Date: November 25, 2024 Mon

Time: 9:12 pm

Results for illegal immigrants

261 results found

Author: Mendelson, Margot Title: Collateral Damage: An Examination of ICE's Fugitive Operations Program Summary: The federal fugitive operations program established to locate, apprehend, and remove fugitive aliens who pose a threat to the community has instead focused chiefly on arresting unauthorized immigrants without criminal convictions. In this report, the Migration Policy Institute finds that 73 percent of nearly 97,000 people arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement fugitive operations teams between the program's inception in 2003 and early 2008 were unauthorized immigrants without criminal records. And arrests of fugitive aliens with criminal convictions have represented a steadily declining share of total arrests by the fugitive operations teams. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2009. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2018 at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/ice-fugitive-operations-program Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/ice-fugitive-operations-program Shelf Number: 115197 Keywords: Fugitives Illegal Immigrants

Author: Constitution Project Title: Recommendations for Reforming Our Immigration Detention System and Promoting Access to Counsel in Immigration Proceedings Summary: In recent years, the United States has witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of non-citizens held in immigration detention. This rapidly increasing population has drawn attention to the poor conditions of the nation's immigration detention facilities and the barriers immigrant detainees face in seeking representation of counsel in removal proceedings. These problems raise a variety of constitutional and policy concerns. This report examines expedited removal, mandatory pre-removal detention, and post-removal detention and suggests much-needed agency-level and congressional reform. Details: Washington, DC: Constitution Project, 2009. 46p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118713 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration

Author: Saunders, Jessica Title: Enforcing Immigration Law at the State and Local Levels: A Public Policy Dilemma Summary: About 12 million out-of-status aliens currently reside in the United States, and it is estimated that it will take 15 years and more than $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement to apprehend just the current backlog of absconders. One proposed solution to this enforcement problem is for federal agencies to partner with state and local law-enforcement agencies to apprehend and deport fugitive aliens. Currently, the federal government does not require state and local agencies to carry out specific immigration enforcement actions; however, comprehensive immigration reform may address this issue in the near future. Before such legislation is drafted and considered, it is important to understand all the potential impacts of a policy incorporating immigration enforcement by nonfederal entities. As there is very limited evidence about the effects of involving state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcement duties, this paper seeks to clarify the needs and concerns of key stakeholders by describing variations in enforcement approaches and making their pros and cons more explicit. The paper also suggests areas for research to add empirical evidence to the largely anecdotal accounts that now characterize discussions of the involvement of state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcemenet efforts. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2010. 6p. Source: Internet Resource; Issues in Policing: Occasional Paper Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118623 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Reform

Author: Kalacska, Margaret Title: Technological Integration As A Means of Enhancing Border Security and Reducing Transnational Crime Summary: “This report examines the porosity of the Canada-US border, focusing on the areas between ports-of-entry. Such locations have traditionally been perceived as low risk areas, but actually facilitate criminal activities that endanger the national security and economies of both countries. This analysis also considers the root causes of major illicit activities that flourish as transnational ventures in these border regions, and reiterates the need for increasing security without imposing further restrictions on legitimate travel and trade. This report makes eight recommendations to improve security between the major ports-of-entry: • Increase technological infrastructure for the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) and Coast Guard teams between the ports-of-entry. • Increase basic security and communications measures at the small and medium rural ports-of-entry. • Increase international interoperability and communication (such as real-time, integrated shared databases on criminal records, investigations in progress, and outstanding warrants) between the Canadian Border Services Agency, US Customs and Borders Protection, IBET and municipal, provincial, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Such a united, coordinated effort will be more successful at intercepting transnational crime and cross border insurgency. • Develop a mechanism to enable agents from one country to pursue fleeing suspects across the border to maintain visual surveillance on their whereabouts until authorities from the other country are able to respond. • Harmonize the sentences for smugglers and traffickers of narcotics, arms and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora-related products between Canada and the US without eligibility for early release for those convicted in Canada. • Remove the allowance of acquiring and possessing methamphetamine and methylene-dioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) chemical precursors that do not have any legitimate industrial use. • Increase the use of operationally proven technology to improve security in the areas between ports-of-entry to provide real-time information on threats to enforcement teams. • Increase the number of IBET teams: these teams should have the capability to respond to threats near real-time. Identifying the most likely between-ports-of-entry crossing points from actual data, and the field experiences of the officers on the ground, will increase the number of individuals apprehended for illegally crossing the border having significant impacts on illicit enterprises. If used correctly, appropriate technology will augment the effectiveness of the agents on the ground, especially when resources are limited.” Details: Toronto: Canadian International Council, 2009. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 6, 2010 at: http://www.onlinecic.org/research/research_areas/border_issues Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: http://www.onlinecic.org/research/research_areas/border_issues Shelf Number: 119748 Keywords: Border Security Drug Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Smuggling Transnational Crime

Author: Stana, Richard M. Title: Immigration Enforcement: Better Controls Needed over Program Authorizing State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws Summary: Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, authorizes the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to train officers to assist in identifying those individuals who are in the country illegally. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for supervising state and local officers under this program. GAO was asked to review this program. This report reviews (1) the extent to which ICE has designed controls to govern 287(g) program implementation; and (2) how program resources are being used and the activities, benefits, and concerns reported by participating agencies. GAO reviewed memorandums of agreement (MOA) between ICE and the 29 program participants as of September 1, 2007. GAO compared controls ICE designed to govern the 287(g) program with criteria in GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. GAO interviewed officials from both ICE and participating agencies on program implementation, resources, and results. Among other things, GAO recommends that the Assistant Secretary for ICE document the program objective, document and communicate supervisory activities, and specify data each agency is to collect and report. DHS and ICE agreed with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-09-109: Accessed October 7, 2010 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09109.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09109.pdf Shelf Number: 114779 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Law Enforcement Training

Author: Guterbock, Thomas M. Title: Evaluation Study of Prince William County's Illegal Immigration Enforcement Policy: Final Report Summary: This study found that Prince William County's immigration policy has cut the number of illegal immigrants and the rates of some crimes have fallen since the policy was implemented. The study estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in the county dropped by between 2,000 and 6,000 people from 2006 to 2008. The study also found that the policy created an ethnic divide in perceptions of the county, but that has been largely repaired. The study found that approximately 7,400 people who may have been in the country illegally have left Prince William County since 2007. 2,400 illegal immigrants were turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the study. The policy aimed to reduce the number of illegal immigrants, cut crime, reduce overcrowded housing problems and neighborhood nuisances and save the county money by delivering fewer services to illegal immigrants. The study concludes that while reports of some types of crime, such as hit-and-run accidents and aggravated assaults, fell after implementation of the policy, it did not affect crime overall and some of the neighborhood problems, such as overcrowded housing, were lessened in some areas. Details: Charlottesville, VA: Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2010. 322p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 27, 2010 at: http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/13188.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.pwcgov.org/docLibrary/PDF/13188.pdf Shelf Number: 120287 Keywords: Illegal Aliens (Virginia) Illegal Immigrants Immigration Policy

Author: International Council on Human Rights Policy Title: Irregular Migration, Migrant Smuggling and Human Rights: Towards Coherence Summary: Migration policies across the world are driven by three core concerns: law and border enforcement, economic interest, and protection. This report argues that official policies are failing partly because one of these concerns, protection, has been marginalised. Intensified efforts to suppress migration have not deterred people from seeking security or opportunity abroad but drive many into clandestinity, while the promotion of open economic markets has attracted millions of people to centres of prosperity but tolerated widespread exploitation. As a political consequence, discussion of migration is widely polarised and distorted by xenophobia and racism. The report suggests that it is in governments’ interest to affirm their legal and moral responsibility to protect everyone, including migrants. Human rights law provides a baseline of essential protection for migrants, and also some key components of a more balanced and rational policy approach. A substantial appendix summarises the rights of irregular migrants in international law. Details: Geneva: International Council on Human Rights Policy, 2010. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2010 at: http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/56/122_report_en.pdf Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.ichrp.org/files/reports/56/122_report_en.pdf Shelf Number: 120407 Keywords: Human Rights Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Migration

Author: Verdery, C. Stewart, Jr. Title: Brick by Brick: A Half-Decade of Immigration Enforcement and the Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Summary: The United States has undertaken a massive immigration enforcement initiative over the past five years. The report that follows, written by C. Stewart Verdery, assistant secretary for border and transportation security policy at the Department of Homeland Security from 2003-2005, catalogues the spectrum of measures and the breadth of enforcement resources that have been deployed during this period. The Center for American Progress believes that strong border enforcement and tough worksite enforcement on law-breaking employers are fundamental components of a rational immigration system. That does not mean, however, that we endorse all of the enforcement tactics that have been adopted over the past five years. Many of the initiatives that are detailed in this report reflect sensible steps to restore the rule of law. But CAP believes that others—the so-called “287g program,” for example—misallocate resources and have had a destructive effect on communities. From CAP’s perspective, initiatives like the expansion of expedited removal and mandatory detention policies also raise serious concerns of fairness, proportionality, and due process. Moreover, any massive enforcement apparatus struggles to maintain the integrity of established standards and operationalize leadership priorities. So even smartly designed enforcement policies can become deeply flawed when implemented, leading to widespread rights violations and other unintended consequences. Irrespective of where one comes down on the wisdom of specific enforcement measures, the unprecedented commitment of resources to border and interior enforcement is inarguable. Anti-immigration agitators and politicians who seek to use immigration as a wedge issue argue that we cannot reform our legal immigration system until we have secured the border. The findings contained in this report demonstrate the untenability of this “enforcement-first” line of argument. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2010. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2010 at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/pdf/dhs_enforcement.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/pdf/dhs_enforcement.pdf Shelf Number: 120630 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Capps, Randy Title: Delegation and Divergence: A Study of 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement Summary: This report assesses the implementation and U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) oversight of the nation's 72 active 287(g) programs, examining whether local enforcement matches up with ICE's articulated priorities. The study provides ICE data nationally and by jurisdiction on non-citizens referred for removal through 287(g) as well as the criminal offenses for which they were detained, and assesses the impact of enforcement on local communities. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2011. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2011 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/287g-divergence.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/287g-divergence.pdf Shelf Number: 120724 Keywords: Border Security Customs Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Marenin, Otwin Title: Challenges for Integrated Border Management in the European Union Summary: The expansion of the European Union has required a rethinking of how the external borders of the EU can best be protected against transnational crime, illegal immigration, trafficking in goods and people, non-legitimate asylum seekers and terrorist-related threats. The history, strategic logic, issues faced and current policies for securing the expanding external borders of the EU through the integrated border management (IBM) vision and strategy will be described and critically analysed. The paper is based on information in publicly available documents from EU institutions, scholarly writings on borders and the management of border controls, my own prior writings on border controls and police reforms, and a few interviews with participants involved in creating a new EU integrated border management system. Details: Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, 2010. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: DCAF Occasional Paper - No. 17: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.dcaf.ch/Publications/Publication-Detail?lng=en&id=114407 Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://www.dcaf.ch/Publications/Publication-Detail?lng=en&id=114407 Shelf Number: 120756 Keywords: Border Security Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Immigration Trafficking in Goods Transnational Crime

Author: Weissman, Deborah M. Title: The Policies and Politics of Local Immigration Enforcement Laws: 287(g) Program in North Carolina Summary: In 1996, the US Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to include section 287(g), authorizing the federal agency U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enter into agreements with local law enforcement agencies, thereby deputizing officers to act as immigration officers in the course of their daily activities. These individual agreements are commonly known as Memoranda of Agreement or MOAs. It is estimated that over sixty law enforcement agencies have entered into such agreements, with eight MOAs currently in North Carolina. The 287(g) program was originally intended to target and remove undocumented immigrants convicted of “violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling and money laundering.” However, MOAs are in actuality being used to purge towns and cities of “unwelcome” immigrants and thereby having detrimental effects on North Carolina’s communities. Such effects include: • The marginalization of an already vulnerable population, as 287(g) encourages, or at the very least tolerates, racial profiling and baseless stereotyping, resulting in the harassment of citizens and isolation of the Hispanic community. • A fear of law enforcement that causes immigrant communities to refrain from reporting crimes, thereby compromising public safety for immigrants and citizens alike. • Economic devastation for already struggling municipalities, as immigrants are forced to flee communities, causing a loss of profits for local businesses and a decrease in tax revenues. • Violations of basic American liberties and legal protections that threaten to diminish the civil rights of citizens and ease the way for future encroachments into basic fundamental freedoms. The current implementation processes of 287(g) also present a number of legal issues which implicate many individual rights and threaten to compromise the rights of the community as a whole. Details: Raleigh, NC: American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation: Chapel Hill, NC: Immigration & Human Rights Policy Clinic, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law, 2009. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 15, 2011 at: http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/clinicalprograms/287gpolicyreview.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/clinicalprograms/287gpolicyreview.pdf Shelf Number: 120773 Keywords: -Immigration Illegal Immigrants Immigrants (North Carolina) Law Enforcement Racial Profiling

Author: Stana, Richard M. Title: Border Security: Preliminary Observations on Border Control Measures for the Southwest Border Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports that the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. border with Mexico is vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity. The Office of Border Patrol (Border Patrol), within DHS's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is responsible for securing the border between U.S. ports of entry and has divided responsibility for southwest border miles among nine Border Patrol sectors. CBP reported spending about $3 billion on Border Patrol's southwest border efforts in fiscal year 2010, apprehending over 445,000 illegal entries. This testimony provides preliminary observations on (1) the extent to which DHS reported progress in achieving operational control--Border Patrol was able to detect, respond, and interdict cross-border illegal activity--of the southwest border; (2) the extent to which operational control reflects Border Patrol's ability to respond to illegal activity at the border or after entry into the United States; and (3) how DHS reports the transition to new border security measures will change oversight and resource requirements for securing the southwest border. This testimony is based on GAO's ongoing work for the House Committee on Homeland Security. GAO analyzed DHS border security documents and data supporting border security measures reported by DHS for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, and interviewed DHS officials. DHS generally agreed with the information in this statement and provided clarifying language, which we incorporated. Border Patrol reported achieving varying levels of operational control for 873 of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles at the end of fiscal year 2010, increasing an average of 126 miles each year from fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Border Patrol sector officials assessed the miles under operational control using factors such as the numbers of illegal entries and apprehensions and relative risk. CBP attributed the increase to additional infrastructure, technology, and personnel. Yuma sector officials reported achieving operational control for all of its 126 border miles; however, the other eight southwest border sectors reported achieving operational control of 11 to 86 percent of their border miles. Border Patrol attributed the uneven progress across sectors to multiple factors, including prioritizing resource deployment to sectors deemed to have greater risk from illegal activity. Border Patrol reported that its levels of operational control for most border miles reflected its ability to respond to illegal activity after entry into the United States and not at the immediate border. Operational control encompassed two of the five levels used to classify the security level of each border mile. The two levels of control differed in the extent that Border Patrol resources were available to either deter or detect and apprehend illegal entries at the immediate border (controlled) versus a multi-tiered deployment of Border Patrol resources to deter, detect, and apprehend illegal entries after entry into the United States; sometimes 100 miles or more away (managed). GAO's preliminary analysis of the 873 border miles under operational control in 2010 showed that about 129 miles (15 percent) were classified as "controlled" and the remaining 85 percent were classified as "managed." Border Patrol stated that operational control does not require its agents to be able to detect and apprehend all illegal entries. Yuma sector reported operational control for all its miles although Border Patrol did not have the ability to detect and apprehend illegal entries that use ultra-light aircraft and tunnels. DHS is replacing its border security measures, which could temporarily reduce oversight, and reports it may reduce resources requested for securing the southwest border. Border Patrol had established border miles under effective control as a measure of border security. DHS plans to improve the quality of boarder security measures by developing new measures with a more quantitative methodology. CBP is developing a new methodology and measures for border security, which CBP expects to be in place by fiscal year 2012. In the meantime, the absence of border security outcome measures in DHS's Fiscal Year 2010-2012 Annual Performance Report could reduce oversight. CBP does not have an estimate of the time and efforts needed to secure the border; however, DHS, CBP, and Border Patrol headquarters officials said that this new approach to border security is expected to be more flexible and cost-effective. As a result, Border Patrol headquarters officials expect that they will request fewer resources to secure the border. GAO will continue to assess this issue and report the final results later this year. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-11-374T: Accessed February 16, 2011 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11374t.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11374t.pdf Shelf Number: 120806 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Immigrants

Author: Seminara, David Title: No Coyote Needed: U.S. Visas Still an Easy Ticket in Developing Countries Summary: Mention the words “illegal immigrant” and most Americans conjure up images of desperate migrants sneaking across the Mexican border. There is another side to America’s immigration problem, however, that most know very little about — those who come with valid, temporary visas and do not return home. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that a “substantial” percentage of America’s illegal population is made up of visa overstays — their estimates ranged from 27 to 57 percent. Despite that fact that the law is written broadly enough that most foreigners from the developing world could be refused for a visitor’s visa as “intending immigrants,” non-immigrant visa issuance rates are still shockingly high. In this Backgrounder, the author, a former State Department official with experience interviewing tens of thousands of visa applicants from all over the world, explores some of the reasons why it remains relatively easy for all but the most destitute applicants to obtain nonimmigrant visas, despite the public perception that visa regulations have tightened since 9/11. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2008. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Backgrounder: Accessed March 10, 2011 at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back208.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back208.pdf Shelf Number: 120923 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration Visas

Author: Flynn, Michael Title: The Privatization of Immigration Detention: Towards a Global View Summary: The phrase “private prison” has become a term of opprobrium, and for good reason. There are numerous cases of mistreatment and mismanagement at such institutions. However, in the context of immigration detention, this caricature hides a complex phenomenon that is driven by a number of different factors and involves a diverse array of actors who provide a range of services. This working paper employs research undertaken by the Global Detention Project (GDP) — an inter-disciplinary research project based at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies — to help situate the phenomenon of the privatization of immigration detention within a global perspective. Part of the difficulty in assessing this phenomenon is that our understanding of it is based largely on experiences in English-speaking countries. This working paper endeavors to extend analysis of this phenomenon by demonstrating the broad geographical spread of privatized detention practices across the globe, assessing the differing considerations that arise when states decide to privatize, and comparing the experiences of a sample of lesser known cases. Details: Geneva: Global Detention Project, Programme for the Study of Global Migration, The Graduate Institute, 2009. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed March 14, 2011 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/GDP_PrivatizationPaper_Final5.pdf Year: 2009 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/GDP_PrivatizationPaper_Final5.pdf Shelf Number: 120919 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Privatization

