Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:36 am
Time: 3:36 am
Results for border control
30 results foundAuthor: Araia, Tesfalem Title: Report on Human Smuggling Across the South Africa/Zimbabwe Border Summary: Widespread xenophobic attacks on foreigners in South Africa in May 2008 generated new debates around the issue of border control. This research report adds to and refines this discussion by looking at the land-based human smuggling industry on the South Africa/Zimbabwe border. Details: Johannesburg: Forced Migration Studies Programme, University of Witwatersrand, 2009. 54p. Source: MRMP Occasional Report Year: 2009 Country: Africa URL: Shelf Number: 116371 Keywords: Border ControlHuman Smuggling |
Author: Ozkan, Cemal Title: Combating Human Trafficking: The Swedish Experience Summary: Human trafficking implies transnational transportation of people for purposes such as prostitution, slavery, begging or committing crimes on behalf of others. In Europe, trafficking has become an increasing problem over the last two decades because of ever more porous borders and the European integration, which has created a flexible milieu for organized criminals seeking to capitalize on the demand for purchasing sex. Details: Stockholm: Institute for Security & Development Policy, 2010. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: ISDP Policy Brief, No. 25: Accessed September 2, 2010 at: http://www.isdp.eu/images/stories/isdp-main-pdf/2010_ozkan_combating-human-trafficking.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Sweden URL: http://www.isdp.eu/images/stories/isdp-main-pdf/2010_ozkan_combating-human-trafficking.pdf Shelf Number: 119725 Keywords: Border ControlHuman TraffickingOrganized CrimeProstitution |
Author: Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women Title: Beyond Borders: Exploring Links Between Trafficking and Labour; Exploring Links Between Trafficking and Gender; Exploring Links Between Trafficking, Globalisation, and Security; Exploring Links Between Trafficking and Migration Summary: The Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW) was launched in 1994 by a group of women’s rights activists looking for answers to simple questions: Why do women migrate? Why do some of them end up in exploitative situations? What types of jobs are they entering into? Which human rights are being violated before, during, and after their journey? How are they showing resistance to abuses and achieving their migratory goals? Answering these questions became a collaborative effort involving countless organisations and individuals over the years, and contributed to creating a more sophisticated anti-trafficking framework. This anti-trafficking framework has in many cases contributed to protecting the rights of trafficked persons. However, excessive focus on the issue of human trafficking over the last several years has also tended to ignore other related phenomena, such as people’s experiences in migration and work. Consequently, anti-trafficking has become somewhat isolated from its context and is now a highly specialised field. Such specialisation does occur in every field of knowledge and is to some extent necessary. Yet, there is a danger in trying to address the problem of human trafficking without understanding the changing context of labour and migration in a rapidly globalising world. By doing so we would be looking at trafficking exclusively as a crime and not as the end result of a number of interconnected social factors. Further, our understanding will lack the ability to create progressive political change unless we analyse the complex social reality from a gender and human rights perspective. At a practical level we have observed that this segregation of expertise is impairing our ability to assist people or effect change when rights violations are happening. As the research documented in Collateral Damage (GAATW, 2007) pointed out, anti-trafficking initiatives have in some instances harmed the very people whose rights they have claimed to protect. Exclusive focus on trafficking without a social analysis also contributes to sensationalism. It creates the false impression that trafficking is a problem that can be solved by merely taking a few legal measures and providing assistance to those identified as trafficked. Thus, the long term goal of advocating for systemic and structural changes in society gets overlooked. Regrettably, while many of us in civil society find ourselves in specialised niche areas, sometimes our advocacy efforts in one area may run counter to the advocacy efforts made by other social movements. For example, our loud condemnation of exploitation of women migrant workers may encourage the states to stop women from migrating altogether. Indeed, strict border controls have been touted as anti-trafficking measures. How do we then condemn rights violations, but also expose the agenda of states as protectionist towards women? How do we uphold rights of migrating people, but not let the state abdicate its responsibilities towards its citizens and their right to livelihood in their own countries? How do we expose workplace exploitation and advocate for standard wages for all, but not let our advocacy result in a large number of people losing their jobs and being replaced by another set of workers in some other place? Obviously, there are no easy solutions. As we see it, understanding the existing links among the issues, starting inter-movement dialogues, and collaborating with colleagues on concrete cases are essential steps. Over the last two years, GAATW has tried to address this specialisation through different means. One of them has been to work on this series of Working Papers, which explores links between trafficking and migration; trafficking and labour; trafficking and gender; and trafficking, globalisation, and security. These Working Papers look at which broader understandings are most relevant for anti-trafficking advocates, such as: Why do labour rights matter for trafficked persons? How do states’ security measures affect women’s movement through territories and borders? The rationale for these Working Papers is simple. We, like many others, are acknowledging the existing links between trafficking, migration and labour, in the broader contexts of gender and systems of globalisation and security. We are taking a further step by examining those intersections from a human rights perspective. These Working Papers outline where the anti-trafficking framework can strengthen other frameworks and vice versa, and where we as advocates can work together and establish joint strategies. The Papers also aim to identify tensions among the different frameworks, and recognise the spaces for separate work. The complexities in people’s lives cannot be captured by one story or approach alone, whether that approach is anti-trafficking, women’s rights, human rights, migrant rights, or labour rights. In other words, a person’s life cannot be summarised as being merely that of a “trafficked person” or “migrant worker”, as often happens. People’s lives are richer than their trafficking, migration and work experiences. People, in spite of hardship, show great amounts of courage, resourcefulness and resilience, and find ways to negotiate complicated situations to exercise their rights. Our Papers have focussed on the lives of women. As an alliance of primarily women’s rights organisations, much of our direct engagement is with women. While we decided to give centrality to women’s lived experiences, we are certainly not denying that experiences of exploitation and trafficking for men are any less horrendous. These four Working Papers depict numerous examples of migrant women exercising agency. The Papers also show that, because space for agency is determined by the systems a person must navigate, different frameworks (labour, migration, anti-trafficking, and so on) can be used at different moments to increase women’s power over their own situations. Although these four Working Papers have distinctive features, they all cover the following broad areas: • Basic concepts in the field • Examples of the links between trafficking and other issues in the work of civil society actors, governments, and other stakeholders • The beneficial and harmful effects of these simultaneous factors on working migrant women • The importance of using a human rights-based approach • How groups from different sectors can work together in new ways • Policy recommendations People who are interested in the interface between theory and practice, and between conceptual and pragmatic work, are the intended audience of these Working Papers. Details: Bangkok: Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, 2010. 4 pts. Source: Internet Resource: GAATW Working Papers Series 2010: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: www.gaatw.org Year: 2010 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 120909 Keywords: Border ControlForced LaborHuman RightsHuman TraffickingImmigration |
Author: Jacques, Genevieve Title: United States - Mexico Walls, Abuses, and Deaths at the Borders Flagrant Violations of the Rights of Undocumented Migrants on their Way to the United States Summary: There are few places in the world where tensions, due to mass migration of population in the globalization era, are as outrageous as in the geographical area that extends from Central America to the south of The United States. This space, comprising Mexico and its southern and northern borders, is a customary route followed by poor people who walk and travel overland to get to the territory and labor market of the United States. This area also traces the breakpoint line between a rich and dominant America, in economic and political terms, and a poor America that is subject to the game rules established by its northern neighbor. The borders, intended to establish the limits of national sovereignty, are the place where the main contradictions between the logics of global liberal economy, one of the main migration causes, and national policies to handle this migration flows take place, almost in a caricature way. Beyond the hydraulic metaphors of migration flows or currents, we have to remember that we are talking about human beings who take part in survival strategies but who are also victims of contradictions, inconsistencies and injustices of the region’s migration policies in force. The price they have to pay, in economic terms but especially in terms of suffering, humiliation and violation of their human rights and dignity, are very high, at the level of the extreme tensions prevailing in this part of the world. The following three figures give an idea of the extension and seriousness of the phenomenon: - In 2006, Mexican authorities questioned and deported 179,000 foreigners in transit for the United States (94 percent from Central America); - During the same year, Border Patrols of the United States deported 858,000 foreigners to their home country, between which 514,000 Mexicans, and immigration services apprehended and deported about 50,000 migrants from other Central American countries. It is estimated that, during the last 12 years, over 4,000 migrants died crossing the “wall” (both physical and virtual) that separates Mexico from the United States, this is 15 times more the number of people who died crossing the Berlin Wall during the 28 years it existed. Since new border control measures were established by United States authorities in 2001, the number of deaths has increased dramatically and reached 473 in 2005, from which 260 occurred in Arizona’s desert. According to authorities and to most of the mass media, these migrants are “illegal”. We do not agree with the use of this term, which leads to saying that human beings are illegal. The “illegality” is created by migration policies that do not correspond with reality. Furthermore, this adjective entails a tendency to criminalize immigration, making migrants that enter national territories, without all their administrative papers in order, pass for “criminals”. This semantic transfer is often accompanied by a real amalgam between migrants, undocumented people and terrorists. This evolution, particularly obvious since the current United States’ administration assumed office, has severe consequences because it leads the public opinion to legitimize the most repressive measures in the name of national security and to divert its attention from the violations of this population’s main human rights. Details: Paris: FIDH, 2008. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/USAMexiquemigran488ang.