in place and an adaptable, coherent, evidence-based legal immigration system that closely aligns with US interests, some (reduced) level of illegal migration will persist. The paper offers a sweeping, historical analysis of how this population emerged, why it has grown and contracted, and how estimates of its size have been politically exploited. Legalization is often viewed as the third rail of immigration reform. Yet, Congress has regularly legalized discrete undocumented populations, and the combination of a well-structured legalization program, strengthened legal immigration system, and strong enforcement policies can prevent the reemergence of a large-scale undocumented population. In contrast, the immense US enforcement apparatus will work at cross-purposes to US interests and values, absent broader reform. The paper ends with a series of recommendations to reform the legal immigration system, downsize the current undocumented population, and ensure its permanent reduction. It proposes that the United States “reissue” (or reuse) the visas of persons who emigrate, as a way to promote legal immigration reform without significantly increasing annual visa numbers.
Topic:
Immigration, Border Control, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America