Author: Lagdameo, Mary Angela Title: Human Smuggling from Fujian to New York Summary: Since the first significant wave of illegal Fujianese immigrants to the United States in mid-1980, their migrant population in New York’s Chinatown has increased to an estimated 300,000. Although the Golden Venture incident in 1993 prompted the United States and Chinese government to increase crackdowns on human smuggling operations, smugglers have continued to successfully transport illegal Fujianese to the United States. Fujian’s history of migration and the local perception that human smuggling is a legitimate business fuels a transnational human smuggling business in the 21st century. Recent scholarship suggests that human smuggling is run by “ordinary individuals” who create temporary alliances for the purposes of money making. In order to successfully dismantle human smuggling organizations, the United States and Chinese governments should therefore focus on catching individuals who work at all levels of the human smuggling business. Details: Los Angeles: University of Southern California, East Asian Area Studies, 2008. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Master's Thesis: Accessed March 15, 2011 at: http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/etd-Lagdameo-2050.pdf Year: 2008 Country: China URL: http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/etd-Lagdameo-2050.pdf Shelf Number: 121010 Keywords: Human Smuggling (China) Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Kyle, David Title: Migration Merchants: Human Smuggling from Ecuador and China Summary: Human smuggling is a phenomenon that further blurs the already fuzzy boundaries between economic migrant and refugee, legal and illegal immigrant. Many state policy-makers and NGOs are concerned that if they admit immigrants or refugees who use human smugglers, this will encourage smugglers to further break immigration laws. This paper questions the assumption that illegal migrants are like any other illegal commodity crossing state borders. Kyle argues that most migrant smugglers are social bandits who may be considered unsavory and even dangerous by their home societies, but not as "criminals." Even states that are "victims" of human smugglers do not uniformly paint them as criminal and evil. In contrast to common thieves and smugglers, there is a highly politicized historical dimension to both the motivations of social bandits and to those who see them as either criminals (i.e., transnational organized crime) or "freedom fighters." Although migration research has a significant role to play in the understanding of transnational social banditry, current migration theory does not sufficiently explain the sharp rise in human smuggling around the world, especially in terms of how it conceptualizes "demand." To illustrate these points, special attention is given to emigration from Ecuador to the United States and Spain, including the organization of illicit "migrant export schemes.” Details: San Diego, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego, 2001. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: CCIS Working Paper 43: Accessed March 15, 2011 at: http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/PUBLICATIONS/wrkg43.PDF Year: 2001 Country: Africa URL: http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/PUBLICATIONS/wrkg43.PDF Shelf Number: 121011 Keywords: Human Smuggling (Ecuador and China) Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Seelke, Clare Ribando Title: Trafficking in Persons in Latin America and the Caribbean Summary: Trafficking in persons (TIP) is a growing problem in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that contains major source, transit, and destination countries for trafficking victims. Major forms of TIP in the region now include commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls, labor trafficking within national borders (including child labor), and the trafficking of illegal immigrants in Mexico and Central America. Latin America is a primary source region for people that are trafficked to the United States, as well as for victims trafficked to Western Europe and Japan. As many as 17,500 are trafficked into the United States each year, according to State Department estimates. Latin America is also a transit region for Asian victims destined for the United States, Canada, and Europe. Some of the wealthier countries in the region (such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina, Panama, and Mexico) also serve as TIP destinations. This report describes the nature and scope of the problem of trafficking in persons in Latin America and the Caribbean. It then describes U.S. efforts to deal with trafficking in persons in the region, as well as discusses the successes and failures of some recent country and regional anti-trafficking efforts. The report concludes by raising issues that may be helpful for Congress to consider as it continues to address human trafficking as part of its authorization, appropriations, and oversight activities. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: RL33200: Accessed March 18, 2011 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33200.pdf Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33200.pdf Shelf Number: 121070 Keywords: Child Labour Forced Labour Humkan Trafficking (Latin American and the Caribbe Illegal Immigrants Sexual Exploitation

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 Control Border Security Human Rights Illegal Immigrants Immigration Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Wuebbels, Mark Title: Demystifying Human Smuggling Operations Along the Arizona-Mexican Border Summary: The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview and analysis of the problem of human smuggling along the U.S. - Mexican border. Using open source material, economic analysis, and experts’ opinions, the paper details the scope, methods, and associated negative externalities of human smuggling. In writing this report, careful attention was made to separate between incidents of trafficking and human smuggling. However, since many times media articles, especially in Spanish, use the term trafficking instead of smuggling, some of the citations and original sources will include the terms human trafficking. As such, to the greatest extent, information applicable only to human trafficking has been eliminated. This paper is split into two parts. The first part begins by defining human smuggling and its component crimes. To this end, it lays out the international, federal, and state legal definitions of human smuggling as well as the federal jurisdictions for human smuggling’s component crimes. After defining the problem, this paper discuses the logic behind the decision to migrate. It reflects the prevailing wisdom among migration experts as well as an alternative explanation of the decision making process. Next, the paper lays out the various estimates of the UDA population and extrapolates the potential flow of undocumented aliens (UDA) across U.S. borders. The paper then describes the UDA population in terms of nationality and socio-economic characteristics. Finally, the paper presents the necessary elements for smuggling operations. The second part is a primer on current smuggling operations in different states in Mexico. Using open source literature from Mexican and U.S. newspapers, it outlines human smuggling methods, the roads and transportation they use, and the path UDAs use to reach the United States. In general, the purpose is to show how the fundamental elements of human smuggling are expressed in reality. Details: Report prepared for the Arizona State Attorney General, 2005. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://policy-traccc.gmu.edu/resources/publications/wuebbe01.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://policy-traccc.gmu.edu/resources/publications/wuebbe01.pdf Shelf Number: 121216 Keywords: Border Security Human Smuggling Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Earls, Michael Title: Mission Accomplished II: The Bush Record on Immigration Enforcement Summary: This study reveals that the enforcement of immigration laws during the first five years of the Bush Administration is down 30% from the last five years of the Clinton Administration, despite an increase in border personnel. Details: Washington, DC: Third Way, 2007. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2011 at: http://content.thirdway.org/publications/73/Third_Way_Report_-_Mission_Accomplished_II_-_The_Bush_Record_on_Immigration_Enforcement.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://content.thirdway.org/publications/73/Third_Way_Report_-_Mission_Accomplished_II_-_The_Bush_Record_on_Immigration_Enforcement.pdf Shelf Number: 121447 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.)

Author: Youssef, Shlar Title: Immigration Prisons: Brutal, Unlawful and Profitable Summary: The government's decision to end child detention for immigration purposes in 2010 was the result of long years of campaigning by dedicated grassroots activists, as well as detainee support groups, NGOs and mainstream media. The end of this cruel and inhumane practice has, however, served to somehow legitimise the detention of adults. Fewer people now appear to have the political will to argue that immigration detention should be stopped altogether. Using Yarl's Wood, where children and their families were incarcerated, as a case study, this briefing is intended to demonstrate that the impact of immigration prisons on adult refugees and migrants is no less cruel, inhumane and, in many cases, unlawful. The authors of this briefing believe that no matter what findings and recommendations such reports may make, the immigration authorities will not listen, much less act, unless they are compelled to. As the references and sources of this briefing show, there have been tens of similar reports highlighting these same issues. What has come out of these reports? Unfortunately very little, except for superficial 'improvements' here and there, often to make the detention system more efficient. The institutional racism inherent in the immigration and asylum regime, supported by racist political rhetoric and mainstream media coverage and coupled with the cost-cutting policies of the profit-driven contractors running these immigration prisons, often make it difficult for many ordinary people to see what's wrong with this system. But many do and will continue to fight for real justice. Details: London: Corporate Watch, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2011 at: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3930 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=3930 Shelf Number: 121564 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration (U.K.)

Author: Butter, Tamara Title: Exploitative Labour Relations and Legal Consciousness of Irregular Migrant Workers in the Netherlands Summary: Because of their precarious position in the Netherlands, irregular migrants are potential victims of trafficking. The issue of trafficking in human beings is gaining more attention in the Netherlands, initially mainly in connection with prostitution but now increasingly also with regard to other forms of exploitation. Given the relevance of combating human trafficking of irregular migrants, IOM The Hague asked the University of Amsterdam (UvA) to research this issue. The first part of the UvA’s exploratory research is conducted through legal desk research based on the study of international and national law, jurisprudence and literature. In addition, staff members were interviewed of the Expertise Centrum Mensenhandel en Mensensmokkel, the Dutch Labour Inspectorate the Social Intelligence and Investigation Service (SIOD), representatives of Okia Foundation and BLinN as well as three lawyers assisting irregular migrants in labour law cases. The second part of the research, dealing with the migrant perspective regarding labour rights, was based on semi-structured interviews conducted with irregular migrants (previously) working in the Netherlands themselves. The irregular migrants were contacted at the consultation hours of the IOM. Moreover, migrants held in aliens detention centres were contacted. This exploratory research demonstrates that combating exploitative labour relations through a rights-based approach in the Netherlands is a complex undertaking, for which both institutional reforms at the (sub-)state level, as well as individual understanding and willingness to enforce labour rights for irregular migrant workers are necessary conditions. The rights-based approach can only be a viable alternative when the institutional steps to which the Dutch government is legally obliged are taken, resulting in more protection and awareness-raising among irregular migrants. However, even if these measures are taken, it remains doubtful whether irregular migrants will be willing to actually enforce their rights. From our empirical research it appears that a vast majority is currently not willing to take such steps for various reasons. Although many of these reasons relate to the existence of a parallel society without de facto labour rights – which could be changed through State action – the fact that they are just glad to have a job, are grateful for that and do not want to damage their contacts proved to be decisive in not claiming rights. Nevertheless, the creation of more awareness of rights and enforcement possibilities would be a first step towards dissolving the parallel society which is a necessary requirement for abolishing exploitative labour relations in the Netherlands. Details: Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 2011. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2011 at: http://www.iom-nederland.nl/english/Configuratie/Homepage/About_IOM/IOM_in_the_Netherlands/Publications/Reports/Exploitative_Labour_Relations_and_Legal_Consciousness_of_Irregular_Migrant_Workers_in_the_Netherlands Year: 2011 Country: Netherlands URL: http://www.iom-nederland.nl/english/Configuratie/Homepage/About_IOM/IOM_in_the_Netherlands/Publications/Reports/Exploitative_Labour_Relations_and_Legal_Consciousness_of_Irregular_Migrant_Workers_in_the_Netherlands Shelf Number: 121697 Keywords: Forced Labour Human Trafficking (Netherlands) Illegal Immigrants Migrants

Author: Delgado, Amalia Greenberg Title: Costs and Consequences: The High Price of Policing Immigrant Communities Summary: Local police and sheriffs are facing some of the most difficult fiscal constraints in decades. At the same time, federal immigration law and policy have not kept pace with our nation’s workplace needs and other global causes of migration. The federal immigration failure creates both pressures and incentives for local police and sheriff ’s deputies to act as immigration agents, but it also creates additional costs and burdens for local peace officers and agencies who want to stay out of the immigration enforcement business. This report explores the costs and consequences of local enforcement of federal immigration law. It addresses both purposeful collaboration between local law enforcement agencies (LLEAs) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the incidental costs incurred by LLEAs through discretionary enforcement decisions that particularly impact immigrant communities. Because most LLEAs in northern California have policies against enforcing civil immigration laws, our primary goal is to provide practical guidance to further those policies and minimize the fiscal and social costs of incidental immigration enforcement. The report begins with an overview of the immigration landscape in California, with myth-busting facts about immigrants and an overview of the social and fiscal costs of local immigration enforcement. The price—often hidden—of local police practices that lead to civil immigration enforcement is quite high: scarce resources are diverted from pressing public safety needs, immigrant victims and witnesses fear reporting crime to the police, criminal investigations are undermined by a lack of trust between police and immigrant community members, and sometimes the rights of individuals (including U.S. citizens) are violated. We also examine how every stage of police officers’ everyday interactions with individuals — from responding to a 911 call or conducting a traffic stop to questioning an arrestee during booking —can lead to immigration consequences, with an attendant cost to local agencies. Personal stories illustrate some of the dynamics at play, legal analyses are provided, and proposals for local action suggest ways in which police can limit their hand in federal immigration enforcement to redirect resources and enhance public safety. Proposals are embedded in the body of the report. Detailed recommendations are available as a free-standing summary. There can be no doubt that California residents have a responsibility to abide by the laws of the state and the country at large and that local police and sheriffs play an essential role in protecting the public safety of all communities. By considering new ways in which police and community members can move ahead together in a climate of great fiscal and social pressures, we can more accurately gauge and control the costs of local policing in immigrant communities and direct our efforts toward public safety priorities that are cost-effective, helpful to crime-fighting, and fair to all. Details: San Francisco: ACLU of Northern California, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2011 at: http://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/police_practices/costs_and_consequences.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/police_practices/costs_and_consequences.pdf Shelf Number: 121701 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration (California)

Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 Summary: On April 23, 2010, Arizona enacted S.B. 1070, which is designed to discourage and deter the entry or presence of aliens who lack lawful status under federal immigration law. Potentially sweeping in effect, the measure requires state and local law enforcement officials to facilitate the detection of unauthorized aliens in their daily enforcement activities. The measure also establishes criminal penalties under state law, in addition to those already imposed under federal law, for alien smuggling offenses and failure to carry or complete alien registration documents. Further, it makes it a crime under Arizona law for an unauthorized alien to apply for or perform work in the state, either as an employee or an independent contractor. The enactment of S.B. 1070 has sparked significant legal and policy debate. Supporters argue that federal enforcement of immigration law has not adequately deterred the migration of unauthorized aliens into Arizona, and that state action is both necessary and appropriate to combat the negative effects of unauthorized immigration. Opponents argue, among other things, that S.B. 1070 will be expensive and disruptive, will be susceptible to uneven application, and can undermine community policing by discouraging cooperation with state and local law enforcement. In part to respond to these concerns, the Arizona State Legislature modified S.B. 1070 on April 30, 2010, through the approval of H.B. 2162. Whenever states enact laws or adopt policies to affect the entry or stay of noncitizens, including aliens present in the United States without legal authorization, questions can arise whether Congress has preempted their implementation. For instance, Congress may pass a law to preempt state law expressly. Further, especially in areas of strong federal interest, as evidenced by broad congressional regulation and direct federal enforcement, state law may be found to be preempted implicitly. Analyzing implicit preemption issues can often be difficult in the abstract. Prior to actual implementation, it might be hard to assess whether state law impermissibly frustrates federal regulation. Nevertheless, authority under S.B. 1070, as originally adopted, for law enforcement personnel to investigate the immigration status of any individual with whom they have “lawful contact,” upon reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence, could plausibly have been interpreted to call for an unprecedented level of state immigration enforcement as part of routine policing. H.B. 2162, however, has limited this investigative authority. Provisions in S.B. 1070 criminalizing certain immigration-related conduct also may be subject to preemption challenges. The legal vulnerability of these provisions may depend on their relationship to traditional state police powers and potential frustration of uniform national immigration policies, among other factors. In addition to preemption issues, S.B. 1070 arguably might raise other constitutional considerations, including issues associated with racial profiling. Assessing these potential legal issues may be difficult before there is evidence of how S.B. 1070, as modified, is implemented and applied in practice. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2011 at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/topics/science/immigcrs.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/topics/science/immigcrs.pdf Shelf Number: 121948 Keywords: Border Security Criminal Aliens (Arizona) Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Collett, Elizabeth Title: Emerging Transatlantic Security Dilemmas in Border Management Summary: The sheer volume of global travel, which has risen exponentially since the 1960s, puts border management systems under constant pressure. Beyond that growth, border management systems have had to contend with additional risks associated with these movements. Mass-casualty terrorist attacks, rising illegal immigration, and human trafficking have exposed weaknesses in states’ ability to manage their borders effectively. This policy memo examines the infrastructure and policy developments – and challenges – that have occurred in recent years on both sides of the Atlantic, discussing the differing nature and prioritization of those policy challenges. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2011. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2011 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/securitydilemmas-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/securitydilemmas-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122040 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Terrorism

Author: de Haas, Hein Title: The Myth of Invasion: Irregular Migration from West Africa to the Maghreb and the European Union Summary: Media and dominant policy discourses convey an apocalyptic image of an increasingly massive exodus of desperate Africans fleeing poverty and war at home trying to enter the elusive European ‘El Dorado’ crammed in long-worn ships barely staying afloat. The migrants themselves are commonly depicted as victims recruited by “merciless” and “unscrupulous” traffickers and smugglers. Hence, the perceived policy solutions – which invariably boil down to curbing migration – focus on “fighting” or “combating” illegal migration through intensifying border controls and cracking down on trafficking and smuggling related crime. Although there has been an incontestable increase in regular and irregular West African migration to Europe over the past decade, available empirical evidence dispels most of these assumptions. First, trans-Saharan migration of West Africans to North Africa is not as new, massive and Europe - focused as is commonly suggested. While having much deeper historical roots in the trans-Saharan trade, migration of (former) nomads, traders and refugees to Mauritania, Algeria and Libya since the 1970s set the stage for contemporary trans-Saharan migration. Against the background of economic decline and warfare in West and Central Africa, Libya’s new ‘pan-African’ immigration policies are essential in understanding the major increase in trans-Saharan labour migration over the 1990s. Since 2000, a major anti-immigrant backlash in Libya probably contributed to a diversification of trans-Saharan migration routes and the increasing presence of migrants in other Maghreb countries. Confronted with a persistent demand for irregular migrant labour in Europe, more and more sub-Saharan, mostly West Africans started to cross the Mediterranean. However, the public perception that irregular migration from Africa is massive and growing at an alarming rate is deceptive. Illegal crossings of the Mediterranean by North Africans have been a persistent phenomenon since Italy and Spain introduced visa requirements in the early 1990s. The major change has been that, in particular since 2000, sub-Saharan Africans have started to join and have now overtaken North Africans as the largest category of irregular boat migrants. Recent West African migrants are increasingly settling in Spain and Italy, where they enter flourishing underground economies. Even when apprehended, many migrants are eventually released. Many have acquired residency through recurrent regularisations. It is a misconception that all or most migrants crossing the Sahara are “in transit” to Europe. In particular, Libya is an important destination country in its own right. There are probably more sub-Saharan Africans living in North Africa than in Europe. An estimated 65,000 to 120,000 sub-Saharan Africans enter the Maghreb yearly overland, of which only 20 to 38 percent are estimated to enter Europe. The total number of successful irregular crossings by sub-Saharan Africans should be counted in the order of several tens of thousands, according to our estimates 25,000 to 35,000 per year. The majority of migrants enter Europe legally and subsequently overstay their visas. The total annual increase since 2000 of the registered West African population in the EU has been around 100,000. This is still relatively modest compared to a total EU immigration of 2.6 million in 2004. There are an estimated 800,000 registered West African migrants in the main receiving countries compared to 2,600,000 North Africans. Common push-pull models viewing poverty as the main cause of African mass migration are inconsistent with evidence that the migrants are not among the poorest and that West African countries still have comparatively low inter-continental emigration rates. Analyses focusing on ‘African misery’ pushing migrants out of the continent tend to obscure migrants’ agency and the vital demand side of this migration. Rather than a desperate response to destitution, migration is generally a conscious choice by relatively well-off individuals and households to enhance their livelihoods. Likewise, the common portrayal of irregular African migrants as victims of traffickers and smugglers is inconsistent with evidence that the vast majority of migrants move on their own initiative. Trafficking is relatively rare, and smugglers are usually not part of international organised crime, but locally based passeurs operating alone or in small networks. Migrants typically travel in stages. Migrants often work in migration hubs to save enough money for their onward journey. Several end up settling along the way in Saharan boomtowns or major North African cities. Since the 1990s, European states intensified border controls and have attempted to ‘externalise’ these policies by pressuring North African countries to clamp down on irregular migration and to sign readmission agreements in exchange for aid, financial support and work permits. While failing to curb immigration, these policies have had a series of unintended side effects in the form of increasing violations of migrants’ and refugees’ rights in North Africa and a diversification of trans-Saharan migration routes and attempted sea crossing points, which now cover large stretches of the African coastline from the Guinea to Libya. In practice, it seems almost impossible to seal off the long Saharan borders and coastlines, even if governments are genuinely willing to do so. What remains largely unspoken behind official discourses is that both European and African states have little genuine interest in stopping migration, because their economies have become dependent on migrant labour and remittances, respectively. Several structural factors explain why it is likely that sub-Saharan migration to the EU and Libya will continue. First, trans-Saharan migration is less unwanted than it seems. The demand for cheap immigrant labour in Europe and Libya is likely to persist. Second, the firm establishment of migration routes and migrant networks, as well as improvements in communication and trans-Saharan transportation infrastructure are likely to facilitate future migration. Apart from Libya, other North African countries may also evolve into transit and destination countries. Migrants failing or not venturing to enter Europe often prefer to settle in North Africa as a ‘second best option’ than to return to their substantially poorer or unsafe origin countries. These trends might be reinforced by demographic change and the parallel segmentation of North African labour markets, which may increase the demand for immigrant labour. For all these reasons, it is likely that migration from West Africa to North Africa and Europe will continue. There is a growing discrepancy between restrictive migration policies and the demand for cheap migrant labour in Libya and Europe. This explains why, rather than a decline in migration, increasing border controls have led to the swift diversion of migration routes, increasing “illegality” and reliance on smuggling as well as an increase in the risks, costs, and suffering of the migrants involved. As long as no more legal channels for immigration are created to match the real demand for labour, and as long as large informal economies will exist, it is likely that a substantial proportion of this migration will remain irregular. Details: Oxford, UK: International Migration Institute, University of Oxford, 2007. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2011 at: http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/Irregular%20migration%20from%20West%20Africa%20-%20Hein%20de%20Haas.pdf Year: 2007 Country: Europe URL: http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/Irregular%20migration%20from%20West%20Africa%20-%20Hein%20de%20Haas.pdf Shelf Number: 122046 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration

Author: Chaudry, Ajay Title: Facing Our Future: Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Enforcement Summary: This report examines the consequences of parental arrest, detention, and deportation on 190 children in 85 families in six locations, providing in-depth details on parent-child separations, economic hardships, and children's well-being. The contentious immigration debates around the country mostly revolve around illegal immigration. Less visible have been the 5.5 million children with unauthorized parents, almost three-quarters of whom are U.S.-born citizens. Over several years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intensified enforcement activities through large-scale worksite arrests, home arrests, and arrests by local law enforcement. The report provides recommendations for stakeholders to mitigate the harmful effects of immigration enforcement on children. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2011. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412020_FacingOurFuture_final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412020_FacingOurFuture_final.pdf Shelf Number: 122050 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Children Immigrant Detention (U.S.)

Author: Metcalf, Mark H. Title: Built to Fail: Deception and Disorder in America’s Immigration Courts Summary: American immigration courts are the heart of a system that nurtures scandal. Their work touches nearly every aspect of America’s immigration system. These courts are essential to recruit the bright and talented to American shores, to alleviate persecution, and to secure this nation’s borders and neighborhoods. But they cannot perform their critical work. Deception and disorder rule. These courts have become — in the words of frustrated judges — “play courts.” In reality, they are courts that are built to fail. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Backgrounder: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2011/built-to-fail.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.cis.org/articles/2011/built-to-fail.pdf Shelf Number: 122168 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Courts

Author: Gauthier, Kate Title: No Place for Children: Immigration Detention on Christmas Island Summary: Detaining children violates their basic human rights. But when they are housed in locked facilities such as Christmas Island, it is the responsibility of the government and its contractors, in this case Serco Asia Pacific (“Serco”), to take the very best care of the children. Serco is contractually bound by its Detention Services Contract with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to provide services to people in immigration detention. Many children in detention have fled active war zones, and depriving them of liberty does not promote their recovery from such experiences. As the mental health section of this report shows, detention compounds trauma. Australia's mandatory detention regime has been found to be arbitrary. For all people who do not hold a valid visa, it is the first, not last, resort. This is its ultimate point of failure: the system is fundamentally flawed. While it imprisons children as a first resort and for indefinite periods of time, it contravenes international law and common sense morality. Children should not be locked up. Ultimately the government must recognise this and legislate to prevent the implementation of policies that breach Australia‟s legal and moral obligations. Details: Neutral Bay, NSW, AUS: ChilOut - Children Out of Immigration Detention, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2011 at: http://www.chilout.org/web_images/No%20Place%20for%20Children%20-%20Final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.chilout.org/web_images/No%20Place%20for%20Children%20-%20Final.pdf Shelf Number: 122257 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Children Immigrant Detention (Australia) Immigrants

Author: Fitz, Marshall Title: Safer than Ever: A View from the U.S.–Mexico Border: Assessing the Past, Present, and Future Summary: A recent trip by this author and several colleagues to study the Arizona border was eye-opening. Not because we encountered scores of headless bodies, but because the border landscape has changed so dramatically in the last five years both literally and figuratively. Hundreds of miles of severe fencing, vehicle barriers, radio towers, flood lighting, and access roads have degraded the border’s aesthetics and environmental quality. But in conjunction with surges in manpower and technology, this added infrastructure has also undeniably and fundamentally enhanced the Border Patrol’s ability to prevent and intercept unauthorized migrants and smugglers. All the recent statistics tell us that illegal immigration flows at our southern border have slowed dramatically. Numbers tell us that we no longer have a border across which thousands of people traverse illegally every day without our knowledge. Instead we have a border where the vast majority of attempted entries are identified and a far larger percentage of entrants are apprehended than ever before. Moreover, recent reports persuasively demonstrate that violent crime rates along the U.S.-Mexico border have been falling for years and that border cities of all sizes have maintained crime rates below the national average. A first-hand view only emphasizes the point while begging an even bigger question: Why hasn’t the story of this transformation penetrated the national dialogue on immigration policy? Rather than acknowledge the remarkable advances that have occurred, immigration reform opponents level sensational — and often patently false — claims meant to scare the public about border violence and insecurity. Although everyone is entitled to their views, our policymakers should not be entitled to mislead the public about something as important as border security merely to advance an ideological policy agenda. This report rebuts these policymakers’ fallacious claims and argues that the changes on the ground at the border demand a change in the conversation in Washington. We first catalog the massive resource deployment and infrastructure buildup at the border since 1993. We then describe the profound impact that deployment has had on unlawful migration flows: Fewer attempted entries plus a greater rate of apprehension equals a steep decline in successful illegal entries. Next we detail a number of unintended negative consequences that have resulted from advancing this border buildup without enacting concomitant reforms. Finally, we argue that the circumstances on the ground present us with a unique opportunity to secure the gains in border control while negating the counterproductive byproducts of those gains. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2011 at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/safer_than_ever_report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/safer_than_ever_report.pdf Shelf Number: 122358 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Illegal Migration

Author: Bilbray, Brian Title: Broken Neighbor, Broken Border: A Field Investigation Report of the House Immigration Reform Caucus Summary: Since passage into law of the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 and the Secure Fence Act of 2006, illegal entries on the U.S. southern border are down by half. The degree to which these reforms have contributed to this success balanced against the decreased activity of economic illegal aliens due to recession is subject to honest debate. However there is no doubt by any law enforcement agency on the southern border that both reform bills have worked to increase security and reduce illegal entries into the United States, especially at ports of entry. However, the nature of illegal entries has become increasingly dangerous to the homeland security of our nation, based on the near collapse of civil authority in the northern states of Mexico. The Rule of Law in Mexico has degenerated to a point of near anarchy along our shared border. Violent and heavily armed Mexican drug cartel members, human traffickers, and Middle East terrorists are crossing at will, with Al-Qaeda affiliated Somalis the target of Department of Homeland Security alerts in the Houston area. A long-term deployment of a minimum 25,000 armed troops with enforcement power is necessary on our southern border to preserve U.S. sovereignty and the lives of American citizens from organized armed forces hostile to the United States. The southern border of the United States is still being successfully infiltrated by a half million illegal aliens annually, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. While down from a high mark of over a million in 2006 due to increased manpower and resources of the U.S. Border Patrol and the recession, the nature of illegal crossings has grown far more sinister and threatening. The illegal entrants consist of not just “economic” violators, but also heavily armed drug cartel members and “OTMs” - other than Mexican illegal aliens - from diverse countries including Middle Eastern nations with terrorist factions currently at war with U.S. forces. Mexican drug cartel members now operating inside the United States as a result of these breaches are directly linked to over 28,000 violent murders and executions on the other side of the Rio Grande. According to virtually all law enforcement on the border, Texas and the other border states are in imminent danger of this level of violence exploding across the border into the United States. Kidnappings and murders by the cartels inside the U.S. are already occurring. Both U.S. Border Patrol officers and Texas law enforcement agencies are at present forced to back down from these heavily armed incursions, due to the overwhelming firepower and manpower of the drug cartels. U.S. private property owners on the border have been largely abandoned to defend themselves, and have begun to be murdered. The U.S. Border Patrol is operating under conditions set by the Administration that guarantee hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens will succeed in their effort to infiltrate the United States. The official position of the Administration, which has been forced on the U.S. Border Patrol, is that even after admitting to these conditions, the border is more secure than it has ever been, that U.S. national security needs are being met as well as they can be, and that efforts by the states and local law enforcement to combat this explosive situation beyond the efforts of the Administration should be legally stymied. Texas Sheriffs are now experiencing the first spillovers of the mass murders and executions that have effectively destroyed social order across the border. To place in perspective the degree of anarchy and violence, Mexico has experienced 28,000 murders since the drug wars began in 2006; by comparison, the United States has lost around 6,000 soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. The U.S. justified going to war against Serbia in 1998 based on an estimated and highly debatable 10,000 civilian casualties in that civil war. Like that conflict, mass graves continue to be found in Mexico, including the most recent discovery of 72 murdered Central and South American immigrants just south of the Texas border. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives, House Immigration Reform Caucus, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 26, 2011 at: http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/Portals/6/Documents/Broken%20Neighbor%20Broken%20Border.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/Portals/6/Documents/Broken%20Neighbor%20Broken%20Border.pdf Shelf Number: 122487 Keywords: Border Security (U.S.) Homicides Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Violence

Author: Hamood, Sara Title: African Transit Migration Through Libya to Europe: The Human Cost Summary: This report seeks to shed light on the experiences of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants temporarily residing in and passing through Libya en route to the EU. The report examines the experiences of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants in Libya. It also analyzes the notion of protection for refugees and asylum-seekers in Libya both from a legal perspective and as understood by refugees and asylumseekers themselves. It further tracks the journeys of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants, originating from Egypt, Sudan and the Horn of Africa, from their countries of origin to the ultimate destination of the EU. Finally, it outlines and analyzes the cooperation between the EU and Libya on migration issues. Details: Cairo: American University in Cairo, Forced Migration and Refugee Studies, 2006. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2011 at: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/hamood-libya.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Africa URL: http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/hamood-libya.pdf Shelf Number: 122569 Keywords: Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Immigration (Africa)

Author: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network Title: Calais, The Violence of the Border Summary: Having observed the migratory situation in Calais for many years prior to the destruction on 22 September 2009, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) in collaboration with the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the European Association for the Defense of Human Rights (AEDH) decided to send a fact-finding mission to Calais and the surrounding area in order to investigate impacts of the police clamp down on the situation of migrants and refugees rights in the region. The findings of the mission are that the destruction of “the Jungle” made the situation worse for the migrants, in terms of having their rights respected. In general, the closing down of unauthorised camps does not do away with people’s need to move. Instead, they worsen the human rights situation of those most in need of protection. Details: Copenhagen: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 3, 2011 at: http://www.euromedrights.org/en/publications-en/emhrn-publications/emhrn-puplications/9296.html Year: 2011 Country: France URL: http://www.euromedrights.org/en/publications-en/emhrn-publications/emhrn-puplications/9296.html Shelf Number: 122640 Keywords: Border Security Human Rights Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Migration (France)

Author: Koh, Jennifer Lee Title: Deportation Without Due Process Summary: Over the past decade, the United States government has dramatically expanded its use of a program called “stipulated removal” that has allowed immigration officials to deport over 160,000 non-U.S. citizens without ever giving them their day in court. This report synthesizes information obtained from never-before-released U.S. government documents and data about stipulated removal that became available for analysis as a result of a lawsuit filed under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). According to the previously unreleased data, the federal government has used stipulated removal primarily on noncitizens in immigration detention who lack lawyers and are facing deportation due to minor immigration violations. These noncitizens were given a Hobson’s choice: Accept a stipulated removal order and agree to your deportation, or stay in immigration detention to fight your case. Many of these government records reveal that the stipulated removal program has been implemented across the U.S. at the expense of immigrants’ due process rights. Government records obtained through FOIA litigation suggest that government officials offering stipulated removal to immigrant detainees routinely provided them with inaccurate, misleading, and confusing information about the law and removal process. For example, government agents overemphasized the length of time detainees would spend in detention if they chose to fight their cases and see a judge, yet failed to tell detainees that they could secure release from detention on bond while fighting their cases, or that some might win the right to remain legally in the country. In addition, detainees often had no chance to understand the consequences of signing a stipulated removal order due to systemic language barriers and the lack of quality interpretation and translation that are known to plague many immigration detention facilities. The government documents reveal that immigration judges who sign off on stipulated removal orders have expressed serious concerns about whether the stipulated removal program comports with due process. In fact, some immigration judges have refused to sign stipulated removal orders without seeing detainees for brief, in-person hearings. These hearings at least provide immigration judges the opportunity to determine whether immigrant detainees in fact opted for stipulated removal on a voluntary, intelligent, and knowing basis — as required by the current internal rules governing stipulated removal. The government documents summarized in this report present a dismal picture of the stipulated removal program — a program that, until recently, has operated with little public scrutiny. In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shone a spotlight on the program when it issued its decision in United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2010), a case addressing due process and regulatory violations inherent in the stipulated removal program. The documents analyzed for this report show that the Ramos case was not an aberration, but rather an example of the stipulated removal program’s systemic and pervasive shortcomings. In order to ensure that the stipulated removal program meets the minimum standards of due process and fairness, the federal government should implement the recommendations set forth in this report. These recommendations are geared towards ensuring that immigrants’ due process rights and the rule of law are respected in immigration detention facilities and immigration courts throughout the country. Details: Fullerton, CA: Western State University School of Law; Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School; Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/Deportation-Without-Due-Process-2011-09.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/Deportation-Without-Due-Process-2011-09.pdf Shelf Number: 122882 Keywords: Due Process Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration (U.S.)

Author: National Lawyers Guild. Immigration Court Observation Project Title: Fundamental Fairness: A Report on the Due Process Crisis in New York City Immigration Courts Summary: This report is a summary of 414 immigration hearings observed by New York City law students in New York City’s Immigration Courts from October 2009 through November 2010. Although numerous sources have documented inadequacies of the United States’ immigration laws and Immigration Court system, this report provides a unique perspective on the difficulties experienced by the individuals and communities affected by the Immigration Court system in New York City. It concludes with recommendations to ameliorate the identified problems. Chapter I shows the diversity of the immigrant population in New York City and the human impact that deportations have on immigrant families and immigrant communities. Many immigrants observed in removal proceedings have lived in the United States for decades, and were placed in proceedings notwithstanding their deep roots in, and familial connections to, this country. Chapter II turns to three elements of the due process crisis faced by immigrants in removal proceedings: (A) detention, (B) problematic courtroom procedures, and (C) inadequate access to representation and, when represented, to competent counsel. Each issue is addressed with anecdotes demonstrating the harsh reality faced by immigrants in New York City’s Immigration Courts. Harrowing stories of detained immigrants lacking adequate medical care and incompetent attorneys prolonging immigrants’ detention or improperly expediting immigrants’ removal, show the deep-seated faults in the system. Chapter III outlines an emerging and pressing issue in Immigration Court: the lack of protection provided to individuals with mental disabilities. ICOP chose to highlight its observations of proceedings involving individuals with mental disabilities because they demonstrate the urgent need for additional procedural and substantive safeguards for all immigrants in removal proceedings. The substance of the report concludes with proposed recommendations that address the due process issues documented through ICOP’s observations. These include: A. Reforming the detention system by ensuring meaningful review of liberty deprivation, and minimizing the impact of detention on a respondent’s immigration case. B. Addressing lapses in courtroom procedural fairness by ensuring language access and promoting transparency and professionalism in the courtroom. C. Firmly establishing a respondent’s right to counsel, and promoting and enforcing adequate representation. Finally, the appendix of the report includes direction on how to implement an observation project in your city and a glossary of pertinent terms. Details: New York: National Lawyers Guild, Immigration Court Observation Project, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://nycicop.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/icop-report-5-10-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://nycicop.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/icop-report-5-10-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122896 Keywords: Due Process Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Courts

Author: Weller, Steven Title: Uses of State Criminal Court Records in Immigration Proceedings Summary: This article examines the ways in which state criminal court records may be used in immigration court to determine whether a state criminal conviction falls within a category that can affect the immigration rights of a defendant. Details: Denver, CO: Center for Public Policy, 2011. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2011 at: http://jec.unm.edu/manuals-resources/manuals/Criminal-Court-Records-in-Immigration-Proceedings-7.5.2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://jec.unm.edu/manuals-resources/manuals/Criminal-Court-Records-in-Immigration-Proceedings-7.5.2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123217 Keywords: Court Records Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrants

Author: Passel, Jeffrey S. Title: Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010 Summary: As of March 2010, 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States, virtually unchanged from a year earlier, according to new estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. This stability in 2010 follows a two-year decline from the peak of 12 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2009 that was the first significant reversal in a two-decade pattern of growth. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the nation’s workforce, 8 million in March 2010, also did not differ from the Pew Hispanic Center estimate for 2009. As with the population total, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the labor force had decreased in 2009, from its peak of 8.4 million in 2007. The number of children born to at least one unauthorized-immigrant parent in 2009 was 350,000, essentially the same as it was a year earlier. An analysis of the year of entry of unauthorized immigrant parents of babies born in 2009 indicates that 61% arrived before 2004, 30% arrived from 2004 to 2007, and 9% arrived from 2008 to 2010. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, unauthorized immigrants made up 3.7% of the nation’s population and 5.2% of its labor force in March 2010. Births to unauthorized immigrant parents accounted for 8% of newborns from March 2009 to March 2010, according to the center’s estimates, which are based mainly on data from the government’s Current Population Survey. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Hispanic Center, 2011. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf Shelf Number: 123255 Keywords: Illegal Aliens (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Migration