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/USAMexiquemigran488ang.pdf Shelf Number: 121196 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHuman RightsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Finklea, Kristin M. Title: Southwest Border Violence: Issues in Identifying and Measuring Spillover Violence Summary: There has been an increase in the level of drug trafficking-related violence within and between the drug trafficking organizations in Mexico. This violence has generated concern among U.S. policy makers that the violence in Mexico might spill over into the United States. Currently, U.S. federal officials deny that the recent increase in drug trafficking-related violence in Mexico has resulted in a spillover into the United States, but they acknowledge that the prospect is a serious concern. The most recent threat assessment indicates that the Mexican drug trafficking organizations pose the greatest drug trafficking threat to the United States, and this threat is driven partly by U.S. demand for drugs. Mexican drug trafficking organizations are the major suppliers and key producers of most illegal drugs smuggled into the United States across the Southwest border (SWB). The nature of the conflict between the Mexican drug trafficking organizations in Mexico has manifested itself, in part, as a struggle for control of these smuggling routes into the United States. Further, in an illegal marketplace — such as that of illicit drugs — where prices and profits are elevated due to the risks of operating outside the law, violence or the threat of violence becomes the primary means for settling disputes. When assessing the potential implications of the increased violence in Mexico, one of the central concerns for Congress is the potential for what has been termed “spillover” violence — an increase in drug trafficking-related violence in United States. While the interagency community has defined spillover violence as violence targeted primarily at civilians and government entities — excluding trafficker-on-trafficker violence — other experts and scholars have recognized trafficker-on-trafficker violence as central to spillover. When defining and analyzing changes in drug trafficking-related violence within the United States to determine whether there has been (or may be in the future) any spillover violence, critical elements include who may be implicated in the violence (both perpetrators and victims), what type of violence may arise, when violence may appear, and where violence may occur (both along the SWB and in the nation’s interior). Currently, no comprehensive, publicly available data exist that can definitively answer the question of whether there has been a significant spillover of drug trafficking-related violence into the United States. Although anecdotal reports have been mixed, U.S. government officials maintain that there has not yet been a significant spillover. In an examination of data that could provide insight into whether there has been a significant spillover in drug trafficking-related violence from Mexico into the United States, CRS analyzed violent crime data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report program. The data, however, do not allow analysts to determine what proportion of the violent crime rate is related to drug trafficking or, even more specifically, what proportion of drug trafficking-related violent crimes can be attributed to spillover violence. In conclusion, because the trends in the overall violent crime rate may not be indicative of trends in drug trafficking-related violent crimes, CRS is unable to draw definitive claims about trends in drug trafficking-related violence spilling over from Mexico into the United States. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2011 at: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41075_20110125.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41075_20110125.pdf Shelf Number: 121947 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityDrug Trafficking (U.S. and Mexico)Drug Trafficking ControlViolenceViolent Crime |
Author: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR) Title: Injustice for All: The Rise of the U.S. Immigration Policing Regime Summary: HURRICANE’s 2009-2010 report, Injustice for All: The Rise of the Immigration Policing Regime, finds that the U.S. government has built a brutal system of immigration control and policing that criminalizes immigration status, normalizes the forcible separation of families, destabilizes communities and workplaces, and fuels widespread civil rights violations. This “immigration policing regime” is also fueling racial discrimination and hate violence against immigrants and those perceived to be foreign born or “illegal.” Based on over 100 stories of abuse documented by NNIRR’s initiative, HURRICANE: The Human Rights Immigrant Community Action Network, Injustice for All shows how a new dimension of immigration control, ICE-police collaboration and border security, are hurting communities from the rural areas of New Mexico and North Carolina to New York City and the suburbs of Chicago. Injustice for All includes eleven essays by HURRICANE members in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and New York. These reports demonstrate how immigration policing impacts border and rural communities, women, Indigenous people, African and South Asian communities and workers. The report’s findings and testimonial essays bring to light the often tragic consequences of this system of immigration policing and its four identifiable pillars: 1. Relentless criminalization of immigration status and use of incarceration. 2. Persistent linking of immigration to the politics of national security and engaging in policing tactics that rely upon racial, ethnic/nationality and religious profiling. 3. Escalating militarization of immigration control and border communities; reinforcing policies and strategies that deliberately “funnel” migrants to cross through the most dangerous segments of the U.S.-Mexico border and compromise the rights and safety of border residents. 4. Scapegoating immigrants for the economic crisis and leveraging anti-immigrant sentiment to push laws and policies that cut and/or eliminate public services, roll back civil rights, environmental, labor and other social protections. Details: Oakland, CA: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR), 2010. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Acccessed March 23, 2012 at http://www.colawnc.org/files/pdf/injustice_2011.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.colawnc.org/files/pdf/injustice_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 124646 Keywords: Border ControlImmigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration Enforcement |
Author: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR) Title: Over-raided, under seige: U.S. Immigration laws and enforcement destroy the rights of immigrants Summary: Over-Raided, Under Siege: U.S. Immigration Laws and Enforcement Destroy the Rights of Immigrants provides a critical overview and analysis of the trends and patterns of human rights violations being perpetrated against immigrant and refugee communities by the U.S. government, local, county and state governments, employers and private citizen groups. It is the fourth report issued by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR) on immigration enforcement. The most recent report – Human Rights, Human Security at Risk – concludes that placing immigration services and enforcement under the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jeopardizes community safety and compromises access to services. The report was published in 2003, shortly after the formation of DHS. Over-Raided, Under Siege, produced under the auspices of the Human Rights Immigrant Community Action Network (HURRICANE) a new initiative of NNIRR, documents over 100 stories of human rights violations from across the country between 2006 and 2007. They range from immigration raids and migrant deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border tomounting detentions and deportations. The report identifies fivemajor trends of rights violations in immigration services and enforcement based on some 100 stories of abuse and 206 incidents of raids tracked through extensive documentation from newspaper articles, scholarly journals, reports, and interviews with affected persons and reporting by community groups. The report also provides a political and historical context to the stories (SEE PAGE 53). Over-Raided, Under Siege concludes with a series of recommendations for Congress, state and local governments, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and local law enforcement agencies to cease all policies, practices, measures and laws that violate international human rights norms and to protect and uphold the rights of all immigrant and refugee families, workers and communities and focus on addressing the root causes of migration. Details: Oakland, CA: National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, 2008. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2012 at http://173.236.53.234/~nnirrorg/drupal/sites/default/files/undersiege_web.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 124647 Keywords: Border ControlHuman RightsImmigration EnforcementPolice BehaviorRaids |
Author: Meyers, Deborah W. Title: Room for Progress: Reinventing Euro-atlantic Borders for a New Strategic Environment Summary: a new MPI report by Deborah W. Meyers, Rey Koslowski and Susan Ginsburg, describes the latest developments in three elements of U.S. and E.U. border management: the recently established enforcement agencies, benefits and limitations of new information technology, and contentious developments surrounding visa-free travel policy. Highlights of ways in which U.S. and E.U. border control converge and diverge include: Whereas in 2006, the United States signed a $2.5 billion contract for the Secure Border Initiative to create a “virtual fence” to complement hundreds of miles of physical fencing, European border authorities tend to focus more on interior enforcement (e.g., at workplaces and points of contact with government agencies). There is increased convergence in strategies, though, with new Department of Homeland Security attempts to step up enforcement in the interior (e.g., at workplaces); In terms of tracking the entry of foreign nationals, both the United States and Europe have made strides. The US-VISIT program processed the entry of more than 76 million foreign visitors to the United States by January 2007. The European Schengen Information System and a secondary databases known as “SIS I+” and “SISone4all,” designed to bolster external border controls so internal border controls can be removed, will enable most of the new EU Member States to lift controls at land borders by January 2008 and at airports in March 2008; Meanwhile, US-VISIT exit controls are not yet in place. Similarly, international travelers leaving the European Union are subject to passport controls at airports and land borders, but SIS is used only for watch-list checks, and Member States have yet to link entry and exit controls; U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s fiscal year 2007 budget totals over $7.8 billion, while FRONTEX’s 2007 budget is €35 million (nearly triple its 2006 budget, but much less than that spent by Member States, which retain responsibility for policing their borders); While U.S. border enforcement agencies seek more staff, soon some E.U. Member States may need less. The United States is having trouble recruiting, training and retaining the border personnel necessary for rapid growth. If CBP reaches 18,000 agents by the end of 2008 as planned, it will have added as many agents in two years as were added in the previous ten. Meanwhile, the Schengen Agreement establishes a single external border for nearly all E.U. Member States, increasingly eliminating the need for border guards at interior borders; The European Union and the United States are both increasingly turning to information technology to screen flows of people in a manner that balances travel facilitation with border security. Halting illegal migration is a principal motivating force behind increasing expenditures on IT systems in Europe and the United States; While the United States has required travelers from Visa Waiver Program countries to carry electronic passports, or “e-passports,” with facial biometric data, U.S. citizens’ passports currently do not all meet this requirement. E.U. Member States have agreed on a requirement their e-passports include fingerprints as well as facial biometrics; In recent years, visa-free travel programs that waive short-term business or tourist visa requirements for nationals of select countries have become increasingly contentious amid heightened security concerns about terrorists who may enter through these programs and fears of increased illegal immigration by people overstaying their visas; and Because all E.U. Member States, except for the United Kingdom and Ireland, belong to the Schengen Area and are treated essentially as a single entity for internal travel, the E.U. claims that visa-waiver status granted to one Member State should apply to all. The United States has engaged in a “consultative process” about Member States’ status, which has not led to clear resolutions. A new U.S. law requires travelers to electronically file travel authorization requests with DHS prior to their departure and gives the Secretary of Homeland Security increased flexibility in setting and administering overstay standards. Ultimately, the authors suggest that U.S. and E.U. policymakers must engage in greater dialogue on the new security systems and structures they are developing, as well as enhance international cooperation on border management, specifically institutional, technological and visa arrangements, if they are to realize their shared goal of securing national and regional borders. Details: Migration Policy Institute, 2007. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/EuroAtlanticBorders103107.pdf Year: 2007 Country: International URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/EuroAtlanticBorders103107.pdf Shelf Number: 125218 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityImmigrationland SecurityMigrationVisa Security |
Author: Center for the Study of Democracy Title: Reinstating the Duty-Free Trade at Bulgarian Land Borders: Potential Setback in the Fight Against Organized Crime and Corruption Summary: Since the early 1990s the duty-free shops along Bulgaria’s land-border crossings were used as a channel for illegal import of excise goods (cigarettes, alcohol and petrol). With the increase of excise and VAT taxes in the second-half of the 1990s, the risk of alcohol and cigarettes smuggling increased rapidly. The duty-free shops gradually evolved into one of the main channels for the smuggling of cigarettes, alcohol, and fuel. At that period, duty free operators existed without a legal regulation but only with a licensing permit from the Minister of Finance. The smuggling was tacitly tolerated from the highest political level. Details: Sofia, Bulgaria: Center for the Study of Democracy, 2012. 4p. Source: CSD Policy Brief No. 32: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2012 at http://www.csd.bg/fileSrc.php?id=20861 Year: 2012 Country: Bulgaria URL: http://www.csd.bg/fileSrc.php?id=20861 Shelf Number: 127105 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityCorruptionOrganized CrimeSmuggling |
Author: Danielson, Michael S. Title: Documented Failures: the Consequences of Immigration Policy on the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: This report presents systematic documentation of the experiences of migrant women, men and children repatriated from the United States to cities along Mexico's northern border, with particular emphasis on the Nogales, Arizona/Nogales, Sonora, Mexico area. The report addresses five common problems experienced by Mexican and Central American migrants before and during migration and upon apprehension, detention and deportation by U.S. migration authorities. The areas of investigation are: 1. The separation of migrants from family members they were traveling with when apprehended and deported by the U.S. Border Patrol. Migrants are often separated from their families, friends and loved ones during the process of deportation. This separation places migrants—the great majority of whom are from parts of Mexico very far from the northern border or Central American countries—in situations of unwarranted vulnerability in an increasingly dangerous region of Mexico. 2. Family separation as a driver of migration and a continuing complication for families of mixed-legal status. As the number of mixed immigration status families is steadily increasing, mothers, fathers, and guardians who are deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are often separated from their citizen children, who remain in the U.S. with their other parent, guardians, other family members, or in foster care. This section also examines how many of those deported by U.S. migration authorities were attempting to reunite with immediate family members already living in the United States. 3. Violence as a cause of migration and abuses and physical security threats experienced by migrants during northward journeys, border crossing, and after deportation from the United States. As levels of violence directly and indirectly related to drug trafficking have increased throughout Mexico and Central America in recent years, violence has become an increasingly common cause of migration. Furthermore, the growing prevalence of violence along the border means migrants are often the victims of theft and physical, verbal and sexual abuse at the hands of criminal gangs, human smugglers, human traffickers and thieves, risks that ought to be taken into consideration by U.S. migration authorities when deporting unauthorized immigrants to northern Mexico border towns. 4. Abuses and misconduct committed by the U.S. Border Patrol and other U.S.migration authorities. Based on multiple data sources, the report demonstrates that there is systematic abuse and misconduct in the process of apprehending, detaining and deporting undocumented migrants. One in four migrants surveyed (24.8%) reported being abused in some way by U.S. Border Patrol agents, and data show that Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and particularly the Border Patrol, systematically deny Mexican migrants the right to contact their consulate. 5. Abuses and misconduct committed by local police in Mexico.When traveling north, as well as after deportation, migrants are in a particularly vulnerable position and can be taken advantage of by local, state, and federal authorities in Mexico.This section provides estimates of the extent of these abuses, finding that men are more likely to be abused by Mexican police than women, and Central Americans are more likely to be abused by Mexican police than their Mexican migrant counterparts. Exploration of the five themes above reveals a complex set of distinct, but interrelated problems. The final section of the report provides a list of recommendations that, if implemented, would begin to address the most pressing problems faced by immigrants and their families. Details: Washington, DC: Jesuit Refugee Services, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Report prepared for the Kino Border Initiative Nogales, Arizona, U.S.A. and Nogales, Sonora, Mexico with funding from Catholic Relief Services of Mexico: Accessed February 19, 2013 at: http://www.jesuit.org/jesuits/wp-content/uploads/Kino_FULL-REPORT_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.jesuit.org/jesuits/wp-content/uploads/Kino_FULL-REPORT_web.pdf Shelf Number: 127652 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHuman RightsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Policy |
Author: National Research Council: Carriquiry, Alicia Title: Options for Estimating Illegal Entries at the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for securing and managing the nation’s borders. Over the past decade, DHS has dramatically stepped up its enforcement efforts at the U.S.–Mexico border, increasing the number of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents, expanding the deployment of technological assets, and implementing a variety of “consequence programs” intended to deter illegal immigration. During this same period, there has also been a sharp decline in the number of unauthorized migrants apprehended at the border. Trends in total apprehensions do not, however, by themselves speak to the effectiveness of DHS’s investments in immigration enforcement. In particular, to evaluate whether heightened enforcement efforts have contributed to reducing the flow of undocumented migrants, it is critical to estimate the number of border-crossing attempts during the same period for which apprehensions data are available. With these issues in mind, DHS charged the National Research Council (NRC) with providing guidance on the use of surveys and other methodologies to estimate the number of unauthorized crossings at the U.S.–Mexico border, preferably by geographic region and on a quarterly basis. The NRC appointed the Panel on Survey Options for Estimating the Flow of Unauthorized Crossings at the U.S.–Mexican Border to carry out this task. A better understanding of the magnitude, timing, and location of these flows will help DHS to better evaluate the effectiveness of its enforcement efforts and to more efficiently allocate its resources along the border. This study focuses on Mexican migrants since Mexican nationals account for the vast majority (around 90 percent) of attempted unauthorized border crossings across the U.S.–Mexico border. A discussion of the use of surveys and statistical methods to measure unauthorized border flows needs to be set in the context of border enforcement and the migration process, both current and past. The migration process is highly complex, and it is influenced by a variety of factors such as the economic, social, and environmental conditions in sending and destination areas; immigration policies; and interior and border enforcement. Furthermore, migrants and their smugglers have adapted, and can continue to adapt, to changes in resources and strategies on the U.S. side of the border, and enforcement efforts in one geographic area can have spillover effects into another. This situation argues for a broader conception of the border, not segmented into ports of entry and sectors between the ports of entry. The migration process is also dynamic and evolving, and survey designs and modeling approaches that may be well suited for capturing certain aspects of migration flows today may not be able to do so with the same reliability in the future. Thus, flexibility of design and continuous evaluation of how DHS is implementing border metrics will be of the utmost relevance. Within this context, one can assess the usefulness of different types of data to capture information on migration flows. There are a number of major surveys in the United States and Mexico that collect some information about migration and border crossing. On the U.S. side, the American Community Survey (ACS) and Current Population Survey (CPS) each target U.S. households. On the Mexican side, the “long questionnaire” of the Mexican Census of Housing and Population (administered to a 10 percent sample of the population in Mexico), the National Survey of Occupation and Employment (ENOE), the National Survey of Population Dynamics (ENADID), and the longitudinal Mexican Family Life Survey (MxFLS) target households at a national level. None of these surveys was specifically designed to study migration. The Mexican Migration Project (MMP) and Mexican Migration Field Research Program (MMFRP), in contrast, focus on studying migration, although the surveys are not based on probability sampling. The Survey of Migration at the Northern Border (EMIF-N), which has a probability sample conceptual basis, targets migrants passing through northern border cities of Mexico. Details: Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13498 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13498 Shelf Number: 128011 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHomeland SecurityIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: Frontex Title: Annual Risk Analysis 2013 Summary: Detections of illegal border-crossing along the EU’s external borders dropped sharply in 2012 to about 73 000, i.e. half the number reported in 2011. This was the first time since systematic data collection began in 2008 that annual detections have plunged under 100 000. In the Central Mediterranean area, the large number of detections in 2011, which suddenly increased following the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Libya, had been significantly reduced by the end of 2011. However, throughout 2012, detections steadily increased and by the end of the year they totalled more than 10 300. Starting from 2008, considerable numbers of migrants had been detected crossing illegally the border between Turkey and Greece, along the so-called Eastern Mediterranean route. The situation changed dramatically in August 2012 when the Greek authorities mobilised unprecedented resources at their land border with Turkey, including the deployment of 1 800 additional Greek police officers. The number of detected illegal border-crossings rapidly dropped from about 2 000 in the first week of August to below 10 per week in October 2012. The enhanced controls along the Greek-Turkish land border led to a moderate increase in detections of illegal border-crossing in the Aegean Sea and at the land border between Bulgaria and Turkey, but simultaneous mitigation efforts in Turkey and Bulgaria have so far contained the displacements. There remains the risk of resurgence of irregular migration, since many migrants may be waiting for the conclusion of the Greek operations before they continue their journey towards Europe. Many migrants who cross the border illegally to Greece move on to other Member States, mostly through the land route across the Western Balkans. Contrary to the decrease at the Greek-Turkish land border, there was no decrease in detections of illegal border- crossing on the Western Balkan route (6 390, +37%). In 2012, in the Western Mediterranean area between North Africa and Spain, detections of illegal border-crossing decreased by nearly a quarter compared to 2011 but remained above the levels recorded in previous years (6 400, -24%). In 2012, Afghans remained the most detected nationality for illegal border-crossing at EU level, but their number considerably dropped compared to 2011. Syrians stand out, with large increases in detections of illegal bordercrossing and for using fraudulent documents compared to 2011. Most of the detected Syrians applied for asylum in the EU, fleeing the civil war in their country. There were large increases in refusals of entry at the Polish land border with Belarus and