Author: New York University School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic Title: Justice Derailed: What Raids on New York’s Trains and Buses Reveal about Border Patrol’s Interior Enforcement Practices Summary: This report is the first-ever in-depth examination of the Border Patrol’s transportation raids in upstate New York. It paints a disturbing picture of an agency resorting to aggressive policing tactics in order to increase arrest rates, without regard for the costs and consequences of its practices on New Yorkers’ rights and freedoms. The report extends beyond transportation raids to other Border Patrol practices as well, raising serious concerns about an agency that appears to be driven by the belief that the regular rules of the Constitution do not apply to it. American democracy was founded on the idea that people possess certain inalienable rights, among them the right to privacy and the right to move freely about the country. Throughout this nation’s history, Americans have never been required to carry identification papers proving their citizenship. “Show me your papers” is a statement posed to people living under oppressive regimes, not those residing in the world’s oldest democracy. Anyone who has traveled on trains and buses through upstate New York in recent years has cause to question the federal government’s fealty to these core democratic values. Throughout central and western New York, armed Border Patrol agents routinely board trains and buses nowhere near the border to question passengers about their citizenship. They force certain people to produce documents proving their citizenship or immigration status. Passengers who cannot produce documentation to an agent’s satisfaction are subjected to arrest, detention and potential deportation. These “transportation raids” occur many miles from the Canadian border or any point of entry into the United States. They do little to protect the border, but they threaten constitutional protections that apply to citizens and immigrants alike, invite racial profiling, tear apart families and burden taxpayers with the cost of detaining individuals who were arrested while innocently going about their business. The transportation raids also serve as a window into the practices of an agency that, although charged with policing the border, abuses its authority through its unprecedented reach into the interior of the United States and the use of aggressive search and seizure procedures that do not comport with standards and expectations for domestic policing or interior immigration enforcement. While the full extent of the Border Patrol’s interior enforcement practices remains unknown, community groups have documented abuses of power that extend beyond the transportation system and into our state’s towns and villages. These concerns include complaints of Border Patrol agents wrongfully stopping, questioning and arresting individuals, including United States citizens, and engaging in improper enforcement practices in close collaboration with state and local police. This report is the first in-depth examination of transportation raids by Border Patrol agents in upstate New York, particularly in the Rochester Station within the Border Patrol’s Buffalo sector. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, which is still being litigated, the authors of this report obtained a complete dataset of all transportation arrests in Rochester Station from 2006 to 2009 and detailed information on a random sample of 200 of those arrests. Analysis of the documents obtained through the FOIA litigation and other publicly available documents confirm that Rochester Station’s interior transportation raids represent a shift from the Border Patrol’s mission of policing the border. Furthermore, the evidence suggests an established pattern of misconduct by Border Patrol agents in the course of transportation raids. Key preliminary findings from this data include the following: Despite the Border Patrol’s mission of policing the border, transportation raids do not target recent border-crossers. From 2006 to 2009, less than 1 percent of transportation raid arrests were made at entry, and only 1 percent were made within 72 hours of entry. In contrast, 76 percent of those arrested on transportation raids in Rochester had been in the United States for more than a year, and 12 percent of these individuals had been present for more than 10 years. Interior transportation raid arrests represent the majority of the Rochester Station’s arrests despite the fact that they occur far from any point-of-entry into the United States. Although the agency long sought to block release1 of precise yearly data, we now know that transportation arrests constituted almost two-thirds of all arrests in Rochester between 2007 and 2009. Agents widely violate established arrest procedures in the course of transportation raids. In 77 percent of all transportation raid arrests between 2006 and 2009, Rochester Station officers violated the two-officer rule, which requires that someone other than the arresting officer, whose judgment may be clouded by numerous factors, examine the person who was arrested and determine whether to commence removal proceedings or exercise prosecutorial discretion. In addition to violating the agency’s own regulations, such violations implicate significant due process rights and Fourth Amendment requirements. Despite the immense human and financial costs of overzealous detention, data culled from the sample of Rochester transportation raid arrests reveal that more than 73 percent of individuals arrested were then placed in a detention facility rather than released while awaiting the adjudication of their case. The data further indicates that were it not for a lack of bed space, agents would have detained an even higher percentage of transportation raid arrestees. Details: New York: New York Civil Liberties Union, 2011. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2011 at: http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_justicederailedweb.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_justicederailedweb.pdf Shelf Number: 123301 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Immigration Transportation

Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Title: In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers Summary: Through the Immigrant Detention Advocacy Project, the ACLU of Arizona has worked for two years to document civil and human rights abuses in immigration detention centers in Arizona. Based on 115 face-to-face interviews with detainees held in Eloy and Florence, Arizona, the 36-page report, "In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers," is the most comprehensive report documenting the experiences of immigrants detained by the federal government in the state. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains 3,000 men, women and children in Arizona on any given day. The detained immigrant population in Arizona makes up 10% of immigrants detained nationwide with Arizona having the third largest number of people in ICE custody. It is estimated that approximately 440,000 people will be detained by immigration authorities nationwide this year. Details: Phoenix, ACLU of Arizona, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/detention%20report%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/detention%20report%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 123409 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigrant Detention (Arizona)

Author: Women's Refugee Commission Title: Torn Apart by Immigration Enforcement: Parental Rights and Immigration Detention Summary: Approximately 5.5 million children in the United States live with at least one undocumented parent. Three million of them are U.S. citizens. These children are uniquely situated in relation to federal immigration law because immigration enforcement activities against their parents can have a particularly dramatic and disproportionate effect on them. According to a report by the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, more than 108,000 alien parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from the United States between 1998 and 2007.4 Deportation forces countless parents to make heart-wrenching decisions about what to do with their children. For some families, however, there is no choice to be made. Immigration apprehension, detention and deportation can trigger a complex series of events that undermine parents’ ability to make decisions about their children’s care, complicate family reunification and can — in some circumstances — lead to the termination of parental rights. With the exception of parents apprehended in large worksite enforcement operations, few parents benefit from time-of-apprehension protocols designed to minimize adverse consequences of detention and deportation on children. There is no guarantee that apprehended parents can make a phone call within a reasonable time of apprehension in order to make care arrangements for children. While Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) makes efforts to identify and release parents apprehended in large worksite raids, the majority of parents are not subject to any humanitarian protections and immigration officers struggle with how to handle apprehensions where children will be impacted. Many parents are transferred from the area in which they are apprehended to an immigration detention center without knowing what care arrangements have been made for their children and without knowing how to remain in contact with their children. For these parents, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to locate and reunite with their children at the conclusion of their immigration case. The legal systems governing immigration law and family and child welfare law are not well calibrated. The awkward intersection of these two disciplines can create challenges to parental rights and family unity, violations of due process, significant trauma for children and an undue burden for our social services system. Yet adverse effects that arise at the crossroads of the two systems could be reduced or avoided through policies and procedures that are not inconsistent with the enforcement of existing immigration or child welfare laws. Since the Women’s Refugee Commission began focusing on this issue in 2007, we have found that challenges to parental rights are becoming more frequent as immigration enforcement expands. Our interviews with detained parents continue to reveal cases in which parents are unable to locate or communicate with their children, unable to participate in reunification plans and family court proceedings, and unable to make arrangements to take their children with them when they leave the country. With the increased participation of states and localities in immigration enforcement programs like Secure Communities and the expansion of this program nationwide by 2013 we can expect the number of parents who are apprehended and deported to remain stable or increase. Unless ICE takes steps to reduce the unnecessary detention of parents, to ensure that detained parents can take steps to protect their parental rights and to facilitate the ability of parents facing deportation to make decisions in the best interest of their children, challenges to parental rights will remain a very real problem for children, families and society. Details: New York: Women's Refugee Commission, 2010. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2011 at: www.womenscommission.org Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 123440 Keywords: Children of Illegal Immigrants Deportation Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement

Author: Barry, Tom Title: Fallacies of High-Tech Fixes for Border Security Summary: In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new department promised border security over traditional border-control operations. Rushing to secure the borders, the abundantly funded DHS nearly tripled the number of Border Patrol agents, fortified ports-of-entry, built a highly controversial border wall and quickly opted for several high-tech initiatives to patrol the border with virtual eyes. DHS rushed ahead with its two remote surveillance initiatives—the SBInet program (commonly known as the “virtual fence”) and the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program—without having a detailed or focused border security strategy in place. Not only did this expedited border security lack a strategy, but it also lacked a foundation of successful experience in high-tech border control. Instead, it has been based more on dreams, hopes and fantasy—and on the widely shared, but faulty, assumption that technology provided by private contractors could meet the challenge of securing the country’s nearly 6,000 miles of land borders with remote surveillance systems. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the DHS agency in charge of border security, states it is committed to “a comprehensive and systemic upgrading of the technology used in controlling the border.” But the new agency lacks the oversight and management capacity, in-house technological expertise, and the necessary commitment to direct and operate its proposed high-tech solutions. CBP professes its commitment to protecting the homeland against the entry of “dangerous people and goods.” Yet it lacks a strategy that prioritizes actual threats. Its high-tech initiatives, like the entire Secure Border Initiative (SBI) endeavor, which encompasses the two main high-tech border security programs, are shockingly unfocused and nonstrategic. Even when the immensely expensive technological surveillance occasionally does work, CBP’s high-tech web catches only illegal border crossers looking for work or carrying backpacks of marijuana. These arrests and drug seizures are certainly not the reason the Department of Homeland Security was created and cannot justify the continuing depletion of the U.S. treasury in the unfocused post-September 11 quest for border security. Trying to stand by its promise to gain “operational control” over the land borders, DHS hurriedly turned to high-tech fixes for border security. But DHS’s hasty commitment to remote surveillance technology—such as virtual fences and drones—has been symptomatic of the new department’s apparent confidence that there would be unlimited funding for border security and that its operations would not be subject either to cost-benefit analysis or to evaluations of the impact on homeland security. Rather than being guided by threat assessments, they have been experiments in technological wish fulfillment. This International Policy Report examines the failed SBInet and UAV programs. Sidebars in the report examine the support of high-tech fixes for border security by liberal sectors and the role of congressional supporters of UAVs. A final section includes conclusions and recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: International Policy Report: Accessed November 29, 2011 at: http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/1004_TBP.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ciponline.org/images/uploads/1004_TBP.pdf Shelf Number: 123487 Keywords: Border Security (U.S.) Homeland Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration

Author: McCutcheon, Chuck Title: Securing Our Borders: Doing What Works to Ensure Immigration Reform Is Complete and Comprehensive Summary: A new report from Center for American Progress investigates the failures of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) program and has found that there are "salvageable" parts of former attempts at boarder security reform and lessons to be learned from past mistakes. This paper details their findings and emphasizes that future efforts "must be accompanied by the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform, which would create orderly migration channels and allow the border patrol to focus on smuggling and other criminal enterprises. By restoring order to our nation's chaotic and broken immigration system, DHS' operational control of the Mexican border will be enhanced." As part of the Center for American Progress' 'Doing What Works' project, this paper concludes that while SBI's performance has been dismal, an advanced technology program can reach SBI's key goals if multiple corrective measures are taken. By upgrading human resources and procurement practices, harnessing new technology, and setting up transparent, evidence-based operations, DHS can restore confidence in the overall SBI program and produce budget savings. The study proposes 10 reforms for SBI, in general, and a sharply re-defined technology component." SBI, established in 2005, is "a comprehensive, multi-year plan to help secure America's borders." Its mission "is to lead the operational requirements support and documentation as well as the acquisition efforts to develop, deploy, and integrate technology and tactical infrastructure in support of CBP's efforts to gain and maintain effect control of U.S. land border areas." More information on SBI can be found at the Customs and Borders Protection website. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 23, 2012 at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/pdf/dww_borders.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/pdf/dww_borders.pdf Shelf Number: 123743 Keywords: Border Control (United States) Border Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Reform

Author: Bernsen, James A. Title: The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Texas Summary: Texas, which accounts for about half of the U.S. border with Mexico, has been particularly hard hit by the costs of illegal immigration. The state has seen an extraordinary growth in immigration over the last few decades. In 1970, there were only 310,000 foreign-born citizens in the state. By 1990, that number had increased 391 percent, to 1.5 million. The immigration rate since then has exploded. According to a 2004 U.S. Census Bureau estimate, the number of foreign born residents of Texas in that year was 3.45 million – 1,100 percent of the 1970 number. In 1970, the foreign-born population of Texas was three percent. In 1990, it was eight percent. In 2004, foreign-born residents represented 15.7 percent of all Texans. Although Texas has seen widespread migration from within the United States as well, this wave of external immigration comes with much more profound social – and fiscal – consequences. The majority of this increase comes from legal immigrants, but a large – and proportionately growing – percentage comes from illegal immigrants. Texas, according to the Census Bureau, is now home to 15 percent of all illegal immigrants in the United States. Since 1993, the population has doubled by conservative estimates. Some studies have estimated that the population has even tripled. Details: Austin, TX: Lone Star Foundation, 2006. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2012 at: http://www.lonestarreport.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5Vg_zxX8oz8%3D&tabid=162&mid=687 Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.lonestarreport.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5Vg_zxX8oz8%3D&tabid=162&mid=687 Shelf Number: 124036 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration

Author: Wasem, Ruth Ellen Title: Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986 Summary: Estimates derived from the March Supplement of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) indicate that the unauthorized resident alien population (commonly referred to as illegal aliens) rose from 3.2 million in 1986 to 11.2 million in 2010. Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Research Center, has been involved in making these estimations since he worked at the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the 1980s. The estimated number of unauthorized aliens had dropped to 1.9 million in 1988 following passage of a 1986 law that legalized several million unauthorized aliens. The estimates of unauthorized aliens peaked at an estimated 12.4 million in 2007. About 39% of unauthorized alien residents in 2010 were estimated to have entered the United States in 2000 or later. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reported an estimated 10.8 million unauthorized alien residents as of January 2010, up from 8.5 million in January 2000. The OIS estimated that 6.6 million of the unauthorized alien residents were from Mexico, an estimate comparable to Passel and D’Vera Cohn’s calculation of 6.5 million. The OIS based its estimates on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The OIS estimated that the unauthorized resident alien population in the United States increased by 37% over the period 2000 to 2008, then leveled off in 2009 and 2010. Research suggests that various factors have contributed to the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens, and that the increase is often attributed to the “push-pull” of prosperity-fueled job opportunities in the United States in contrast to limited or nonexistent job opportunities in the sending countries. Accordingly, the economic recession that began in December 2007 may have curbed the migration of unauthorized aliens, particularly because sectors that traditionally rely on unauthorized aliens, such as construction, services, and hospitality, have been especially hard hit. Some researchers also suggest that the increased size of the unauthorized resident population during the late 1990s and early 2000s is an inadvertent consequence of border enforcement and immigration control policies. They posit that strengthened border security has curbed the fluid movement of seasonal workers. This interpretation, generally referred to as a caging effect, argues that these policies have raised the stakes in crossing the border illegally and created an incentive for those who succeed in entering the United States to stay. The current system of legal immigration is cited as another factor contributing to unauthorized alien residents. The statutory ceilings that limit the type and number of immigrant visas issued each year create long waits for visas. According to this interpretation, many foreign nationals who would prefer to come to the United States legally resort to illegal avenues in frustration over the delays. It is difficult, however, to demonstrate a causal link or to guarantee that increased levels of legal migration would absorb the current flow of unauthorized migrants. Furthermore, some researchers speculate that the doubling in deportations since 2001 might also have had a chilling effect on family members weighing unauthorized residence in recent years. Some observers point to more elusive factors when assessing the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens—such as shifts in immigration enforcement priorities away from illegal entry to removing suspected terrorists and criminal aliens, or discussions of possible “amnesty” legislation. This report does not track legislation and will be updated as needed. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: RL33874: Accessed February 10, 2012 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf Shelf Number: 124038 Keywords: Illegal Aliens (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Siskin, Alison Title: Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues Summary: As Congress considers addressing some of the problems in the nation’s immigration system, the detention of noncitizens in the United States may be an issue as Congress may chose to reevaluate detention priorities (i.e., who should be detained) and resources. Under the law, there is broad authority to detain aliens while awaiting a determination of whether the noncitizen should be removed from the United States. The law also mandates that certain categories of aliens are subject to mandatory detention (i.e., the aliens must be detained). Aliens subject to mandatory detention include those arriving without documentation or with fraudulent documentation, those who are inadmissable or deportable on criminal grounds, those who are inadmissable or deportable on national security grounds, those certified as terrorist suspects, and those who have final orders of deportation. Aliens not subject to mandatory detention may be detained, paroled, or released on bond. The priorities for detention of these aliens are specified in statute and regulations. As of December 13, 2011, on an average day in FY2012, 32,953 noncitizens were in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody. There are many policy issues surrounding detention of aliens. The Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) increased the number of aliens subject to mandatory detention, and raised concerns about the justness of mandatory detention, especially as it is applied to asylum seekers arriving without proper documentation. Additionally, as DHS increases its ability to identify aliens who are subject to removal from local jails in more remote locations, the nationwide allocation of detention space may become an issue. The 108th Congress passed P.L. 108-458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, directing the Secretary of DHS to increase the amount of detention bed space by not less than 8,000 beds for each year, FY2006 through FY2010; a total of 40,000 beds. Although Congress increased the bed space between FY2006 and FY2010, the number of beds only increased by approximately 12,000. One bill related to immigration detention has received Congressional action in the 112th Congress. H.R. 1932 was placed on the Union Calendar on October 17, 2011. After a removal order has been issued against an alien, the law provides that the alien subject to a final removal order be removed within 90 days, except as otherwise provided in the statute. Certain aliens subject to a removal order “may be detained beyond the removal period and, if released, shall be subject to [certain] terms of supervision.” This provision had been interpreted as permitting indefinite detention where removal was not reasonably foreseeable, but in 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, interpreted it as only permitting detention for up to six months where removal was not reasonably foreseeable. Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled absent clear guidance from Congress. H.R. 1932 as reported by the House Judiciary Committee, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow DHS to indefinitely detain, subject to six-month reviews, aliens under orders of removal who could not be removed if certain conditions were met. In addition, in the 112th Congress, other bills have been introduced covering a range of provisions and perspectives concerning the detention of noncitizens. Several bills—including H.R. 100 and H.R. 1274—would mandate that DHS increase the amount of detention space. In addition, other bills (e.g., H.R. 933 and S. 1258) would mandate the propagation of regulations concerning detainee care, and expand the alternatives to detention program. Other proposed legislation, such as H.R. 713, would make changes to the mandatory detention provisions, lessening the categories of aliens required to be detained. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2012. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: RL32369: Accessed February 14, 2012 at: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32369.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32369.pdf Shelf Number: 124125 Keywords: Illegal Aliens (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention

Author: Baxter, Tom Title: Alabama's Immigration Disaster: The Harshest Law in the Land Harms the State's Economy and Society Summary: In June 2011 Alabama passed the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, H.B. 56. The law, which took effect in late September, lives up to its billing as the nation’s toughest immigration bill and goes well beyond the Arizona law (S.B. 1070) on which it was based. H.B. 56 requires schools to check and report the immigration status of their students and bars undocumented students from postsecondary education. It instructs police to demand proof of immigration status from anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally, even on a routine traffic stop or roadblock. It also invalidates any contract knowingly entered into with an illegal alien, including routine agreements such as a rent contract, and makes it a felony for an unauthorized immigrant to enter into a contract with a government entity. Finally, it goes beyond any previous legislation by effectively making it a crime to be undocumented in the state. The law’s impact, by virtue of the fact that much of it went into effect, has been swift and detrimental to the state, with a significant exodus of Latinos. But in a state already ravaged by tornadoes and lagging in economic recovery, the costs and social effects of the law have been particularly harsh. Overall, as Professor Samuel Addy of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration has illustrated, because of H.B. 56, Alabama could lose up to $10.8 billion (or 6.2 percent of its gross domestic product), up to 140,000 jobs in the state, $264.5 million in state tax revenue, and $93 million in local tax revenue. These costs will all be incurred to drive out an undocumented population that is estimated to be only 2.5 percent of the state—a population that paid $130 million into the state’s tax coffers in 2010. Alabama’s agricultural industry and foreign investment are especially affected. Chad Smith, a tomato farmer, estimates that he could lose up to $300,000 in produce because of the lack of farmworkers who are now fleeing the state. And recent embarrassing incidents such as the arrest of Mercedes-Benz and Honda executives under the provisions of the new law jeopardize the presence of foreign companies, which give the state both a significant amount of money and a significant number of jobs—5 percent of the state’s workforce in 2009, the most recent year for which data are available. As bad as the economic impact is, though, the social and humanitarian costs are even higher. There are countless stories of families suddenly torn apart and lives disrupted, of frightened children and distraught parents faced with the choice of leaving their children behind to give them a better future. Not surprisingly, supporters and opponents of the law alike are already discussing changing it. Even Gov. Robert Bentley (R), an early proponent of the law, has acknowledged that he is working with the legislature to revise the immigration bill in the next session. This report reviews the economic and social harm caused by H.B. 56, arguing that the anti-immigration bills has, and will continue to cause severe damage to the agricultural industry, foreign investment, and civil rights. We contend that Republican legislators rushed into passing H.B. 56 without considering the economic effects of the law, following a national political debate led by such figures as the anti-immigrant Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), rather than the needs of their home state. Efforts to repeal the bill cannot possibly undo all of the harm wrought by H.B. 56 but repeal would go a long way at stopping the damage of a poorly conceived and hastily enacted measure. The best solution, though, comes not from the state but from Congress, which should step in to fix our broken immigration system and fill the void created by federal inaction. A sensible federal solution would establish smart enforcement policies, resolve the status of those illegally present in the United States, create flexible legal channels of immigration that serve the national interest, and curtail immigration outside of legal status. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2012 at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/alabama_immigration_disaster.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/alabama_immigration_disaster.pdf Shelf Number: 124176 Keywords: Economics Illegal Immigrants Immigration Laws (Alabama)

Author: Freeman, Semuteh Title: Immigration Incarceration: The Expansion and Failed Reform of Immigration Detention in Essex County, NJ Summary: This report takes a hard look at the outcome of detention expansion and so-called “reform” of immigration detention in Essex County, New Jersey. Although immigration detention has always been justified as non-punitive, and the rhetoric from the Obama Administration has emphasized a reform of the civil immigration detention system, in recent years there has been an expansion of immigration detention even while detention facilities fail to meet the 2008 and 2011 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS). What is currently happening in Essex County is an example of what occurs when expansion of immigration detention fails to coincide with any meaningful review of the system currently in place. Every indicator of the conditions and treatment of immigrant detainees in Essex County shows a detention system that is failing to meet the bare minimum of humane treatment and due process. What’s more, the increase in the number of immigrants detained and the conditions of their detention are contrary to promises for reform and prosecutorial discretion at the national level, as well as assurances of oversight at the local level. After providing a history of the rise of immigration detention in Essex County, this report will delve into the experiences of detainees who are held in the two facilities—the privately owned and operated Delaney Hall and the Essex County Correctional Facility (hereafter “ECCF”). Part I of the report chronicles the expansion of detention in the United States, specifically the expansion of detention in Essex County, NJ, including information about the two immigration detention facilities in Essex County: Delaney Hall and ECCF. Part II will focus on who is being detained in Delaney Hall and ECCF. Part III will present information about the conditions in Delaney Hall and ECCF for immigrant detainees. Part IV concerns access to legal services and due process for immigrant detainees in Essex County. Details: New York: New York University School of Law, Immigrant Rights Clinic, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2012 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/ImmigrationIncarceration2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/ImmigrationIncarceration2012.pdf Shelf Number: 124755 Keywords: Detention Centers Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (New Jersey, US) Immigration

Author: Garcia, Angela S. Title: Life as an Undocumented Immigrant: How Restrictive Local Immigration Policies Affect Daily Life Summary: What happens to undocumented immigrants after the passage of anti-immigrant state laws such as Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and Alabama’s H.B. 56 or restrictive local ordinances such as those in Prince William County, Virginia, or Freemont, Nebraska? What is life like for unauthorized immigrants in these areas, and how do they mitigate the harshness of these ordinances? On the flip side, what happens to the larger communities—documented and not, immigrant and not—and how do these laws impact the ability of law enforcement professionals to keep our communities safe? Many studies have focused on the fiscal and economic ramifications of anti-immigrant legislation, but little work has been done on the harmful effects these laws have on everyday life in our communities. That is the focus of this report. This report presents one of the first studies of immigrants’ responses to local restrictions and enforcement. We demonstrate that exclusionary policies and ramped-up federal enforcement inhibit immigrant incorporation into their communities. Immigrants react to legal threats and hostile reception by going underground: They hold negative perceptions of local law enforcement, associate routine activities such as driving and walking with anxiety and the risk of deportation, and develop strategies of avoidance and fitting in to mitigate the discovery of their unauthorized status. Details: Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2012 at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/life_as_undocumented.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/life_as_undocumented.pdf Shelf Number: 124790 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.)

Author: Camarota, Steven A. Title: A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population Summary: Monthly Census Bureau data show that the number of less-educated young Hispanic immigrants in the country has declined significantly. The evidence indicates that the illegal population declined after July 2007 and then rebounded somewhat in the summer of 2008 before resuming its decline in the fall of 2008 and into the first quarter of 2009. Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline. There is evidence that the decline was caused by both fewer illegal immigrants coming and an increase in the number returning home. However, this pattern does not apply to the legal immigrant population, which has not fallen significantly. Among the findings: •Our best estimate is that the illegal population declined 13.7 percent (1.7 million) from a peak of 12.5 million in the summer of 2007 to 10.8 million in the first quarter of 2009. •If we compare the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2009, the implied decline is 1.3 million (10.9 percent). In just the last year the decline was 5.7 percent. •By design, these estimates produce results similar to those from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS estimates of the illegal population show a 1.5 percent decline between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008. Our estimates show a 1.6 percent decline over the same time period. DHS has not yet estimated the illegal population for January 2009. •There is evidence that the number of new illegal immigrants arriving has fallen by about one-third in the last two years compared to earlier in this decade. •There is also evidence that the number of illegal immigrants returning home has more than doubled in the last two years compared to earlier in this decade. •While migration patterns have fundamentally changed, it must be remembered that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have not left the country, and tens of thousands of new illegal immigrants continue to settle in the country each year. •Our analysis shows that only the illegal immigrant population has declined. The legal immigrant population does not show the same decline. This is also true for Mexico, the top illegal-immigrant-sending country. •The fact that the legal immigrant population does not show the same decline is an indication that stepped up enforcement has played a role. •Another indication that enforcement has played a role in the decline is that the illegal immigrant population began falling before there was a significant rise in their unemployment rate. •While the decline began before unemployment among illegal immigrants rose, unemployment among illegal immigrants has increased dramatically and must now be playing a significant role in reducing their numbers. •There is evidence that the illegal population rose in the summer of 2007, while Congress was considering legalizing illegal immigrants. When that legislation failed to pass, the illegal population quickly began a dramatic fall. •There is no way to know if the current trend will continue. Given President Obama’s stated desire to legalize illegal immigrants and his backing away from enforcement efforts, it seems likely that when the economy recovers, the illegal population will resume its growth. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2009. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Backgrounder: Accessed April 12, 2012 at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/shiftingtide.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.cis.org/articles/2009/shiftingtide.pdf Shelf Number: 120915 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.)

Author: Isacson, Adam Title: Beyond the Border Buildup Security and Migrants Along the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: Once relatively quiet and neglected, the U.S.-Mexico border zone is a very different place than it was twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. Today, border communities are separated by both security measures and security conditions. South of the borderline, a spiral of organized crime has made Mexico’s northern states one of the world’s most violent regions. North of the borderline, a “war on drugs,” a “war on terror,” and rising anti-immigrant sentiment have encouraged a flurry of fence-building and a multiplied presence of guards, spies, and soldiers. Together, both sides comprise one of the world’s principal corridors for the transshipment of illegal drugs and weapons. The population most affected by this sharp change in threats, vigilance, and attitudes is the hundreds of thousands of undocumented people who seek every year to migrate into the United States. Some come because of the promise of economic opportunity, or the lack of it in their countries of origin, mostly Mexico and Central America. Some come to escape violence or poor governance. A growing proportion comes to be reunited with loved ones already in the United States. The number of migrants is less than it used to be, for reasons that this report will explore. But after the changes of the past several years, migrants face a much greater risk of being kidnapped and extorted by criminals and corrupt officials in Mexico; finding themselves mired in the U.S. criminal justice system; or even dying in a desert wilderness. This report is the product of a yearlong study of border security policy and its impact on the migrant population. On the U.S. side, we visited three border regions and carried out extensive research in Washington. In Mexico, we conducted surveys of migrants, and met with Mexican officials and representatives of civil society and migrant shelters. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://justf.org/files/pubs/120419_WOLA_Beyond.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://justf.org/files/pubs/120419_WOLA_Beyond.pdf Shelf Number: 125124 Keywords: Border Security Drug Trafficking Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Illegal Migration Organized Crime

Author: Toyota, Mika Title: Securitizing Border-Crossing: The Case of Marginalized Stateless Minorities in the Thai-Burma Borderlands Summary: This paper examines the securization process of unauthorized migration in Thailand, in particular how the cross-border flows of marginalized minorities came to be seen as a threat to Thai national identity by the state. The paper aims to present a case of societal security by highlighting the importance of national identity. It explores the reasons for portraying cross-border mobility of border minorities as threats to the integrity of the Thai state. The paper illustrates the importance of ethnocized discourses on national identity by broadening the traditional security studies' framework on states and political-military competition at the borderlands Details: Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, 2006. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed May 4, 2012 at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=27045 Year: 2006 Country: Burma URL: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=27045 Shelf Number: 125153 Keywords: Border Security (Thailand, Burma) Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Waslin, Michele Title: The Secure Communities Program: Unanswered Questions and Continuing Concerns Summary: The Secure Communities program, which launched in March 2008, has become a centerpiece of immigration enforcement efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Its rapid expansion coupled with serious concerns about the design, goals, and implementation of the program has resulted in a great deal of controversy. Under Secure Communities, participating jurisdictions submit arrestees’ fingerprints not only to criminal databases, but to immigration databases as well, allowing ICE access to information on individuals held in jails. While state and local law‐enforcement officers are not directly enforcing federal immigration law or making arrests for immigration violations, the transmission of fingerprints allows ICE to tap into information about detainees and make determinations about additional ICE enforcement action. While some may claim that Secure Communities is an improvement over other federal‐local partnerships—such as the 287(g) program, which deputizes state and local police officers to enforce immigration laws through agreements with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—the Secure Communities program still faces many of the same criticisms. A Task Force appointed by DHS to make recommendations regarding the program concluded that Secure Communities is fundamentally flawed. While roughly half of the Task Force members favored a suspension or termination of the program and half believed the program must be continued while reforms are being made, all Task Force members agreed that the program must be reformed. This paper describes the Secure Communities program, identifies concerns about the program’s design and implementation, and makes recommendations for the future of the program. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2011. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.aijustice.org/resources/advocacy/S-COMM_Special_Report_by_Immigration_Policy_Center.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.aijustice.org/resources/advocacy/S-COMM_Special_Report_by_Immigration_Policy_Center.pdf Shelf Number: 125167 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.)

Author: Jimenez, Maria Title: Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the U.S. – Mexico Border Summary: TAmerican Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties (ACLU) and Mexico’s National Commission of Human Rights have been resolute in the protection and defense of the fundamental human rights of international migrants. Of all entitlements, the right to life is perhaps the most important. It is essential to the exercise of every other basic freedom and civil liberty. Under international law, the right to life has to be guaranteed at all times and under all circumstances. This right is violated not only when a life is deprived due to the arbitrary actions of a State, but also when actions are not taken to protect life. In enacting border and immigration policies, nations have the sovereign prerogative to protect their territorial integrity and defend their citizenry. That power, however, is restricted and constrained by international obligations to respect fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, these restraints have not precluded the U.S. government from deploying deadly border enforcement policies and practices that, by design and by default, lead to at least one death every day of a migrant crossing the border. This report is the sounding of an alarm for a humanitarian crisis that has led to the death of more than 5,000 human beings. It is part of a larger effort of human rights organizations throughout the border region to call attention to the most significant, ongoing violations of human rights occurring today. The report analyzes border security policies and practices that have contributed to the suffering and death of unauthorized border crossers. It reviews the impact of migrant fatalities and injuries to individuals, families and communities. It examines government and civil society responses to preserve and protect human life moving through hostile terrain and severe climates. It explores relevant international human rights laws and principles. Finally, the report offers recommendations to end this humanitarian crisis. Details: San Diego: American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties and Mexico's National Commission of Human Rights, 2009. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2012 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/humanitariancrisisreport.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/humanitariancrisisreport.pdf Shelf Number: 125239 Keywords: Border Security Human Rights Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Policies Migrant Deaths

Author: Morral, Andrew R. Title: Measuring Illegal Border Crossing Between Ports of Entry: An Assessment of Four Promising Methods Summary: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is responsible for controlling the flow of goods and people across the U.S. border, a difficult task that raises challenging resource management questions about how best to minimize illicit flows across the border while facilitating legitimate ones. Commonly reported border control measures, such as numbers of illegal migrants apprehended or miles of border under effective control, bear only an indirect and uncertain relationship to the border control mission, making them unreliable management tools. Fundamental to the question of border control effectiveness is the proportion of illicit border crossings that are prevented through either deterrence or apprehension. Estimating these proportions requires knowing the total flow of illicit goods or border crossings, but compelling methods for producing such estimates do not yet exist. This short paper describes four innovative approaches to estimating the total flow of illicit border crossings between ports of entry. Each is sufficiently promising to warrant further attention for purposes of supporting reliable, valid, and timely measures of illicit cross-border flow. Successfully implementing each of these approaches will require methodological development and analysis to identify barriers or constraints to using the approach, the cost of data collection, and the amount of error that can be expected in the resulting estimates. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2011. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 17, 2012 at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP328.html Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP328.html Shelf Number: 125322 Keywords: Border Security (U.S.) Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Wise Strategic Communication Title: Afghanistan Counter People Smuggling Scoping Study Summary: This study aims to identify the level of situational awareness and both formal and informal communication channels to reach out Hazara population to inform them of the risks associated with illegal immigration to Australia via people-smuggling networks. Details: Canberra: Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, 2010. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2012 at: http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/FinalReport-WiseStrategicCommunicatoin.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/FinalReport-WiseStrategicCommunicatoin.pdf Shelf Number: 125660 Keywords: Border Security Human Trafficking (Australia) Illegal Immigrants People-Smuggling

Author: National Immigration Forum Title: Immigrants Behind Bars: How, Why, and How Much? Summary: States across the U.S. are facing large budget deficits leading to significant reductions in local programs and services, including cuts to police and Sheriff's departments. But in spite of shrinking resources, many local law enforcement agencies assist in enforcement of federal immigration law, including helping with the identification and detention of immigrants believed—sometimes wrongly—to be subject to deportation. The following backgrounder provides explanations of the ways that immigrants end up in local custody and are held there on the basis of their immigration status. It also explores the associated fiscal costs of increased detention to states and counties. In recent years police have increasingly been drawn into immigration enforcement operations, and as a result, local jails are holding increased numbers of immigrants, even those not facing criminal charges. Detaining immigrants in state or local custody creates additional costs and burdens on local law enforcement agencies, and the unnecessary and prolonged detention of immigrants costs local budgets millions of taxpayer dollars per year. The enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has historically been a federal duty. However, throughout the last decade, the distinction between federal immigration enforcement and state and local criminal law enforcement has been eroding. Since its creation in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has pursued broad expansions of local involvement with federal authorities in enforcement of federal immigration laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the Department of Homeland Security’s primary interior immigration enforcement bureau and the manager of the largest detention system in the country. ICE has aggressively sought both formal and informal relationships with state and local law enforcement agencies. This collaboration broadens ICE’s ability to identify, apprehend, and detain immigrants around the country. Notably, ICE’s efforts are not limited to undocumented immigrants. All non-citizens who may possibly be subject to deportation are under ICE’s jurisdiction, even if they have been permanent residents of the United States for decades. In 2007, ICE grouped its major programs for apprehending non-citizens identified or arrested by local law enforcement under an umbrella called “Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security” (ICE ACCESS). ICE ACCESS encompasses 14 different programs that connect ICE agents to state and local law enforcement agencies and operations. Three ICE ACCESS programs engender particularly broad-ranging consequences for immigrants who interact with the criminal justice system: the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), Secure Communities, and the 287(g) program. All of these programs are designed to help ICE identify immigrants who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The increased collaboration between DHS and local law enforcement agencies has resulted in greater numbers of non-citizens being held in local jails for prolonged periods of time, at great expense. When jails go beyond handling regular local criminal matters to holding civil detainees for federal agencies, many additional bodies of law and logistical requirements come into play. Questions of custody and responsibility now involve both federal and state agencies, and inmates may be juggling both criminal and civil proceedings involving different legal rights. The result has been widespread confusion and frequent civil rights violations. Immigrants who come into contact with police may end up in the local jail, being held for ICE, without even being suspected of or charged with a crime. Non-citizens involved in the criminal justice process spend more time behind bars than citizens facing similar charges. And non-citizen inmates due to be released from local custody are unlawfully detained on a regular basis. Imprisoning people is a very expensive endeavor, and the impact of this unnecessary and excessive detention amounts to millions of dollars per year for local budgets. This paper seeks to identify the ways, legal and illegal, that immigrants end up in local custody, and the associated costs to states and counties. Details: Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2012 at: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2011/Immigrants_in_Local_Jails.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/2011/Immigrants_in_Local_Jails.pdf Shelf Number: 125767 Keywords: Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.S.)