Ukraine. However, these increases were offset by a decrease in refusals of entry issued at other border sections, resulting in a stable total at EU level compared to 2011 (-3%, 115 000 refusals of entry). Detections of illegal stayers, which totalled about 350 000 in the EU in 2012, have shown a stable but slightly declining long-term trend since 2008. Most migrants detected illegally staying in the EU were from Afghanistan and Morocco. Despite a short-term increase of 10% between 2011 and 2012, the overall trend of detections of facilitators of irregular migration has been falling since 2008, totalling about 7 700 in 2012. This long-term decline may be in part due to a widespread shift towards the abuse of legal channels (such as overstaying, abuse of visa-free regime, etc.) and document fraud, which results in facilitators being able to operate remotely and inconspicuously. In 2012, there were around 8 000 detections of migrants using fraudulent documents to enter the EU or Schengen area illegally. Preliminary data on asylum applications in 2012 indicate an overall increase of about 7% compared to the previous year. While Afghans continue to account for the largest share of applications, much of the increase was due to an increasing number of applications submitted by Syrian nationals. The number of asylum applications submitted in the EU by Western Balkan citizens, mostly those from Serbia, remained unabated in 2012. Consequently, following the implementation of the visa facilitation agreement with five Western Balkan countries that started at the end of 2009, there are now discussions in the EU about the possible reintroduction of the visa regime. In 2012, there was a steady trend of about 160 000 third-country nationals effectively returned to third countries. Greece reported the largest number of returns of a single nationality (Albanians), and effective returns in Greece increased markedly in the last quarter of 2012 following the launch of the Xenios Zeus operation. Looking ahead, the assessment of risks along the EU’s external borders shows that despite a sharp reduction in detections between 2011 and 2012, the risks associated with illegal border- crossing along the land and sea external borders remain among the highest, in particular in the southern section of the border of the EU. The risk of illegal border-crossing along the land borders of the Eastern Mediterranean route, including the Greek and Bulgarian land border with Turkey, is assessed amongst the highest. This comes after several years of large numbers of migrants detected at the Greek land border with Turkey. Although the flow abruptly stopped in August 2012, there are reports of uncertainties related to the sustainability of the efforts and growing evidence that migrants are waiting in Turkey for the end of the operation. Increases at the neighbouring sea border (Aegean Sea), at the land border between Bulgaria and Turkey and increases in detections of document fraud from Istanbul airports, although so far relatively small, indicate that alternatives to the Greek land border are being explored by facilitators. Many of the migrants who crossed illegally through the Eastern Mediterranean route are expected to continue making secondary movements across the Western Balkans and within the EU. The risk of illegal border-crossing across the Central Mediterranean area was also assessed amongst the highest due the continued volatile situation in countries of departure in North Africa. Crisis situations are still likely to arise at the southern border with thousands of people trying to cross the border illegally in the span of several weeks or months. Past experiences also show that these crises take their toll on human lives, and are very difficult to predict and quell without a coordinated response. Most risks associated with document fraud were assessed as high. Indeed, document fraudsters not only undermine border security but also the internal security of the EU. These risks are also common to nearly all Member States, as they are associated with passenger flows and border checks, which are a specific expertise of bordercontrol authorities. Fraud is expected mostly among EU travel documents (e.g. passports, visas and ID cards). False pretence or deception is used to obtain a wide range of documents. The most common technique is to use fraudulent documents to obtain short-term visas. Most risks associated with the abuse of legal channels are assessed as high as they are common and widely spread phenomena. Based on currently available information, the risks associated with cross-border criminality are assessed as moderate, including the risks of trafficking in human beings, terrorism, smuggling of illicit drugs and exit of stolen vehicles. Details: Warsaw, Poland: Frontex, 2013. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk_Analysis_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Europe URL: http://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk_Analysis_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128911 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityDrug SmugglingHuman TraffickingIllegal ImmigrationRisk Assessment (Europe)Stolen Vehicles |
Author: Thomas, Chantal Title: Immigration Controls and 'Modern-Day Slavery' Summary: Are immigration controls the single biggest legal factor contributing to modern‐day slavery? In a national and international political moment in which immigration law and policy are being hotly debated, participants in the debate should recognize the impact of strict migration controls – one of the clearest results of the current U.S. immigration law reform effort – is to exacerbate conditions of immiseration that are frequently associated by anti‐trafficking advocates and reformers with "modern‐day slavery." Conversely, those who are fighting to end modern‐day slavery might be best advised to focus on immigration reform that relaxes border control and increases the rights and remedies of undocumented migrants, as the measures that could most provide immediate redress. Details: Ithaca, NY: Cornell Law School, 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-86 : Accessed August 8, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2294656 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2294656 Shelf Number: 129599 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHuman TraffickingIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Policy |
Author: Smith, Nicola Title: 'Donkey Flights': Illegal Immigration from the Punjab to the United Kingdom Summary: This report, written by journalist Nicola Smith, sketches one immigration loophole into Europe: so-called "donkey flights" by which Indian migrants obtain a tourist visa for a Schengen-zone country in order to enter the United Kingdom through the back door. The report is based on an undercover expose of Punjabi visa agencies by The Sunday Times, and from interviews conducted with migrants, law enforcement officers, and senior officials in India and Europe. The report identifies several trends. First, thousands of visa agencies operate in the Punjab region alone, with varying degrees of legality. Some agencies, while breaking no rules, charge disproportionate fees for visas that could be obtained directly from the relevant embassy. Some operate in legally grey areas, such as by advising migrants on how to bend the rules. More underground operations have links to criminal smuggling networks across Europe. Second, the scale of this migration challenge facing the UK government is considerable. Push factors such as low wages and high unemployment combine with the lure of vast earnings overseas. Many are desperate to migrate, whether legally or illegally, and are attracted by word of mouth "success stories." Even migrants who have been deported look for alternative ways to return. Third, developing effective policies is difficult. The illegal immigration industry is flexible and adaptable, responding quickly to legislative changes. By contrast, government bureaucracy can only slowly change its rules and practices. Closing one loophole can mean another is opened elsewhere. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/donkey-flights-illegal-immigration-punjab-united-kingdom Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/donkey-flights-illegal-immigration-punjab-united-kingdom Shelf Number: 132231 Keywords: Border ControlIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyMigrationUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Migreurop Title: Europe's Murderous Borders Summary: Born in 2002, the Migreurop network brings together activists and over forty associations from thirteen countries both north and south of the Mediterranean. Its goal is to collect information to reveal and denounce the effects of the European Union's migration policies insofar as human rights violations are concerned, particularly in places of detention. The map of camps for foreigners in Europe and in Mediterranean countries drawn up by Migreurop, which is regularly updated, has become a reference in this field. Since 2008, the Migreurop network's work has taken on the form, in particular, of a Borders Observatory that rests upon a number of tools: apart from the divulging of information on human rights violations at borders through its e-mail list and website, Migreurop has launched a campaign for a 'Right of access in the places of detention for migrants', and has set up a working group on the consequences of readmission agreements reached between the European Union and its neighbours. In September 2009, Migreurop published an 'Atlas of migrants in Europe', which aims to be a work of critical geography of border controls. Migreurop releases this report on the violation of human rights at borders, 'Murderous Borders', within the framework of the Borders Observatory. For this first edition, Migreurop has chosen to focus on four symbolic poles of the misdeeds of the policies enacted by the European Union: the Greek-Turkish border, the Calais region in northwestern France, that of Oujda, in eastern Morocco, and the island of Lampedusa in the far south of Italy. They represent as many stops, of varying length and too often tragic, in the odyssey of thousands of people who, every year, seek to flee persecutions through chosen or obligatory exile, or simply to escape the fate that is reserved to them, by attempting to reach Europe. Details: Paris: Migreurop, 2009. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2014 at: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/Rapport-Migreurop-nov2009-en-final.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Europe URL: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/Rapport-Migreurop-nov2009-en-final.pdf Shelf Number: 132903 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHuman Rights (Europe)Immigrant DetentionImmigrationMigrant DetentionMigrants |
Author: Migreurop Title: European Borders: Controls, detention and deportations Summary: Abbiamo fermato l'invasione: "We have stopped the invasion", a Northern League poster boasted in March 2010 before the regional elections in Italy. The press could rejoice about seeing "Lampedusa returned to the fishermen", since the identification and expulsion centre on the island, which had seen over 30,000 "illegals" disembark in 2008, and still 1,220 in February 2009, was henceforth empty since October. In turn, the Italian government was trumpeting the fact that, against "illegal" immigration, firmness had ended up paying off. From the other islands in the Sicily Channel to Malta, to the Canary islands, and to the coasts of Andalusia in Spain, the same fact could be noted: unwanted arrivals on the coasts had ended, at least on that side of Europe. Moreover, at a time when Migreurop is completing its second annual report, it has even been stated that Libya has closed its detention centres - those camps that were hastily created following great inputs of "aid" from north of the Mediterranean. Readers should read this report with caution, because, in the field of migration, the gateways and routes open up and close down very quickly, in accordance with the deals between European Union member states and those between the latter and so-called "third" countries, in spite of the strong trends that we denounce here. Details: Paris: Migreurop, 2010. 132p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-migreurop-2010-en_-_2-121110.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-migreurop-2010-en_-_2-121110.pdf Shelf Number: 132972 Keywords: Border Control Border Security Human Rights (Europe) Immigrant Detention Immigration Migrant Detention Migrants |
Author: Guerra, Santiago Ivan Title: From Vaqueros to Mafiosos : a community history of drug trafficking in rural South Texas Summary: My dissertation, From Vaqueros to Mafiosos: A Community History of Drug Trafficking in Rural South Texas is an ethnographic study of the impact of the drug trade in South Texas, with a specific focus on Starr County. This dissertation examines drug trafficking along the U.S-Mexico Border at two levels of analysis. First, through historical ethnography, I provide a cultural history of South Texas, as well as a specific history of drug trafficking in Starr County. In doing so, I highlight the different trafficking practices that emerge throughout South Texas' history, and I document the social changes that develop in Starr County as a result of these illicit practices. The second half of my dissertation, however, is devoted to a contemporary analysis of the impact of the drug trade on the border region by analyzing important social practices in Starr County relating to drug abuse, policing and the criminal justice system, youth socialization and family life. Through ethnography I present the devastating effects of the drug trade and border policing on this Mexican American border community in rural South Texas. Details: Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 2011. 244p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 29, 2014 at: http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-05-3036 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-05-3036 Shelf Number: 129918 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityDrug TraffickingOrganized Crime |
Author: European Commission. Directorate-General for Home Affairs Title: Technical Study on Smart Borders: Final Report Summary: The "Smart Borders Package" was proposed by the Commission in February 2013. It follows the European Commission (EC) Communication of February 2008 suggesting the establishment of an Entry/Exit System (EES) and a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP). The Smart Borders Package is constituted of three legislative proposals. It aims to improve the management of the external borders of the Schengen Member States (MS), fight against irregular immigration and provide information on overstayers, as well as facilitate border crossings for pre-vetted frequent third country national (TCN) travellers. During the first examination of the Smart Borders Package, which was completed in February 2014, the Council and the European Parliament (EP) voiced technical, operational and cost concerns, mainly related to the overall feasibility of the proposed new systems and of some of their features. Concerns related especially to the impact on the actual border control process, the RTP token, the data retention period in the EES, the choice of biometric identifiers, the extent to which national Entry/Exit Systems could be integrated and/or reused, the need for enhanced synergies and/or interoperability with existing border control systems, and the possibility for law enforcement authorities to access the EES. In order to further assess the technical, organisational and financial impacts of the various possible ways to address these issues, the Commission subsequently initiated - with the support of both co-legislators - a proof of concept exercise aimed at identifying options for implementing the Smart Borders package. This exercise consists of two stages: 1. A Commission-led Technical Study (this report) aimed at identifying and assessing the most suitable and promising options and solutions. Based on this Study, the options and solutions to be tested through a pilot project should be identified by the end of 2014. 2. A Pilot project to be entrusted to the Agency for the Operational Management of large-scale IT Systems in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA), aimed at verifying the feasibility of the options identified in the Technical Study and validating the selected concepts for both automated and manual border controls. This Study addressed a series of questions raised in 20 Thematic Files (TFs) that were jointly agreed between the EC's Directorate General for Home Affairs (DG HOME), the MS and EP representatives in February 2014. These questions focused on six domains: 1. Statistics 2. Biometrics 3. Border control processes 4. Data 5. Architecture 6. Costs. The Study's methodological approach was primarily based on stakeholders' consultations through workshops, phone interviews and feedback from MS on the draft deliverables. The stakeholders consulted included MS, the EP, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), DG HOME, DG Justice (DG JUST), DG Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD), eu-LISA, Frontex and representatives from industry. The Study also built upon extensive desk research, literature review and various on-site visits. In addition, a specific data collection survey was carried out at the external borders of the Schengen Area by the MS at the end of May 2014. This survey allowed collecting up-to-date quantitative data concerning border crossings, including their number and type (air, land and sea), and the categories of travellers (i.e. EU/EEA/CH - abbreviated as EU-citizens, third country nationals either visa-exempt (TCNVE) or visa holders (TCNVH)). Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014. 416p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/smart-borders/docs/smart_borders_technical_study_en.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/smart-borders/docs/smart_borders_technical_study_en.pdf Shelf Number: 133834 Keywords: Border ControlBorder Law EnforcementBorder Security (Europe)Illegal ImmigrantsIllegal ImmigrationImmigration Policy |
Author: American Immigration Council Title: Children in Danger: A guide to the Humanitarian Challenge at the Border Summary: The American Immigration Council has prepared this guide in order to provide policymakers, the media, and the public with basic information surrounding the current humanitarian challenge the U.S. is facing as thousands of young migrants show up at our southern border. This guide seeks to explain the basics. Who are the unaccompanied children and why are they coming? What basic protections are they entitled to by law? What happens to unaccompanied children once they are in U.S. custody? What has the government done so far? What additional responses have been proposed to address this issue? The children's reasons for coming to the United States, their care, our obligations to them as a nation, and the implications for foreign and domestic policies are critical pieces we must understand as we move toward solutions. Acknowledging the complexity of the situation, President Obama declared an "urgent humanitarian situation" along the southwest border requiring a coordinated federal effort by a range of federal agencies. The government's subsequent response has ignited a vigorous debate between advocates for refugees and unaccompanied minors and the government. We hope that this guide helps those engaging in the debate to understand the key concepts and America's laws and obligations related to unaccompanied children. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/docs/children_in_danger_a_guide_to_the_humanitarian_challenge_at_the_border_final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/docs/children_in_danger_a_guide_to_the_humanitarian_challenge_at_the_border_final.pdf Shelf Number: 128069 Keywords: Border ControlChild ImmigrantsIllegal ImmigrationImmigration PolicyUnaccompanied Children (U.S.) |
Author: Gruben, William C. Title: "Illegal" Immigration on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Is It Really a Crisis? Summary: In recent months, print and television journalists have presented the American public with a "crisis" of illegal immigration on the U.S.-Mexico border. Much of this recent discussion has centered on Central American children traveling alone and on allegations that they are responding to motivations created by the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival policy. The word "crisis," however, can have alternative meanings. If a "crisis" of undocumented immigration means a historically large or very rapidly growing flow of undocumented immigrations, the overall national evidence shows today that there is no such crisis. Border Patrol apprehensions of undocumented immigrants attempting to cross the U.S.- Mexico border have in fact plummeted and remain far below levels a decade earlier. Nevertheless, apprehensions of children traveling alone have indeed surged. Many of these child immigrants are traveling alone from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. This flow of children from Central America requires careful examination, especially if compared to Mexico's numbers. Although Mexico's population is eight times Guatemala's, 15 times Honduras and 19 times El Salvador's, for example, the most recent partial-year apprehensions of unaccompanied children from each one of these countries have exceeded such apprehensions of children from Mexico. All this points to a surge of unaccompanied Central American children. But even this has to be qualified as a true crisis or not. While references to a record of apprehensions of unaccompanied child immigrants are correct, publicly available data for this category only go back to 2010. Thus, it may be preliminary to draw definitive conclusions about record numbers of unaccompanied children based on four full-fiscal-year observations plus monthly observations into a fifth year. Other data, including total apprehensions for any undocumented child immigrants, accompanied or otherwise, extend more than a decade. Preliminary estimates for fiscal year 2014 suggest that these apprehensions have remained below levels a decade earlier. Details: Houston, TX: James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December a0, 2014 at: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/4d562970/MC-Immig-Gruben_Payan-101714.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/4d562970/MC-Immig-Gruben_Payan-101714.pdf Shelf Number: 134308 Keywords: Border ControlChild ImmigrantsIllegal ImmigrationUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Armacost, Barbara E. Title: Immigration Policing: Federalizing the Local Summary: Recent immigration scholarship has identified two features of current immigration enforcement: the "federalization" of immigration law - meaning the growing participation of state and local police in immigration enforcement - and "crimmigration" - the increasing use of immigration law as a strategy for crime control. Scholars argue that these trends are new and that they have had a negative effect on immigration regulation. By contrast, supporters of state and local immigration enforcement point out that police officers can serve as a powerful "force multiplier" by funneling the highest priority illegal aliens - criminal aliens - into the federal immigration system. They argue that this won't change the shape of ordinary law enforcement. Neither side is correct. On the one hand, neither of these features is particularly new. For decades, federal immigration officials have been partnering with state and local officials and for nearly 100 years federal law has provided for deportation based on conviction of certain crimes. What is new is that enhanced funding and expanded programing has enlarged the scope of state and local participation and thrust it into public view. On the other hand, proponents of state and local police as "force multipliers" underestimate the extent to which this increased participation distorts both federal immigration enforcement policy and state and local law enforcement policy. These distortions result primarily from one salient feature of the merged system: the fact that state and local police involved in immigration enforcement make front-end law enforcement decisions in light of the promise of back-end immigration enforcement. This has led to the use of pre-textual stops and arrests ostensibly for traffic violations or minor crimes but actually for the purpose of feeding suspected illegal aliens into the immigration enforcement system. This article demonstrates how pre-textual enforcement actions distort federal and state/local enforcement priorities and undermine political accountability. They also lead, almost inevitably, to racial profiling that is largely impervious to legal and constitutional challenge. Assuming, as I do, that immigration policing and crimmigration are here to stay, the challenge is to harness the "force multiplier" of state and local enforcement without creating the dysfunction that can accompany it. The key is to find ways to decouple state and local law enforcement decisions from the promise of immigration enforcement. This article identifies some promising responses in this direction by ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies. While these early efforts are inadequate, they may point the way forward in a world in which immigration federalism and crimmigration are here to stay. Details: Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia School of Law, 2014. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2014-60 : Accessed March 19, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2504042 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2504042 Shelf Number: 134978 Keywords: Border ControlCrimmigrationImmigrantsImmigration Enforcement (U.S.)PolicingRacial Profiling |