Author: Novick, Sheldon M. Title: Americans Without Papers, State Immigrant 'Attrition' Laws, and the Fourteenth Amendment Summary: State immigration laws aim at the removal of a class of persons, undocumented aliens, through “attrition by enforcement.” Sponsors of the attrition laws claim federal authorization for their efforts, which otherwise may violate the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws. The ultimate basis of the claim does not rest on the Constitution, but on a doctrine constructed in the nineteenth century, in the Chinese Exclusion Cases, contemporary with Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court then accepted a claim that Congress and the President had extra-constitutional power to expel a class of unwanted “aliens,” defined by their race. Congress in 1996 renewed the claim of power to deport even documented immigrants and naturalized citizens, and attempted to authorize state governments to share in the deportation power. State immigrant “attrition by enforcement” laws are the result. In Arizona v. United States, the S.B. 1070 case, the Supreme Court held that portions of the statute, a model for other state immigrant attrition laws, were not authorized but instead were preempted. The remaining state “attrition” schemes are still to be tested against the civil rights laws, however. The Court in modern times has greatly circumscribed the supposed, unlimited power to deport aliens claimed in the Chinese Exclusion Cases, and one hopes Congress and the courts will abandon the dubious doctrines announced in those opinions and do away with “Juan Crow.” Details: South Royalton, VT: Vermont Law School, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Vermont Law School Research Paper No. 23-12: Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117436 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2117436 Shelf Number: 125863 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Laws

Author: Posner, Eric A. Title: The Institutional Structure of Immigration Law Summary: Immigration law scholars should give more attention to the institutional structure of immigration law and, in particular, the way that the government addresses problems of asymmetric information in the course of screening potential migrants and attempting to control their behavior once they arrive. Economic models of optimal contracting provide a useful starting point for analyzing this problem. This approach is applied to several current debates in immigration scholarship, including controversies over “crimmigration” and courts’ refusal to extend labor and employment rights to undocumented aliens. Details: Chicago: University of Chicago, Law School, 2012. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Chicago Institute for Law & Economics Olin Research Paper No. 607: Accessed August 16, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120759 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2120759 Shelf Number: 126042 Keywords: Illegal Aliens (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Immigration Law

Author: Charlton, Alexandra Title: The Challenges to Responding to Human Smuggling in Canada: Practitioners Reflect on the 1999 Boat Arrivals in British Columbia Summary: During the summer of 1999, four boats arrived off the west coast of British Columbia (BC) carrying a total of 599 migrants smuggled directly from Fujian, China. After their arrival, most of the migrants made refugee claims. Once the first group of migrants had been processed and released, many disappeared, thus abandoning their refugee claims. In response, the federal government detained most of the migrants who arrived on the following three boats. Because of the scale of the boat arrivals and the decision to detain refugee claimants, Canadian governmental and non-governmental institutions faced unprecedented challenges in responding to this migration. Many of these challenges involved collaboration and resource sharing among institutions. While other federal departments and other levels of government were involved, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) held primary responsibility, with its mandate to facilitate immigration and to enforce international borders in relation to human migration. This paper is a collective contribution made by seven people – with distinct perspectives – involved in the response to human smuggling in BC in 1999. They convened at a workshop held at the Fifth National Metropolis Conference in Ottawa on 20 October 2001 with the goal of furthering the dialogue about the cross-institutional response to human smuggling. The objective of this paper is to continue the dialogue about the many challenges to responding to human smuggling in Canada, as outlined by speakers. Speakers were asked to address the following questions: (1) What is the framework within which you work (e.g., the mandate and culture of your institution)? (2) What are your roles and responsibilities in responding to human smuggling? (3) What have been the main challenges in the cross-institutional coordination of the response? Details: Vancouver: Vancouver Centre of Excellence, 2002. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis Working Paper Series, No. 02-23: Accessed August 28, 2012 at: http://mbc.metropolis.net/assets/uploads/files/wp/2002/WP02-23.pdf Year: 2002 Country: Canada URL: http://mbc.metropolis.net/assets/uploads/files/wp/2002/WP02-23.pdf Shelf Number: 126155 Keywords: Human Smuggling (Canada) Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Maritime Crime Maritime Security

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Regional Centre for East Asia and the Pacific Title: Migrant Smuggling in Asia: An Annotated Bibliography Summary: The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) conducted the research in support of the Bali Process, which is a regional, multilateral process to improve cooperation against migrant smuggling, trafficking in persons and related forms of transnational crime. The research focused in particular on fourteen countries: Afghanistan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, the Maldives, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam (the project countries). The research had three key objectives: (1) identify existing knowledge about migrant smuggling with regard to the project countries; (2) summarize and synthesize existing knowledge about migrant smuggling, thereby making it easier for decision makers to access key data and information; and (3) identify knowledge gaps, thereby making it easier to clearly identify research prioities. The research involved a systematic search of multiple bibliographic databases, library catalogues and websites, to locate empirically-based information about migrant smuggling (and to a lesser extent about irregular migration and trafficking in persons) in the project countries. This was followed by a thematic review of all of the information that was located. The research identified 154 sources that met the research criteria, which are described in Tables I and II. The sources were then used as the basis of a thematic regional review and thematic country studies, which are published in UNODC (2012) Migrant Smuggling in Asia. A thematic Review of Literature. A summary of each of these sources is provided in this publication. The researchers allocated key words for each of these sources that reflect the research criteria. These key words are part of the 154 summaries. Details: Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Centre for East Asia and the Pacific, UNODC, 2012. 129p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2012 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2012/Migrant_Smuggling_in_Asia_An_Annotated_Bibliography.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Asia URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2012/Migrant_Smuggling_in_Asia_An_Annotated_Bibliography.pdf Shelf Number: 126286 Keywords: Human Smuggling (Asia) Illegal Immigrants Migrants

Author: Kohli, Aarti Title: Borders, Jails, and Jobsites: An Overview Of Federal Immigration Enforcement Programs in the U.S. Summary: This report provides an overview of the current state of immigration enforcement in the United States in order to encourage and facilitate a productive discussion towards reform. The paper summarizes available background information and the latest research on the key components of the enforcement system. It describes the primary actors and programs, presents specific concerns identified by scholars, advocates and researchers, and offers preliminary recommendations. Details: Berkeley, CA: The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity, University of California, Berkeley Law School, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2012 at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/WI_Enforcement_Paper_final_web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/WI_Enforcement_Paper_final_web.pdf Shelf Number: 126372 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration (U.S.)

Author: Gilman, Denise Title: Realizing Liberty: The Use of International Human Rights Law to Realign Immigration Detention in the United States Summary: This article takes a comprehensive look at the extensive U.S. immigration detention system from a human rights perspective. The article represents a first effort to synthesize and present recently-developed international human rights standards and apply those rules to the U.S. immigration detention system. It engages in an in-depth analysis to identify the changes necessary to realign U.S. law and scale back immigration detention in accord with international human rights law. The article proposes that U.S. courts should effect those changes through the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in light of the international human rights law standards. This use of the human rights standards is appropriate, because the standards represent binding obligations for the United States as a matter of international law and closely track U.S. constitutional law principles relating to civil detention in contexts less contentious than immigration. The article demonstrates how the application of international human rights law standards can bring rationality and humanity to U.S. immigration detention by revitalizing the right to liberty, which constitutes a core conception in both international human rights law and U.S. constitutional law. Details: Austin, TX: University of Texas School of Law, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144812 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144812 Shelf Number: 126451 Keywords: Human Rights Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration (U.S.)

Author: Greene, Judith: Mazon, Alexis Title: Privately Operated Federal Prisons for Immigrants: Expensive. Unsafe. Unnecessary Summary: Presented before a House of Representatives briefing sponsored by Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado on September 13, 2012, Privately Operated Federal Prisons for Immigrants: Expensive, Unsafe, Unnecessary chronicles the May 2012 Adams County Correctional Center uprising in Natchez, Mississippi, a private for-profit facility operated by Corrections Corporation of America, under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The report details some of the tragic personal consequences for Juan Villanueva, his family, and others caught in the midst of the horrific conditions at the facility, leading to the insurrection. The report weaves into this narrative a look at the rise and fall of the private prison industry, and its resurrection through the benefit of federal contracts to detain and imprison undocumented immigrants, in an atmosphere of moral panic after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Details: Brooklyn, NY: Justice Strategies, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/publications/2012/privately-operated-federal-prisons-immigrants-expensive-unsafe-unnecessary Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/publications/2012/privately-operated-federal-prisons-immigrants-expensive-unsafe-unnecessary Shelf Number: 126464 Keywords: Federal Prisons Illegal Aliens (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Private Prisons Privatization

Author: Graybill, Lisa Title: Border Patrol Agents as Interpreters Along the Northern Border: Unwise Policy, Illegal Practice Summary: Advocates along the Northern Border report a recent, sharp increase in the use of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) agents to provide interpretation services to state and local law enforcement officers and emergency responders. This most often occurs when an officer or responder encounters an individual who does not speak English and proactively reaches out to USBP for assistance. But it has also occurred when USBP agents respond to an incident report in lieu of, or in addition to, local law enforcement officers. In other cases, USBP agents have reportedly begun responding to 911 emergency assistance calls, especially if the caller is known or perceived not to speak English. Much of this activity appears to have been precipitated by the fact that the U.S.-Canada border has undergone a dramatic transformation, including an influx of newly assigned USBP agents. Immigrants, their advocates, and community members are reporting—and official statistics confirm—that there are simply too many USBP agents on the ground, apparently with too much time on their hands, who lack adherence to stated priorities. This special report by Lisa Graybill for the Immigration Policy Center lays out the problems with border patrol agents serving as translators and make recommendations intended to promote Title VI compliance, maintain the integrity of the USBP mission on the Northern Border, and protect the rights of immigrants and their families who call the Northern Border home. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center, 2012. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/borderpatrolagentsasinterpreters.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/borderpatrolagentsasinterpreters.pdf Shelf Number: 126466 Keywords: Border Control Agents (U.S.) Border Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Language Barriers Use of Interpreters

Author: Robertson, Alistair Graham Title: Operation Streamline: Costs and Consequences Summary: In 2005, the Del Rio sector of the Border Patrol, an agency within the federal Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection, faced a peculiar issue. With civil detention facilities at capacity and voluntary return to Mexico available only to Mexican citizens, non-Mexican migrants were given a notice to appear in front of an immigration judge and released in the United States.” In 2004, Border Patrol apprehended approximately 10,000 non-Mexican migrants in the Del Rio sector; just one year later, the figure spiked to 15,000. The solution to this enforcement issue, Border Patrol decided, was to circumvent the civil immigration system by turning non-Mexican migrants over for criminal prosecution, a practice until then relegated almost exclusively to cases of violent criminal history or numerous reentries. Upon considering the proposition, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas responded with one caveat: in order to avoid an equal protection violation, the courts would have to criminally prosecute all migrants within a designated area, not just those from countries other than Mexico. With the signature of Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, it was decided to do just that. Starting in December of 2005, “Operation Streamline” required all undocumented border-crossers in the Eagle Pass area of the Del Rio Border Patrol sector to be funneled into the criminal justice system and charged with unlawful entry or re-entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325 or 1326). Those charged with improper entry usually face a sentence of up to 180 days, and a judge may impose a sentence of over ten years dependent upon criminal history. Re-entry offenders also face tough sentences, including a felony charge that places up to a ten-year bar on legal immigration. The Department of Homeland Security since has drastically expanded the criminal referral model through similar programs in the Yuma sector in 2006, the Laredo sector in 2007, and the Tucson sector in 2008. By 2010, every U.S.-Mexico border sector except California had implemented a “zero-tolerance” program of some sort, the whole of which are commonly referred to by the moniker of the original program— Operation Streamline. Depending upon the sector, the degree of implementation may vary significantly. For example, according to Federal Public Defenders in the Yuma and Del Rio sectors, Border Patrol refers nearly 100% of apprehended immigrants in those areas for criminal prosecution. In the Tucson sector, where greater migrant volume renders such high referral rates logistically unfeasible, the percentage on immigrants “Streamlined” may be closer to 10%, or about 70 of the 800 migrants apprehended each day. The resulting prisoner volume has led the Bureau of Prisons in the Department of Justice to depend upon private prison corporations like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group. Through increased facility use and contracts for other services, CCA and GEO have enjoyed a combined $780 million increase in annual federal revenues since 2005. In FY2011, the federal government paid immense sums of taxpayer money to private prison companies, $744 million and $640 million to CCA and GEO Group, respectively. Much of this revenue derives from contracts for Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) prisons, where federal immigrant prisoners are segregated in privately owned, privately operated prisons contracted by the Bureau of Prisons. The terms of CAR contracts include incentives (and sometimes guarantees) to fill facilities near capacity with immigrant prisoners. Each year, these companies dedicate millions of dollars to lobbying and campaign contributions. The federal dollars behind immigrant incarceration come at a significant cost to the taxpayer, climbing in 2011 to an estimated $1.02 billion annually. Before the announcement of Operation Streamline in 2005, the federal government annually committed about 58% of that total, or $591 million toward incarcerating immigrants. In 1994, the amount was about $72 million, 7% of its current level. Recent budget proposals indicate that federal spending on 2 Operation Streamline: Costs and Consquences prosecution and incarceration will likely increase, as Congress recently stated an ambition to “expand Operation Streamline to additional Border Patrol sectors” alongside a record-setting DHS budget request of $45.2 billion. The sheer volume of immigration cases has also severely burdened the courts in border districts, which have been forced to handle a near 350% increase of petty immigration cases from 12,411 in 2002 to 55,604 in 2010. In Tucson, courts may see as many as 200 immigrants lined up for prosecution in a single morning. To handle the expanded caseload, the Department of Justice has pursued a combination of resource-intensive options, including privately contracting with defense attorneys, deputizing Border Patrol agents as special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and bringing several magistrate judges out of retirement. Furthermore, Operation Streamline strips Assistant U.S. Attorneys of the power to prosecute the crimes they deem pressing. Immigration cases made up 36% of all criminal prosecutions nationwide in 2011, surpassing drug and fraud prosecutions combined. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 1, 2012 at: http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/files/GRL_Sept2012_Report%20final.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.grassrootsleadership.org/files/GRL_Sept2012_Report%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 126537 Keywords: Border Security Costs of Criminal Justice Homeland Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Operation Streamline (U.S.) Private Prisons

Author: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Invisible in Isolation: The Use of Segregation and Solitary Confinement in Immigration Detention Summary: Immigrants in detention facilities around the United States often are subjected to punitive and long-term solitary confinement and denied meaningful avenues of appeal, according to an investigation by Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). The two human rights groups surveyed conditions in more than a dozen detention centers and county jails that contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The result is the first comprehensive examination of the effects of solitary confinement on immigration detainees. While the harm caused by solitary confinement to inmates in prisons and jails has been well documented, Invisible in Isolation: The Use of Segregation and Solitary Confinement in Immigration Detention shows that solitary confinement of immigrants in detention is often arbitrarily applied, inadequately monitored, harmful to their health, and a violation of their due process rights. NIJC and PHR uncovered numerous cases in which detention facilities placed mentally ill immigrants in solitary confinement rather than treating them, or separated sexual minorities against their wishes from the general inmate population. Many immigration detainees in solitary confinement had strict limits placed on such “privileges” as outdoor recreation, reading material, and even access to legal counsel. Overall, investigators found, ICE has failed to hold detention centers and jails accountable for their abusive use of solitary confinement. In the report, NIJC and PHR call on ICE and Congress to end solitary confinement in immigration detention, severely limit other forms of segregation, and implement stricter oversight of the detention system. Details: Chicago: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center; Cambridge, MA: Physicians for Human Rights, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 3, 2012 at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Invisible%20in%20Isolation-The%20Use%20of%20Segregation%20and%20Solitary%20Confinement%20in%20Immigration%20Detention.September%202012_5.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Invisible%20in%20Isolation-The%20Use%20of%20Segregation%20and%20Solitary%20Confinement%20in%20Immigration%20Detention.September%202012_5.pdf Shelf Number: 126547 Keywords: Human Rights Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.S.) Solitary Confinement

Author: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center Title: Not Too Late for Reform: A Call for President Obama to Close Failed Immigration Detention Facilities, Halt Costly Privatization & Restore Basic Human Rights Summary: The report details ongoing abuses at county jails holding immigrants in the Midwest and calls on the Obama administration to end the expansion and privatization of the abusive immigration detention system. The report focuses on three county jails — Jefferson County Jail and Tri-County Detention Center in Illinois and Boone County Jail in Kentucky — where the deplorable conditions of confinement are typical of immigration detention facilities across the United States. Details: Chicago: Heartland Alliance’s National Immigrant Justice Center and the Midwest Coalition for Human Rights, 2011. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2012 at: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC-MCHR%20Not%20Too%20Late%20for%20Reform%20Report%202011%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/NIJC-MCHR%20Not%20Too%20Late%20for%20Reform%20Report%202011%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 126548 Keywords: Human Rights Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Private Prisons

Author: Ewing, Walter Title: Looking for a Quick Fix: The Rise and Fall of the Secure Border Initiative's High-Tech Solution to Unauthorized Immigration Summary: The Secure Border Initiative (SBI), launched by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2005, is a cautionary tale of the dangers inherent in seeking a technological quick fix to the problem of unauthorized immigration. SBI calls not only for fencing the U.S.-Mexico border in the literal sense, but constructing a “virtual fence” as well. Since physical fencing can be climbed over, broken through, or dug under, it is complemented in SBI by a system of cameras and sensors—known as “SBInet”—that will, in theory, alert the Border Patrol whenever an unauthorized border crossing occurs. However, SBI has not gone according to plan. Hundreds of miles in new fencing and vehicle barriers have been erected at the border at a cost of $2.4 billion, but there is no evidence this is enhancing border security or deterring unauthorized immigrants. And SBInet has been plagued by persistent technical problems, shoddy testing, and missed deadlines since the Boeing Corporation received over $1 billion worth of DHS contracts to develop it. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, The American Immigration Law Foundation, 2010. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2012 at http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/SBInet_-_Looking_for_a_Quick_Fix_041510.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/SBInet_-_Looking_for_a_Quick_Fix_041510.pdf Shelf Number: 126586 Keywords: Border Control (Mexico, U.S.) Border Security (Mexico, U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Police Technology

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Expectations: Criteria for Assessing the Conditions for and Treatment of Immigration Detainees Summary: This is the third edition of our Expectations for immigration detention– the criteria we use during our inspections to assess the treatment and conditions of those held in immigration removal centres, short-term holding facilities, family detention and under escort, both within the UK and overseas. These Expectations were drawn up after extensive consultation and are based on and referenced against international human rights standards. They are part of the process by which UK fulfils its obligations as a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). They reflect that immigration detainees are not held because they have been charged or convicted with a criminal offence and their detention has not been authorised through any judicial process. These changes are part of a systematic revision of our expectations for all the establishments we inspect to ensure they focus squarely on the outcomes for those held, rather than simply checking process and procedure. However, we recognise that the administrative nature of this type of detention means that procedural safeguards and processes have a particular importance, and our inspections will continue to examine and report on their implementation. Expectations are brigaded under four healthy prison tests – safety, respect, activities and preparation for release. These reflect the tests we apply in all our inspections, adjusted to reflect the nature of immigration detention. Each expectation is underpinned by a series of ‘indicators’, which describe the evidence that will normally indicate to inspectors whether the outcome is likely to have been achieved or not. Expectations describe the standards of treatment and conditions we expect an establishment to achieve. Indicators suggest evidence that may indicate whether the expectations have been achieved. The list of indicators is not exhaustive and these do not exclude an establishment demonstrating the expectation has been met in other ways. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2012. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/hmipris/immigration-expectations.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/hmipris/immigration-expectations.pdf Shelf Number: 126791 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.K.)