Author: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Title: Interim Report of the CBP Integrity Advisory Panel Summary: Created as part of the homeland security eorganization of 2003, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the single, unified agency to protect and secure our nation's borders. CBP is by far the largest law enforcement agency of our country. In terms of its more than 44,000 arms carrying, sworn law enforcement officers, CBP is more than double the size of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and substantially larger than New York Police Department (NYPD), the largest local police force in the U.S. Unquestionably, CBP is far more effective in performing its border protection mission than was the case pre-2003 when border enforcement authority and personnel were fragmented into four separate agencies aligned within three different departments of government. Yet as a border agency with a national security and law enforcement mission, CBP is vulnerable to the potential for corruption within its workforce which, if not detected and effectively investigated, could severely undermine its mission. Moreover, it is imperative, as with all law enforcement, that CBP officers and agents avoid using excessive and unnecessary force in carrying out their duties. To this end, it is essential that CBP be capable of effectively investigating and deterring the potential unlawful and out-of-policy use of force by its personnel . It is within this context that in December 2014, the Secretary of Homeland Security requested the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) to create the CBP Integrity Advisory Panel ("Panel"), a subcommittee of the HSAC, in order to take stock of and evaluate the progress of CBP regarding its efforts to deter and prevent corruption and the use of excessive force and its efforts to restore public confidence through more transparency with key stakeholders and the public. As part of the Secretary's tasking, he requested recommendations based upon law enforcement best practices regarding further steps needed to assure the highest level of integrity, compliance with use of force policy, incident response transparency, and stakeholder engagement. The Secretary's six specific tasking's are set forth in his letter to the HSAC dated December 9, 2014. (See Appendix B) This interim report discusses integrity and use of force/transparency issues separately, yet some of our recommendations apply to both. A prime example is our recommendation that the number of criminal investigators in CBP's Office of Internal Affairs (IA) be substantially increased. An adequately staffed IA is essential to giving CBP the capacity to timely and thoroughly investigate all allegations of corruption as well as all use of force violations of CBP policy. Since its inception less than four months ago, in March 2015, the Panel has met and reviewed numerous prior reports, gathered a prodigious amount of data and met with and interviewed dozens of representatives of CBP, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), various stakeholders and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). This is our first interim report and recommendations with more to follow in the future. Given the extraordinary importance of maintaining integrity and assuring compliance with use of force policy, the Panel believes that consideration of our recommendations, and action upon them, should not await our final report. Details: Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Homeland Security, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 14, 2015 at: http://soboco.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/HSAC-CBP-IAP-Interim-Report_FINAL_062915.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://soboco.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/HSAC-CBP-IAP-Interim-Report_FINAL_062915.pdf Shelf Number: 136026 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityHomeland SecurityNational SecurityUse of Force |
Author: Weber, Leanne Title: Deciding to Detain: How Decisions to Detain Asylum Seekers are Made at Ports of Entry Summary: This research report is based on interviews conducted with immigration officers stationed at international air, sea and train ports in the UK in the late 1990s. It contains extensive first person quotes from immigration officers describing the factors that influence their discretionary decisions to detain asylum seekers on arrival. Both legal and extra-legal factors were found to influence these decisions. Moreover, statements made by immigration officials called into question claims made by departmental management at the time that detention on arrival was being used only as a last resort. Details: Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, 2014. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizenship Research Paper: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382 Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382 Shelf Number: 136701 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder ControlDecision-MakingDiscretionImmigrant DetentionImmigration Enforcement |
Author: Carrera, Sergio Title: A European Border and Coast Guard: What's in a Name? Summary: This paper assesses the Commission's proposal presented in December 2015 to set up a European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG), based on the responses made by the EU border agency Frontex to the "refugee crisis" that began in 2015 and continues unabated. It explores the extent to which this proposed new body will be capable of remedying the EU's shortcomings in meeting established border and asylum standards and related institutional needs on the ground and concludes that it is unlikely to do so. The paper argues that the EBCG proposal does not establish a true European Border and Coast Guard. Instead it would revamp Frontex into a Frontex Agency. The EBCG would expand the current logic of national border guards to be committed to the Frontex Agency 'pools' and therefore does not solve the 'dependency' of Frontex on member states. More importantly, the EBCG would do too little to ensure that member states comply with EU border and asylum standards, which has constituted the central deficiency throughout 2015 and earlier. We find that it will also fall short of establishing a professional culture in border control cooperation to be shared across the Union. Revamping and relabelling Frontex will create expectations that will be difficult to fulfil if compliance with EU border, reception, and asylum standards remains weak on the ground. The paper calls on the EU to give higher priority to policies dealing with the structural compliance with EU border and asylum standards by all member states, moving beyond the EU Dublin system and including an enlarged role for the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). Details: Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2016. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe : Accessed April 11, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745230 Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745230 Shelf Number: 138628 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder ControlBorder Security |
Author: Akkerman, Mark Title: Border Wars: The Arms Dealers Profiting from Europe's Refugee Tragedy Summary: The refugee crisis facing Europe has caused consternation in the corridors of power, and heated debate on Europe's streets. It has exposed fundamental faultlines in the whole European project, as governments fail to agree on even limited sharing of refugees and instead blame each other. Far-right parties have surged in popularity exploiting austerity-impacted communities in putting the blame for economic recession on a convenient scapegoat as opposed to the powerful banking sector. This has been most potently seen in the UK, where leaders of the 'Leave EU' campaign unscrupulously amplified fears of mass migration to successfully mobilise support for Brexit. Refugees fleeing terrible violence and hardship have been caught in the crossfire; forced to take ever more dangerous routes to get to Europe and facing racist attacks in host nations when they finally arrive. However there is one group of interests that have only benefited from the refugee crisis, and in particular from the European Union's investment in 'securing' its borders. They are the military and security companies that provide the equipment to border guards, the surveillance technology to monitor frontiers, and the IT infrastructure to track population movements. This report turns a spotlight on those border security profiteers, examining who they are and the services they provide, how they both influence and benefit from European policies and what funding they receive from taxpayers. The report shows that far from being passive beneficiaries of EU largesse, these corporations are actively encouraging a growing securitisation of Europe's borders, and willing to provide ever more draconian technologies to do this. Most perverse of all, it shows that some of the beneficiaries of border security contracts are some of the biggest arms sellers to the Middle-East and North-African region, fuelling the conflicts that are the cause of many of the refugees. In other words, the companies creating the crisis are then profiting from it. Moreover they have been abetted by European states who have granted the licences to export arms and have then granted them border security contracts to deal with the consequences. Their actions are also in the framework of an increasingly militarised response to the refugee crisis by the European Union. Under the banner of 'fighting illegal immigration', the European Commission plans to transform its border security agency Frontex into a more powerful European Border and Coast Guard Agency. This would have control over member states border security efforts and a more active role as a border guard itself, including purchasing its own equipment. The agency is backed up by EUROSUR, an EU system connecting member and third states' border security surveillance and monitoring systems. Militarisation of border security is also demonstrated by the military objectives of the 'European Union Naval Force - Mediterranean Operation Sophia' (EUNAVFOR MED) as well as the use of military on many borders, including Hungary, Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia. NATO naval missions in the Mediterranean are already actively assisting EU border security. Meanwhile, countries outside the EU are being pushed to take up a role as outpost border guards to try to stop refugees from reaching the EU borders. The recent EU migration deals with Turkey, which have been severely criticised by human rights organisations, deny refugees access to Europe and have resulted in more violence against them. The report shows that: The border security market is booming. Estimated at some 15 billion euros in 2015, it is predicted to rise to over 29 billion euros annually in 2022 The arms business, in particular sales to the Middle-East and North-Africa, where most of the refugees are fleeing from, is also booming. Global arms exports to the Middle-East actually increased by 61 per cent between 2006-10 and 2011-15. Between 2005 and 2014, EU member states granted arms exports licences to the Middle East and North Africa worth over 82 billion euros The European policy response to refugees which has focused on targeting traffickers and strengthening its external borders (including in countries outside the European Union) has led to big budget increases which benefits industry Total EU funding for member state border security measures through its main funding programmes is 4.5 billion euros between 2004 and 2020 Frontex, its main border control agency's budget increased 3,688% between 2005 and 2016 (from $6.3m to $238.7m) EU new member states have been required to strengthen borders as a condition of membership, creating additional markets for profit. Equipment purchased or upgraded with External Borders Fund money includes 54 border surveillance systems, 22,347 items of operating equipment for border surveillance and 212,881 items of operating equipment for border checks Some of the arms sales permits to the Middle-East and North Africa are also intended for border control. In 2015, for example the Dutch government granted a 34 million euro export license to Thales Nederland for the delivery of radar and C3-systems to Egypt despite reports of human right violations in the country The European border security industry is dominated by major arms companies, who have all set up or expanded security divisions as well as a number of smaller IT and specialist security firms. Italian arms giant Finmeccanica identified "border control and security systems" as one of the primary drivers for increase in orders and revenues The big players in Europe's border security complex include arms companies Airbus, Finmeccanica, Thales and Safran, as well as technology giant Indra. Finmeccanica and Airbus have been particularly prominent winners of EU contracts aimed at strengthening borders. Airbus is also the number one winner of EU security research funding contracts Finmecannica, Thales and Airbus, prominent players in the EU security business are also three of the top four European arms traders, all active selling to countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Their total revenues in 2015 amounted to 95 billion euros Israeli companies are the only non-European receivers of research funding (thanks to a 1996 agreement between Israel and the EU) and also have played a role in fortifying the borders of Bulgaria and Hungary, and promote their expertise based on the West Bank separation wall and the Gaza border with Egypt. Israeli firm BTec Electronic Security Systems, selected by Frontex to participate in its April 2014 workshop on 'Border Surveillance Sensors and Platforms', boasted in its application mail that its "technologies, solutions and products are installed on [the] Israeli-Palestinian border" The arms and security industry helps shape European border security policy through lobbying, through its regular interactions with EU's border institutions and through its shaping of research policy. The European Organisation for Security (EOS), which includes Thales, Finmecannica and Airbus has been most active in lobbying for increased border security. Many of its proposals, such as its push to set up a cross European border security agency have eventually ended up as policy - see for example the transformation of Frontex into the European Border and Coastguard Agency (EBCG). Moreover Frontex/EBCG's biannual industry days and its participation in special security roundtables and specialist arms and security fairs ensure regular communication and a natural affinity for cooperation. The arms and security industry has successfully captured the 316 million euros funding provided for research in security issues, setting the agenda for research, carrying it out, and then often benefiting from the subsequent contracts that result. Since 2002, the EU has funded 56 projects in the field of border security and border control. Collectively the evidence shows a growing convergence of interests between Europe's political leaders seeking to militarise the borders and its major defence and security contractors who provide the services. But this is not just an issue of conflicts of interest or of profiteering from crisis, it is also about the direction Europe takes at this critical moment. More than a half century ago, then US President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of a military-industrial complex, whose power could "endanger our liberties or democratic processes". Today we have an even more powerful military-security-industrial complex, using technologies that point outwards and inwards, that right now are targeted at some of the most vulnerable desperate people on our planet. Allowing this complex to escape unexamined poses a threat to democracy and to a Europe built on an ideal of cooperation and peace. As Eisenhower put it: "Down the long lane of the history yet to be written... this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2016 at: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/border-wars-report-web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/border-wars-report-web.pdf Shelf Number: 139605 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityImmigrantsImmigrationRefugeesTrafficking in FirearmsTrafficking in Weapons |
Author: Finch, Jessie K. Title: Legal Borders, Racial/Ethnic Boundaries: Operation Streamline and Identity Processes on the US-Mexico Border Summary: How do individuals navigate situations in which their work-role identity is put in competition with social identities of race/ethnicity, nationality, or citizenship/generational status? This research uses a controversial criminal court procedure (Operation Streamline) as an optimal setting to understand the strategies employed by lawyers and judges who manage such delicate identity processes. I examine how legal professionals assign salience to their various identities while developing a perspective of competing identity management that builds on and further integrates prior sociological research on identity. In particular, Latino/a judges and lawyers who participate in Operation Streamline (OSL) take on a specific work-related role identity that entails assisting in the conviction and sentencing of border-crossers with whom they share one social identity - race/ethnicity - but do not share another social identity - citizenship. I systematically assess identity management strategies used by lawyers and judges to manage these multiple competing identities while seeking to comprehend under what circumstances these identities affect legal professionals' job-related interactions. In this dissertation, I demonstrate that Latino/a lawyers and judges involved with OSL manage their potentially competing social and role identities differently than non-Latino/as whose social identities do not compete with their role identities, demonstrating variation between racial/ethnic social identities. I also find that some Latino/a lawyers and judges (those with higher racial/ethnic social identity salience) involved with OSL manage their potentially competing social and role identities differently than other Latino/a lawyers and judges (those with higher racial/ethnic social identity salience), demonstrating variation within racial/ethnic social identity based on the social identity of citizenship/generational status. Finally, I demonstrate that situationality is a factor in identity management because a shared social identity with defendants seems to be useful in the daily work of Latino/a lawyers and judges, but often detrimental in how they are perceived by outsiders such as activists and the media. From this case, we can take the findings and begin to create an outline for a new theory of competing identity management, integrating prior literatures on social and role identities. I have been able to elaborate mechanisms of some identity management processes while also developing grounded hypotheses on which to base future research. My research also contributes to improving how the criminal justice system deals with sensitive racial/ethnic issues surrounding immigration crimes and en masse proceedings such as OSL. Because proposed "comprehensive immigration reform" includes expanding programs like OSL, my research to understand the broader effects of the program on legal professionals is especially important not only to social scientists but to society at large. The fact that there is a difference in identity management strategies for Latino/a and non-Latino/a respondents helps demonstrate there is in fact an underlying racial tension present in Operation Streamline. Details: Tucson: University of Arizona, 2015. 222p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 20, 2016 at: http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/578902 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/578902 Shelf Number: 139720 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrationImmigrantsImmigrationOperation Streamline |
Author: Baldo, Suliman Title: Border Control from Hell: How EU's migration partnership legitimizes Sudan's "militia state" Summary: Large-scale migration to Europe has precipitated a paradigm shift in relations between the European Union (EU) and the government of Sudan, and closer ties between both entities. This new partnership has resulted in the EU disbursing millions of euros to the Sudanese government for technical equipment and training efforts geared toward stopping the flow to Europe of migrants from Sudan and those from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa who come through Sudan. The EU's action plan will involve building the capacities of Sudan's security and law enforcement agencies, including a paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which has been branded as Sudan's primary "border force." The EU will assist the RSF and other relevant agencies with the construction of two camps with detention facilities for migrants. The EU will also equip these Sudanese border forces with cameras, scanners, and electronic servers for registering refugees. There are legitimate concerns with these plans. Much of the EU-funded training and equipment is dual-use. The equipment that enables identification and registration of migrants will also reinforce the surveillance capabilities of a Sudanese government that has violently suppressed Sudanese citizens for the past 28 years. Sudan's strategy for stopping migrant flows on behalf of Europe involves a ruthless crackdown by the RSF on migrants within Sudan. Dogged by persistent armed uprisings led by opponents protesting chronic inequalities in the distribution of national wealth and political power in its periphery regions, the Sudanese government has always relied on a plethora of militia groups to counter insurgencies. The RSF is one of these militia groups. It evolved from the disparate Janjaweed militias that carried out the genocidal counterinsurgency policy of the Sudanese regime in Darfur that began in 2003. However, in its functions and evolution, the RSF differs significantly from other militia groups employed by the government. The RSF first evolved from a strike force deployed against insurgents in Darfur into a national counterinsurgency force under the operational command of Sudan's National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) that was tasked with fighting the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army-North (SPLM/A-N) in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states. Then, in September 2013, the RSF was deployed against peaceful demonstrators who were protesting the Sudanese government's removal of subsidies on basic commodities. More than 170 people were killed in September 2013, in incidents that unmasked the Sudanese regime's dependence on the militia to quell political dissent and marked a new evolution in the role of the RSF. Starting in 2015 and 2016, and convinced of the RSF's effectiveness as a counterinsurgency force, the regime designated the RSF as Sudan's primary force tasked with patrolling Sudanese borders to interdict migrants' movement. The Sudanese government made this designation within the framework of its partnership with the EU for the control of migration. As such, the RSF is positioned to receive EU funds for reducing the flows of migrants from Sudan to Europe. The Sudanese government enacted a law in January 2017 that integrated the RSF into the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF, national army). The 2017 law (conflictingly) made the RSF autonomous, integrated into the army, and under the command of President Omar al-Bashir. The EU and the EU member states that are most engaged with Sudan in the actual programmatic partnership on migration flows should scrutinize the record and conduct of the RSF as the partnership unfolds. By "building the capacity" of Sudan's newly minted border force with funding and training, the EU would not only be strengthening the hand of the RSF but also could find itself underwriting a complex system of a "militia state" that Sudan has evolved into since the current regime came to power in 1989. In so doing, the EU contradicts and undermines the overriding objectives of its own founding treaty. EU members cannot advance peace, security, and human rights and they cannot stem irregular migration from Sudan and the Horn of Africa by directly funding a government that deploys a militia group that stokes violent conflict, commits atrocities, and creates massive displacement of populations within Sudan. The remainder of this paper synthesizes public information about the RSF's activities and argues how EU support for this group could ultimately worsen irregular migration to Europe, escalate violent conflict within Sudan and the Horn of Africa, and embolden a regime and militia force that acts with impunity and now faces even fewer checks on its criminal behavior. This paper aims to highlight the latest developments from Sudan and examine the record of earlier engagements of the RSF, lest one or all of Sudan's EU partners claim, at a later date, that they were unaware of the perverse incentives at play. Details: Washington, DC: Enough Project, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.enoughproject.org/files/BorderControl_April2017_Enough_Finals.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.enoughproject.org/files/BorderControl_April2017_Enough_Finals.pdf Shelf Number: 144768 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityIllegal ImmigrationMigrantsMigration Enforcement |