Author: Epstein, Ruthie Title: Jails and Jumpsuits. Transforming the U.S. Immigration Detention System—A Two-Year Review Summary: Two years ago, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) committed to transform the U.S. immigration detention system by shifting it away from its longtime reliance on jails and jail-like facilities, to facilities with conditions more appropriate for the detention of civil immigration law detainees. At the time of these commitments, in announcements in August and October of 2009, DHS and ICE recognized that detention beds were in facilities that were “largely designed for penal, not civil, detention.” In fact, many criminal correctional facilities actually offer less restrictive conditions than those typically found in immigration detention facilities, and corrections experts have confirmed that less restrictive conditions can help ensure safety in a secure facility. DHS and ICE have consistently affirmed intentions to carry out the planned reforms in a budget-neutral way. Yet two years later, the overwhelming majority of detained asylum seekers and other civil immigration law detainees are still held in jails or jail-like facilities—almost 400,000 detainees each year, at a cost of over $2 billion. At these facilities, asylum seekers and other immigrants wear prison uniforms and are typically locked in one large room for up to 23 hours a day; they have limited or essentially no outdoor access, and visit with family only through Plexiglas barriers, and sometimes only via video, even when visitors are in the same building. Over the last two years, ICE has begun to use, or has acknowledged plans to use, five new facilities that would contain in total 3,485 detention beds in less penal conditions. These conditions would include increased outdoor access, contact visitation with families, and “non-institutional” (though still uniform) clothing for some detainees. These facilities are designed as templates for a more appropriate approach to immigration detention. If they open as designed and as scheduled, 14 percent of ICE’s detained asylum seeker and immigrant population would be housed in these less-penal conditions— meaning that 86 percent of ICE detainees would still be held in jails and jail-like facilities. Official standards detailing core requirements for the environment and conditions of a civil detention system—covering matters such as dress, movement within facilities, extended outdoor access, and contact visitation with family—have not been developed or implemented. ICE has also taken important steps to improve other aspects of the immigration detention system—such as creating a system to allow families and counsel to learn the name of the facility where an immigration detainee is held, issuing new guidance on parole assessments for detained arriving asylum seekers, and training new ICE monitors to report back to headquarters on compliance with standards in the field. However, this report focuses primarily on the agency’s progress on its commitment to “literally overhaul the system”—to transition the immigration detention system away from its jail-oriented approach to a system with conditions more appropriate for civil immigration detainees. While ICE did indicate that the shift would take place “in three to five years,” two years in, there is still a long way to go. Jails and jail-like facilities have been found to be inappropriate and unnecessarily costly for asylum seekers and other civil immigration detainees by the U.S. government itself, as well as by bipartisan groups and international human rights bodies. In a major 2005 study requested by Congress, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and its expert on prison systems observed that most of the facilities used by DHS to detain asylum seekers and other immigrants “in most critical respects…are structured and operated much like standardized correctional facilities,” resembling “in every essential respect, conventional jails.” The Council on Foreign Relations bipartisan task force on immigration policy, co-chaired by Jeb Bush and Thomas McLarty, concurred in July 2009 that “[i]n many cases asylum seekers are forced to wear prison uniforms [and] held in jails and jail-like facilities.” The bipartisan Constitution Project’s Liberty and Security Committee similarly concluded in December 2009 that “[d]espite the nominally ‘civil’—as opposed to ‘criminal’—nature of their alleged offenses, non-citizens are often held in state and local jails.” In 2009, DHS’s own Special Advisor—who has run two state prison systems and currently serves as Commissioner of Correction in New York City—concluded in a report prepared for DHS and ICE that: With only a few exceptions, the facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens were built, and operate, as jails and prisons to confine pre-trial and sentenced felons. ICE relies primarily on correctional incarceration standards designed for pre-trial felons and on correctional principles of care, custody, and control. These standards impose more restrictions and carry more costs than are necessary to effectively manage the majority of the detained population. The use of immigration detention facilities that are penal in nature is inconsistent with U.S. commitments under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its Protocol, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants have both expressed concern, in reports issued in 2010 and 2008, respectively, about the punitive and jail-like conditions used by the U.S. government in its immigration detention system. Even with more appropriate detention conditions, however, detention can still be—and is—penal in nature when the detention itself runs afoul of other human rights protections—for example, when detention is not necessary, reasonable, or proportionate, or is unnecessarily prolonged. In this report, Human Rights First focuses its review on the progress of DHS and ICE in transforming the U.S. immigration detention system away from its reliance on jails and jail-like facilities to a system with conditions more appropriate for civil immigration law detainees. In the course of our assessment, we visited 17 ICEauthorized detention facilities that together held more than 10,000 of the 33,400 total ICE beds; interviewed government officials, legal service providers, and former immigration detainees; and reviewed existing government data on the U.S. immigration detention system. We also interviewed a range of former prison wardens, corrections officials, and other experts on correctional systems. Details: New York: Human Rights First, 2011. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2012 at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HRF-Jails-and-Jumpsuits-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/HRF-Jails-and-Jumpsuits-report.pdf Shelf Number: 126908 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.S.) Immigration

Author: Alpes, Maybritt Jill Title: Bushfalling: How Young Cameroonians Dare to Migrate Summary: This book is written in reaction to, on the one hand, trafficking and smuggling discourses in Europe, and, on the other hand to the strong belief in the possibilities of bushfalling in Cameroon. Tensions between ambitions for mobility and imposed immobility are reflected in the way that Anglophone Cameroonians have started since the late 1990s to refer to emigration in Pidgin as ‘bushfalling’. Bushfalling is the act of going out to the wilderness (bush) to hunt down meat (money) and bring back these trophies. On the basis of an ethnographic study of migration brokers, consulate officers, aspiring migrants and their families, as well as deported migrants, this research investigates what makes young Cameroonians migrate at all cost. The books argues that we can only come to understand dynamics of trafficking and bushfalling if we take seriously the perspectives of people in countries of departure, as well as the plurality of regulatory dynamics that shape conditions of departure. By studying rather than presupposing the place of state, market and family actors within conditions of departure, this study unravels how the phenomena of bushfalling and trafficking do not exist merely because individuals chose to migrate at all cost. Details: Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, 2011. 266p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed November 9, 2012 at: http://dare.uva.nl/record/399071 Year: 2011 Country: Cameroon URL: http://dare.uva.nl/record/399071 Shelf Number: 126909 Keywords: Deportation Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Marriage Migration Migration (Cameroon)

Author: LeVoy, Michele Title: Ten Ways to Protect Undocumented Migrant Workers Summary: Every day hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers labor in different sectors of the economy in Europe. Undocumented workers often work and live in inhumane conditions, earning very little or no pay at all, and are insufficiently protected by legislation. Facing exploitation and abuse, many undocumented workers believe that they have no other option than to accept this situation. Fearing that they may be deported if they speak out, an overwhelming number suffer in silence. Meanwhile some economic sectors in the European Union are to a considerable extent dependent upon undocumented workers, who make up a substantial part of their workforce. This dependence may be hidden, not just by migrants’ silence, but by sub-contracting chains and employers’ complicity. PICUM, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, has collected detailed information obtained from NGOs, trade unions and other actors working with and advocating for undocumented workers, both in Europe and in the United States. The first section of this paper presents a summary of ten actions that contribute to the aim of respecting the dignity of undocumented migrants as humans and as workers. The second section of this paper presents ten policy recommendations that should be taken into account by policy makers. The employment and the exploitation of thousands of undocumented migrant workers in Europe is a symptom of the shortcomings of social, employment and migration policies. Tackling the roots of the problem of the exploitation of undocumented workers therefore constitutes a major challenge, requiring concerted efforts in all of these fields. Details: Brussels: PICUM, 2005. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2012 at: http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/publication/Ten%20Ways%20to%20Protect%20Undocumented%20Migrant%20Workers%20EN.pdf Year: 2005 Country: International URL: http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/publication/Ten%20Ways%20to%20Protect%20Undocumented%20Migrant%20Workers%20EN.pdf Shelf Number: 151470 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Migrant Workers Undocumented Workers

Author: Gastaldo, Denise Title: Entangled in a Web of Exploitation and Solidarity: Latin American Undocumented Workers in the Greater Toronto Area Summary: This e-book describes key findings of a three-year research project on the health consequences of undocumented work in the largest urban area in Canada – the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). This report has been written to reach a general audience and includes several features of workers’ trajectories because most aspects of people’s health are socially constructed through everyday life. In doing so, we hope to contribute to a social dialogue informed by research findings, that moves beyond moral arguments regarding “deserving and undeserving migrants” which frequently characterize discussions on migration issues. We propose that the experiences of undocumented workers in Canada are embedded in a complex web or matrix of simultaneously oppressive and supportive structures that transcend the sphere of home, work, and community. Several international and national players are intertwined in this web which ultimately functions to create a flexible and cheap workforce for Canadian businesses and constrains workers’ physical, economic and personal mobility once in Canada, with severe consequences for their health and well-being. We explore this central concept through four interrelated chapters and conclude with key messages to stimulate dialogue among a range of stakeholders. In Chapter 1, we explore the reasons why people migrate to Canada, the conditions that make such journeys possible, and the material and subjective reasons for why they stay, despite having limited legal and social protections. We also illustrate the complex pathways in which people fall out of status, and examine the manner in which undocumented migration, as a global phenomenon, is simultaneously created and maintained by global and national level policies, macro-economic and labour market trends and personal level interests that are deeply entrenched in dominant structures of power. In Chapter 2, we untangle the ways in which undocumented migrants report going about their lives in Canada and link their everyday life circumstances to their precarious employment relations and working conditions. We advance the notion of the existence of a web of solidarity and exploitation to characterize the daily life of workers and the challenges they face as they try to resettle and obtain work in a new land. In Chapter 3, we discuss the “tactics” they employ for coping and resisting exploitative conditions, and for functional aspects of their lives such as keeping a job and staying busy. We explore the role of workers’ individual agency and the much related role of hope and spirituality in the coping process. Finally, in chapter 4, we discuss some of the impacts of lack of status of citizenship. We examine the impact of fear on mental health and the production of institutional and interpersonal forms of social exclusion that exacerbate poor health among this population. We also explore the linkages between the types of jobs held by these workers and their health needs, including emergency care and long term health. We explore workers’ experiences of (in) access and to health and social services and critique the role of citizenship in the provision of rights and entitlements. Details: Toronto: University of Toronto, 2012. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2012 at: http://www.migrationhealth.ca/sites/default/files/Entangled_in_a_web_of_exploitation_and_solidarity_LQ.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.migrationhealth.ca/sites/default/files/Entangled_in_a_web_of_exploitation_and_solidarity_LQ.pdf Shelf Number: 126982 Keywords: Health Care Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Exploitation Undocumented Workers (Toronto, Canada)

Author: Geddie, Eve Title: Strategies to End Double Violence Against Undocumented Women - Protecting Rights and Ensuring Justice Summary: Undocumented women are those residing in Europe without a valid residence or work permit. In an absence of rights and justice, violence can be a reason for their migration, the cause of their irregularity, and consequence of this unprotected status. Gender vulnerabilities increase the likelihood of migrant women to become undocumented, a status under which they are greatly exposed to systematic violence, abuse and discrimination. The majority of undocumented women arrive to Europe with a regular, but often highly dependent migration status and become undocumented for reasons outside of their own control. While many women leave their home countries in a bid to achieve justice and equality, the discriminatory and disempowering policies which govern the migration process can often disempower them. The lack of an independent legal status is a very common challenge for migrant women and means that those subject to violence, exploitation or misinformation can easily find themselves in an undocumented situation with no possibility to re-regularise their status. Migrant women may also become undocumented following an unsuccessful claim for asylum; those seeking protection are highly disadvantaged in the asylum system as claims on grounds of gender-based violence have a disproportionately high refusal rate in many of states.1 Finally, irregular entry is another route in which migrant women can become undocumented and one in which they are at particular risk of human rights abuses.2 As workers, migrants, and carers, undocumented migrant women are frequently the main wage earner and often negotiate on behalf of their families and communities with the social, educational and health systems. The tendency to detect irregular migrants through these systems therefore places undocumented women at additional risk of being detained and deported. Paradoxically, it is the active agency of migrant women, in addition to their urgent needs regarding housing, working conditions and protection from violence which enables disproportionate discrimination. While European governments recognise health and education as fundamental standards to improve the situation of vulnerable women abroad, they implement policies which effectively strip these same women of their innate rights and entitlements should they become undocumented within EU borders. The barriers facing undocumented women to access basic social rights, social support systems or redress for abuses increases their experience of violence. Details: Brussels, Belgium: PICUM, 2012. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2012 at: http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/publication/Double%20Violence%20Against%20Undocumented%20Women%20-%20Protecting%20Rights%20and%20Ensuring%20Justice.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Europe URL: http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/publication/Double%20Violence%20Against%20Undocumented%20Women%20-%20Protecting%20Rights%20and%20Ensuring%20Justice.pdf Shelf Number: 126996 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Migrant Women Undocumented Women (Europe) Violence Against Women

Author: Alba, Francisco Title: New Approaches to Migration Management in Mexico and Central America Summary: This report "traces the history of migration and transmigration trends and policy in Mexico and Central America, and examines Mexico's sweeping 2011 immigration law and implementation challenges." The report contends that although attention has been focused mostly on migration from Mexico, the migration of individuals from Central America through Mexico has progressively become a complex and salient issue as well. "Over the past two decades, Mexico has increasingly become a destination for Central American migrants seeking to enter the United States; many remain in Mexico for extended periods and, in some cases, settle permanently. These flows have created new challenges for Mexican and Central American policymakers." This document examines the response of governments in the region to the growing issue of transit migration, and is "organized around four main themes: •A brief background on the migration phenomena in Mexico and its traditional regulatory framework. • Case studies of migration management in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. • Analysis of Mexico's attempts in recent years to create a formal framework for migration management. • A discussion of the implications of emerging national institutional frameworks on the management of regional migration issues." Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2012. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2012 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/RMSG-MexCentAm-Migration.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Central America URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/RMSG-MexCentAm-Migration.pdf Shelf Number: 127003 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Migration (Mexico, Central America)

Author: Cole, Alexandra (Sachi) Title: Prisoners of Profit: Immigrants and Detention in Georgia Summary: As the number of immigrants detained annually approaches half a million, the prison-like conditions of immigration detention facilities and the substandard treatment afforded to the detainees are an area of increasing concern. Georgia is home to four immigration detention facilities: Stewart Detention Center (Stewart), North Georgia Detention Center (NGDC), Irwin County Detention Center (Irwin), and Atlanta City Detention Center (ACDC). Stewart is the largest detention facility in the U.S. It has become common practice for ICE to contract with private companies to operate detention facilities; indeed, private companies run three of the four detention facilities in Georgia documented in this report. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the U.S., whose annual revenue in 2010 was $1.7 billion, runs two of those facilities. Although it has been claimed that privatization of detention facilities is cost-effective, this proposition has been cast into serious doubt. What has been confirmed is the systemic violation of immigrant detainees’ civil and human rights while detained in substandard prison-like conditions ill suited for civil detainees. The ACLU of Georgia has documented the current landscape of immigration detention in Georgia. The following methods were used for documentation: · Interviews with 68 detainees from all four detention facilities · Interviews with detainees’ family members · Interviews with immigration attorneys · Detention center tours · Reviews of responses from officials · Review of grievances filed by detainees Findings from these diverse sources raise serious concerns about violations of detainees’ due process rights, inadequate living conditions, inadequate medical and mental health care, and abuse of power by those in charge. Details: Atlanta: ACLU of Georgia, 2012. 184p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2012 at: http://www.acluga.org/download_file/view_inline/42/260/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.acluga.org/download_file/view_inline/42/260/ Shelf Number: 127005 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants (Georgia, U.S.) Private Prisons Privatization

Author: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Title: Unlocking Liberty: A Way Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy Summary: In a country that honors due process, and during a time when most are calling for reduced federal spending, locking people up should be the exception to the rule. Yet immigrant detention is the fastest growing, least scrutinized form of incarceration in the United States. On any given day, the U.S. government imprisons more than 33,000 immigrants—many of whom are refugees or survivors of torture or human trafficking—in a vast national network of about 250 federal, private, state, and local jails. The cost to U.S. taxpayers is $122 per detainee per day. These figures, however, fail to account for the human costs. It is well documented that detention has negative long-term consequences for immigrants’ mental and physical health and negatively impacts their ability to integrate into society upon release. All of these costs must necessarily be borne by the public for those granted relief in their removal cases and permitted to stay in the United States. In contrast, alternatives to detention (ATDs) are cheaper—they cost only $22 or less per person per day—and are more humane. An effective use of a broad continuum of alternatives to detention would allow the federal government to meet its responsibility to enforce compliance with U.S. immigration laws, meet its humanitarian obligations, and significantly reduce the financial burden to U.S. taxpayers. Alternatives that utilize case management for those released from custody have a number of benefits: • respect for and fulfillment of human rights, • higher rates of compliance and appearance, • reduced costs, • improved integration outcomes for individuals granted relief from removal, and • improved client health and welfare. The record is clear. Since the 1980s, projects operated by nonprofit organizations in the United States and abroad that have provided tailored supervision, case management, and social services have consistently produced high appearance rates for much less money than detention. Recognizing the successes of these models, Congress provided U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, with funding to initiate a holistic alternative for noncitizens who did not need to be detained. Unfortunately, the U.S. government’s approach has focused on security at the expense of other goals, casting shadows on the program’s operations. Unlocking Liberty: A Way Forward for U.S. Immigration Detention Policy, reviews the U.S. government’s attempts to implement ATD programs and reveals five overarching structural challenges that must be overcome: • an overreliance on detention as an approach to immigration enforcement, • the lack of individualized risk assessments to determine who needs to be detained or otherwise supervised to ensure appearance and removal, • absence of necessary data indicators and the mechanisms to collect and report those indicators to evaluate the use of detention and alternatives, • absence of a robust case management system with referrals to appropriate social services, and • insufficient access to legal and social services. To better control the immigrant removal process, reduce costs, and meet human rights obligations under domestic and international law, three critical reforms are needed to U.S. immigration enforcement policies: an individualized assessment and process to challenge all custody decisions, robust case management tailored to individual needs, and access to legal and support services. Details: Baltimore, MD: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2012 at: http://www.lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RPTUNLOCKINGLIBERTY.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/RPTUNLOCKINGLIBERTY.pdf Shelf Number: 127006 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants (U.S.)