Author: Danelo, David J. Title: For Protection or Profit? Free trade, human smuggling and international border management Summary: For the past two decades, policy officials and human-rights groups in both Europe and the US have participated in a vicious cycle of criticizing each other over the impact of border-control policies. Many activists hold enforcement authorities responsible for the human impact of migration enforcement, evident in allegations of increases in human smuggling and the grim realities of migrant deaths. In contrast, policymakers often claim that humanrights advocates encourage migration and risk-taking by proposing consequence-free international transit, which exacerbates the problem. Although the role of free-trade policies and supply chains is critical to understanding the border-management landscape in which these activities play out, customs laws are rarely considered by either side in this debate. This policy paper considers the impact of multinational corporations on border control through so-called trusted trader and traveller programmes, whose aim is to reduce border inspections for individuals and companies by allowing inspectors to pre-screen cargo and passengers who pass background investigations. Although these programmes have become essential to the management of global supply chains, they often create an illusion of increased security while simultaneously intensifying the divide between those who are and those who are not willing to pay the fees to participate in them. The paper also critically examines two pillars of American border policy - beyond-the-border initiatives and joint border management - and compares them with security elements of the European system. These mechanisms, which increased sharply through American-led initiatives following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, often appear effective and harmless, and therefore receive little scrutiny. Both in the US and Europe, multinational border-control agreements have been subjected to little scrutiny because of the failure of stakeholders to hold the global transportation system and state authorities accountable for these agreements. Although scant empirical evidence is available, what little does exist suggests that illicit activities, such as smuggling, are only marginally deterred by these strategies. By taking advantage of the vulnerabilities in such border-control agreements, smugglers of migrants and contraband are able to exploit trusted trader/ traveler programmes and public-private partnerships by using companies or people that are participants to make illicit transits. Although these agreements should not be eliminated, Europe should be cautious about mirroring the American approach to border management. And amid the current political climate of increasingly xenophobic US immigration policies, European policy negotiators should consider stipulating minimum requirements for participation in US programmes, including protections for people seeking humanitarian relief. Details: Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2018. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Note: Accessed April 18, 2018 at: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/For-Protection-or-Profit-Intl-Border-Management-March-2018-web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: International URL: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/For-Protection-or-Profit-Intl-Border-Management-March-2018-web.pdf Shelf Number: 149847 Keywords: Asylum SeekersBorder ControlBorder SecurityHuman SmugglingIllegal ImmigrationMigration EnforcementOrganized Crime |
Author: Akkerman, Mark Title: Expanding the Fortress: The policies, the profiteers and the people shaped by EU's border externalisation programme Summary: The plight of the world's 66 million forcibly displaced persons tends to only trouble the European Union's conscience when the media spotlight turns on a tragedy at Europe's borders or when displacment is perceived to be en route to Europe. Only one European nation - Germany - is even in the top ten countries worldwide that receive refugees leaving the vast majority of forcibly displaced persons hosted by some of the world's poorest nations. The invisibility therefore is only broken when border communities such as Calais, Lampedusa, Lesvos become featured in the news as desperate people fleeing violence end up dead, detained or trapped. These tragedies aren't just unfortunate results of war or conflict elsewhere, they are also the direct result of Europe's policies on migration since the Schengen agreement in 1985. This approach has focused on fortifying borders, developing ever more sophisticated surveillance and tracking of people, and increasing deportations while providing ever fewer legal options for residency despite ever greater need. This has led many forcibly displaced persons unable to enter Europe legally and forced into ever more dangerous routes to escape violence and conflict. What is less well-known is that the same European-made tragedy plays out well beyond our borders in countries as far away as Senegal and Azerbaijan. This is due to another pillar of Europe's approach to migration, known as border externalisation. Since 1992 and even more aggressively since 2005, the EU has developed a policy of externalising Europe's border so that forcibly displaced people never get to Europe's borders in the first place. These policies involve agreements with Europe's neighbouring countries to accept deported persons and adopt the same policies of border control, improved tracking of people and fortified borders as Europe. In other words, these agreements have turned Europe's neighbours into Europe's new border guards. And because they are so far from Europe's shores and media, the impacts are almost completely invisible to EU citizens. This report seeks to shine a spotlight on the policies that underpin this externalisation of Europe's borders, the agreements that have been signed, the corporations and entities that profit, and the consequences for forcibly displaced people as well as the countries and populations that host them. It is the third in a series, Border Wars, that have examined Europe's border policies and shown how the arms and security industry has helped shape European border security policies and have then reaped the rewards for ever more border security measures and contracts. This report shows a significant growth in border externalisation measures and agreements since 2005 and a massive acceleration since the November 2015 Valletta Europe - Africa Summit. Using a plethora of new instruments, in particular the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF), the Migration Partnership Framework and the Refugee Facility for Turkey, the European Union and individual member states are now providing millions of euros for an array of projects to stop migration of certain people from taking place on or across European territory. This includes collaboration with third countries in terms of accepting deported persons, training of their police and border officials, the development of extensive biometric systems, and donations of equipment including helicopters, patrol ships and vehicles, surveillance and monitoring equipment. While many projects are done through the European Commission, a number of individual member states, such as Spain, Italy and Germany also take a lead in funding and training through bilateral agreements with non-EU-countries. What makes this collaboration in the context of border externalisation particularly problematic is that many of the governments receiving the support are deeply authoritarian, and the support they are receiving is often going to precisely the state security organs most responsible for repression and abuses of human rights. The European Union in all its policies has a fine rhetoric on the importance of human rights, democracy and rule of law, but there seems to be no limits to the EU's willingness to embrace dictatorial regimes as long as they commit to preventing 'irregular migration' reaching Europe's shores. As a result there have been EU agreements and funding provided to regimes as infamous as Chad, Niger, Belarus, Libya and Sudan. These policies therefore have far-reaching consequences for forcibly displaced persons, whose 'illegal' status already makes them vulnerable and more likely to face human rights abuses. Many end up in either exploitative working conditions, detention and/or get deported back to the countries they have fled from. Women refugees in particular face high risks of gender-based violence, sexual assault and exploitation. Violence and repression against forcibly displaced persons also pushes migration underground, reconfigures the business of smuggling and reinforces the power of criminal smuggling networks. As a result, many persons have been forced to look for other, often more dangerous routes and to rely on ever more unscrupulous traffickers. This leads to an even higher death toll. Moreover the strengthening of state security organs throughout the MENA, Maghreb, Sahel and Horn of Africa regions also threatens the human rights and democratic accountability of the region, particularly as it also diverts much needed resources from economic and social spending. Indeed, this report shows that Europe's obsession with preventing migrants is not only diverting resources, it is also distorting Europe's trade, aid and international relationships with the entire region. As many experts have pointed out, this is laying the ground for further instability and insecurity in the region and the likelihood of greater refugees in the future. There is however one group that have benefited greatly from the EU's border externalisation programmes. As the earlier Border Wars reports showed, it is the European military and security industry that have derived the most benefit for delivering much of the equipment and services for border security. They are accompanied by a number of intergovernmental and (semi-)public institutions that have grown significantly in recent years as they implement dozens of projects on border security and control in non-EU-countries. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute (TNI), 2018. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2018 at: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/expanding_the_fortress_-_1.6_may_11.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/expanding_the_fortress_-_1.6_may_11.pdf Shelf Number: 150748 Keywords: Border ControlBorder SecurityDeportationImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration PolicyRefugeesSmuggling of Goods |
Author: Gerstein, Daniel M. Title: Looking to the Future of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP): Assessment of the Consolidation of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) and the DIBP (2016-2017) Summary: In 2016, RAND Corporation conducted an evaluation of the newly integrated Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). This report, requested by the DIBP, presents a second, follow-on evaluation with two thrusts: to update the previous analysis and identify lessons for continued DIBP reform, and to inform the upcoming transition to an Australian Department of Home Affairs (HA). Interviews with senior leaders and documents dating to 2005 provide the foundation for judgments and findings in this report, concentrating on changes during the period 2016-2017 and ongoing and planned efforts by DIBP as part of future reform. Analysis focuses on: (1) intelligence, (2) investigations, (3) detention, (4) integrity and corruption, and (5) learning and development. This report finds that (1) previous DIBP progress toward integration and reform has continued, although uneven across the department, and many goals remain a work in progress, (2) lessons and insights applicable to the formation of the soon-to-be-established HA have been learned; and (3) other organisational transformations by similar organisations identify insights and pitfalls for the establishment of HA. Overall, progress has been made in building a modern border management capability for Australia, though more work remains. The foundations of the DIBP are solid and can serve as a basis for the establishment of HA. Key Findings DIBP Progress Toward Integration and Reform Noted, Although Uneven Across Five Areas of Analysis Resource reductions hindered development in some areas. Aggressive integration timelines outpaced organizational capacity. Intelligence made the most progress, with shortfalls in technical areas and use of intelligence to develop enforcement priorities. Detention made progress, particularly in key policies and in closures of facilities. Investigations show improvement from both internal and external perspectives. However, both were underfunded, hindering timeliness of investigations and resolution of cases. Progress was made in integrity and anti-corruption, but this area requires continued emphasis. L&D made the least progress of the five areas. Lessons and Insights Learned as DIBP Forms the Soon-To-Be-Established HA ECM functions are a year behind POI functions. This is important going into the establishment of HA, where DIBP will likely serve as the receiving organisation for the new department. Managers with the correct authorities, experience, and leadership skills must in charge of reform initiatives. The pace of change may strain the ability of the organisation and staff to keep up. Key skill sets are missing among staff. Unrealistic integration and reform timelines result in overpromising and underdelivering. HA establishment will require deconfliction between the agencies being integrated. POI and ECM areas should receive equal attention from leadership. Senior leader turbulence - staff turnover - should be avoided; this slows momentum and destabilises staff. L&D should receive appropriate attention from the onset. Expenditures will be necessary to assist building new institutions for HA. Early savings turn into a self-defeating proposition. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2018. 134p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 30, 2018 at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2262.html Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2262.html Shelf Number: 150946 Keywords: Border Control Border Security Customs Immigration Control |