Author: Amnesty International Title: Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA Summary: Migration is a fact of life. Some people move to new countries to improve their economic situation or to pursue their education. Others leave their countries to escape armed conflict or violations of their human rights, such as torture, persecution, or extreme poverty. Many move for a combination of reasons. Governments have the right to exercise authority over their borders; however, they also have obligations under international law to protect the human rights of migrants, no matter what prompted an individual to leave his or her home country. This report focuses on the human rights violations associated with the dramatic increase in the use of detention by the United States as an immigration enforcement mechanism. In just over a decade, immigration detention has tripled. In 1996, immigration authorities had a daily detention capacity of less than 10,000. Today more than 30,000 immigrants are detained each day, and this number is likely to increase even further in 2009. More than 300,000 men, women and children are detained by US immigration authorities each year. They include asylum seekers, torture survivors, victims of human traffi cking, longtime lawful permanent residents, and the parents of US citizen children. The use of detention as a tool to combat unauthorized migration falls short of international human rights law, which contains a clear presumption against detention. Everyone has the right to liberty, freedom of movement, and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. The dramatic increase in the use of immigration detention has forced US immigration authorities to contract with approximately 350 state and county criminal jails across the country to house individuals pending deportation proceedings. Approximately 67 percent of immigration detainees are held in these facilities, while the remaining individuals are held in facilities operated by immigration authorities and private contractors. The average cost of detaining a migrant is $95 per person, per day. Alternatives to detention, which generally involve some form of reporting, are significantly cheaper, with some programs costing as little as $12 per day. These alternatives to detention have been shown to be effective with an estimated 91 percent appearance rate before the immigration courts. Despite the effectiveness of these less expensive and less restrictive alternatives to detention in ensuring compliance with immigration procedures, the use of immigration detention continues to rise at the expense of the United States’ human rights obligations. Details: New York: Amnesty International USA, 2009. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 27, 2012 at: http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/JailedWithoutJustice.pdf Shelf Number: 127012 Keywords: Alternative to Detention Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.S.) Immigration

Author: Coolman, Alex Title: No Refuge Here: A First Look at Sexual Abuse in Immigration Detention Summary: This report calls attention to the problem of sexual abuse in immigration detention centers in the United States, focusing on three central issues: (1) the considerable and troubling reported record of sexual abuse of detainees, (2) the lack of substantive policies and procedures in place to address such abuse, and (3) immigration officials' refusal to allow independent monitoring of conditions for detainees. Through this report, Stop Prisoner Rape (SPR) calls on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to implement more detailed and comprehensive standards for the prevention and treatment of sexual assault in facilities that hold immigration detainees. No systematic research has ever been undertaken to examine sexual abuse in immigration detention centers, and no statistics about its frequency have been collected. Compiled in these pages, however, are accounts that attest to ongoing abuse, including cases in which detainees have been raped, sexually assaulted, forced to trade sex for favors, and sexually harassed. SPR reviews the most well known of these cases, and discusses a number of additional abusive situations discovered through contacts with detainees and with other nonprofit agencies. Second, this report documents SPR's efforts to speak directly with detainees about their experiences and the distressing stonewalling from immigration officials that was the response to these efforts. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of the ICE's policy on the handling of detainees. The analysis concludes that there are serious shortcomings in the agency's approach to sexual assault and sexual misconduct. SPR suggests specific policy changes that can help the ICE create safer, more humane facilities for detainees. Throughout the report, presented as case studies, are the stories of individual detainees' encounters with forms of sexual violence. SPR hopes that this publication will serve as a first step toward acknowledging and addressing sexual abuse in immigration detention, a problem that, whatever its scope, shatters the lives of those who endure it. Details: Los Angeles, CA: Stop Prisoner Rape, 2004. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2012 at: http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/norefugehere.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/norefugehere.pdf Shelf Number: 127025 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Prison Rape (U.S.) Sexual Abuse

Author: Whitfield, Nathan S. Title: Traveling the Terror Highway: Infiltration of Terror Operatives across the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, border security and immigration have received increased attention. Public and political scrutiny have elevated and changed the priority of border security and immigration enforcement; from migrant workers seeking employment to counter-terrorism. However, the question remains: if United States law enforcement and security agencies are unable to stop the smuggling of drugs and illegal migrants across the southwestern border between the U.S. and Mexico, is it possible to prevent terrorists from gaining unauthorized and unaccountable entry into the heartland of the U.S.? A corollary question is: given attempts to restructure the immigration enforcement policy and infrastructure to deter illegal entry of terrorists, will it still be possible and lucrative for terrorists to attempt to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border? This research seeks to explore existing conditions that may facilitate or increase the likelihood that terrorists would seek to infiltrate personnel across the U.S.-Mexico border. Details: Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2011. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 127037 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S. - Mexico) Terrorism Terrorists

Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: Management of Immigration Cases and Appeals by the Executive Office for Immigration Review Summary: The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review to examine the Department of Justice’s (Department) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) processing and management of immigration cases and appeals involving foreign-born individuals (aliens) charged with violating immigration laws. Among other duties, EOIR courts are responsible for determining whether aliens charged by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with immigration violations should be ordered removed from the United States or be granted relief from removal, which would allow them to remain in this country. The OIG found that immigration court performance reports are incomplete and overstate the actual accomplishments of these courts. These flaws in EOIR’s performance reporting preclude the Department from accurately assessing the courts’ progress in processing immigration cases or identifying needed improvements. For example, administrative events such as changes of venue and transfers are reported as completions even though the immigration courts have made no decisions on whether to remove aliens from the United States. As a result, a case may be “completed” multiple times. In our sample of 1,785 closed cases, 484 administrative events were counted as completions by EOIR. Reporting these administrative actions as completions overstates the accomplishments of the immigration courts. Similarly, those same administrative events result in a case being reported as a “receipt” when the case is opened at the receiving court. As a result, the same case may be reported as a “receipt” multiple times, thereby overstating the total number of cases opened by the immigration courts during a particular period. Further, for those cases where EOIR has put in place a timeliness goal for handling a case, EOIR does not report the total time it takes to complete the case. Instead, EOIR tracks case processing time by court. As a result, a case with a timeliness goal of 60 days that spent 50 days at one court and was then transferred to another court, where it spent another 50 days, would be reported by EOIR as two cases that were each completed within the 60-day timeliness goal. In actuality, there was only one case, and that case took EOIR 100 days to reach a decision on whether the alien should be removed, thereby exceeding the 60-day goal. This practice makes it appear that more cases meet the completion goals than actually do. Additionally, in January 2010, EOIR abandoned completion goals for cases involving non-detained aliens who do not file asylum applications, which make up about 46 percent of the courts’ completions. EOIR made this decision to prioritize and focus on the completion of detained cases, in which aliens are deprived of their liberty and housed at taxpayer expense. While the OIG recognizes the importance of the timely completion of cases involving detained aliens, EOIR also should have goals for the timely processing of non-detained cases. Despite overstating case receipts and completions, EOIR’s immigration court data still showed that it was not able to process the volume of work. From FY 2006 through FY 2010, the overall efficiency of the courts did not improve even though there was an increase in the number of judges. In 4 of those 5 years, the number of proceedings received was greater than the number of proceedings completed. As a result, the number of pending cases increased. Our analysis of a sample of closed cases showed that cases involving non-detained aliens and those with applications for relief from removal can take long periods to complete. This results in crowded court calendars and delayed processing of new cases. For example, cases for non-detained aliens took on average 17½ months to adjudicate, with some cases taking more than 5 years to complete. In addition to the volume of new cases, the number and length of continuances immigration judges granted was a significant contributing factor to case processing times. In the 1,785 closed cases we examined, 953 cases (53 percent) had one or more continuances. Each of these cases averaged four continuances. The average amount of time granted for each continuance was 92 days (about 3 months), which results in an average of 368 days for continuances per case. In contrast, the EOIR’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) completed more appeals of immigration court decisions than it received from FY 2006 through FY 2010. Appeals involving non-detained aliens, however, still took long periods to complete. In our sample, the BIA averaged more than 16 months to render decisions on cases involving non-detained aliens, as compared to 3½ months for cases involving detained aliens. However, EOIR’s performance reporting does not reflect the actual length of time to review and decide those appeals because EOIR does not count processing time for one- and three-member reviews from the date the appeal was filed. Rather, EOIR begins the counting process once certain work is completed by the BIA and/or its staff. As a result, EOIR’s performance reporting data underreports actual processing time, which undermines EOIR’s ability to identify appeal processing problems and take corrective actions. In this report, we make nine recommendations to help EOIR improve its case processing and provide accurate and complete information on case completions. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division, 2012. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed Dec. 1, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/e1301.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/e1301.pdf Shelf Number: 127090 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Courts

Author: Nowrasteh, Alex Title: The Economic Case against Arizona’s Immigration Laws Summary: Arizona’s immigration laws have hurt its economy. The 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) attempts to force unauthorized immigrants out of the workplace with employee regulations and employer sanctions. The 2010 Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070) complements LAWA by granting local police new legal tools to enforce Arizona’s immigration laws outside of the workplace. LAWA’s mandate of E-Verify, a federal electronic employee verification system, and the “business death penalty,” which revokes business licenses for businesses that repeatedly hire unauthorized workers, raise the costs of hiring all employees and create regulatory uncertainty for employers. As a result, employers scale back legal hiring, move out of Arizona, or turn to the informal economy to eliminate a paper trail. SB 1070’s enforcement policies outside of the workplace drove many unauthorized immigrants from the state, lowered the state’s population, hobbled the labor market, accelerated residential property price declines, and exacerbated the Great Recession in Arizona. LAWA, E-Verify, and the business death penalty are constitutional and are unlikely to be overturned; however the Supreme Court recently found that some sections of SB 1070 were preempted by federal power. States now considering Arizona-style immigration laws should realize that the laws also cause significant economic harm. States bear much of the cost of unauthorized immigration, but in Arizona’s rush to find a state solution, it damaged its own economy. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Analysis No. 709: Accessed December 1, 2012 at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA709.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA709.pdf Shelf Number: 127093 Keywords: Economic Analysis Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigrants Immigration Laws (Arizona, U.S.)

Author: Bersani, Bianca Elizabeth Title: Are Immigrants Crime Prone? A Multifaceted Investigation of the Relationship between Immigration and Crime in Two Eras Summary: Are immigrants crime prone? In America, this question has been posed since the turn of the 20th century and more than 100 years of research has shown that immigration is not linked to increasing crime rates. Nevertheless, as was true more than a century ago, the myth of the criminal immigrant continues to permeate public debate. In part this continued focus on immigrants as crime prone is the result of significant methodological and theoretical gaps in the extant literature. Five key limitations are identified and addressed in this research including: (1) a general reliance on aggregate level analyses, (2) the treatment of immigrants as a homogeneous entity, (3) a general dependence on official data, (4) the utilization of cross-sectional analyses, and (5) nominal theoretical attention. Two broad questions motivate this research. First, how do the patterns of offending over the life course differ across immigrant and native-born groups? Second, what factors explain variation in offending over time for immigrants and does the influence of these predictors vary across immigrant and native-born individuals? These questions are examined using two separate datasets capturing information on immigration and crime during two distinct waves of immigration in the United States. Specifically, I use the Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency data and subsequent follow-ups to capture early 20th century immigration and crime, while contemporary data come from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997. Three particularly salient conclusions are drawn from this research. First, patterns of offending (i.e., prevalence, frequency, persistence and desistance) are remarkably similar for native-born and immigrant individuals. Second, although differences are observed when examining predictors of offending for native-born and immigrant individuals, they tend to be differences in degree rather than kind. That is, immigrants and native-born individuals are influenced similarly by family, peer, and school factors. Finally, these findings are robust and held when taking into account socio-historical context, immigrant generation, immigration nationality group, and crime type. In sum, based on the evidence from this research, the simple answer to the question of whether immigrants are crime prone is no. Details: College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 2010. 258p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed December 4, 2012 at: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/10783/1/Bersani_umd_0117E_11419.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/10783/1/Bersani_umd_0117E_11419.pdf Shelf Number: 127127 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants and Crime Immigration

Author: Meissner, Doris Title: Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery Summary: The US government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined, and has allocated nearly $187 billion for immigration enforcement since 1986. Deportations have reached record highs, border apprehensions 40-year lows, and more noncitizens than ever before are in immigration detention. The report traces the evolution of the immigration enforcement system, particularly in the post-9/11 era, in terms of budgets, personnel, enforcement actions, and technology – analyzing how individual programs and policies have resulted in a complex, interconnected, cross-agency system. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2013. 182p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Image_Galleries/immigration_enforcement_in__us_MPI_report.pdf Shelf Number: 127284 Keywords: Border Security Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Enforcement

Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The Effectiveness and Impact of Immigration Detention Casework: A Joint Thematic Review Summary: On any given day during the first quarter of 2012, around 3,500 people were detained under immigration powers, either in immigration removal centres or prisons. More than 40 people held in immigration centres had been held for over two years. While the courts have held that detention with a view to removal is only lawful if there is a realistic prospect of this occurring within a reasonable period, there is no statutory time limit on how long someone can be detained. A consistent finding of previous HMIP inspection reports and research is that detainees experience heightened levels of anxiety and distress as a result of their uncertain futures. Each individual detained costs nearly £40,000 a year. Against this background our respective inspectorates worked together on this, the first thematic inspection conducted jointly by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI). Inspectors from both organisations examined in detail the quality and effectiveness of immigration casework and the human experiences that lay beneath the files and targets. In total, 81 detainees were interviewed, and their case files assessed. They included people held under immigration powers for both under and over six months to obtain a representative sample of cases. The most prominent themes to emerge from the interviews with detainees were physical and mental health problems, lack of contact with families, and the stress of long-term detention in the context of difficulties faced in accessing good quality legal services. An examination of case files helped us to understand the reasons for initial and continued detention. In most cases we examined, the decision to detain was defensible and properly evidenced, and most were progressed diligently and in line with legal and policy guidelines. However, given the importance of the decision to remove a person’s liberty, we were concerned to find that in a quarter of the cases we reviewed, insufficient progress had been made with the person’s case. Most of our sample comprised ex-prisoners. Of these, we identified a number of instances where more could have been done to resolve their cases before the end of their custodial sentences. This is particularly disappointing given the ICIBI’s finding in its report on the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA)’s handling of foreign national prisoners, that delays in decision making were potentially resulting in individuals being detained for longer than necessary.1 In some cases, we also found that decisions to detain a person, or to maintain their detention, had not been made with reference to all relevant factors. In addition, monthly progress reports to detainees in some cases repeated information previously provided, rather than giving a meaningful update on what, if any, progress had occurred. Detainees experienced considerable difficulties in obtaining good quality legal advice and many had not applied for bail to an immigration judge. Decisions to detain ex-prisoners were made at lower management level, while decisions to release had to be authorised by a member of the UKBA board. We remain concerned that UKBA has not implemented the recommendation in the ICIBI’s report on foreign national prisoners that it should change the level of authorisation required to release such individuals in line with its own policy, which presumes release at the end of their custodial sentences. We were also disturbed to find cases where there was a failure to consider evidence of posttraumatic stress and mental disorder in case reviews. This is in the context of recent judgments against UKBA establishing that four people suffering from mental illnesses were unlawfully detained and subject to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was little evidence of the effectiveness of Detention Centre Rule 35 procedures, which are supposed to provide safeguards for vulnerable detainees, including those who have experienced torture and have mental illnesses. In one case a torture survivor was detained without it being at all clear what the exceptional circumstances were that led to his detention. We identified a similar case involving a victim of trafficking. Despite much effort at improving the system, we believe that further work is required. It is questionable whether the length of detention in some cases was necessary or proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining immigration control. The evidence of poor casework needs to be addressed at every level; casework must be appropriately skilled and resourced, and subject to more effective quality assurance. Although all immigration detainees have a right to apply for bail to the courts, there is currently no routine independent system of reviewing cases that can identify and correct what we found during this thematic inspection. We have therefore recommended that an independent panel should be established to review the cases of all individuals who are held for lengthy periods. Where the panel recommends release, UKBA would be required to review the case and publish its response. We believe this would motivate change in the system, and ensure that some of the shortcomings that we have identified here are addressed. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/immigration-detention-casework-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/immigration-detention-casework-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 127287 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.K.) Immigration

Author: Appleseed Title: Forcing Our Blues into Gray Areas: Local Police and Federal Immigration Enforcement. A Legal Guide for Advocates Revised and Updated Summary: The laws governing the proper role of the local police in stopping, arresting, questioning, and detaining individuals in an effort to enforce federal immigration law are far from settled, and the policy debate is moving quickly. For decades, as a result of policy directives issued by the federal government itself, it was understood that state and local police could not stop, arrest, or detain individuals for civil violations of the immigration law, such as being present in the United States without authorization. However, in recent years, the Department of Justice and some members of Congress have encouraged an expanded role for state and local police in immigration enforcement. One arm of the Department of Justice, the Office of Legal Counsel, even went so far as to opine that local police have “inherent authority” to enforce immigration laws – a position that is far from clearly supported by then-existing or present case law. In fact, the Department of Justice kept its newfound position secret from the public and refused to release the memo detailing it until required to do so by court order. This dramatic shift by some at the federal level has continued. Federal officials have increased the frequency of raids on immigrants, creating tension between local officials and the communities they seek to protect. However, in recognition of the fact that adopting local immigration enforcement policies is misguided and would actually make it more difficult to fight terrorism and crime, an increasing number of police departments, local governments, and others oppose initiatives to either mandate or encourage local police to intervene in federal immigration enforcement efforts. “Forcing Our Blues Into Gray Areas: Local Police and Federal Immigration Enforcement” contains legal and practical guidelines to combat local anti-immigrant ordinances. It also describes troubling legal and political efforts to involve local police in federal immigration matters, which leads to improper enforcement and a diversion of local safety resources. Details: Washington, DC: Appleseed, 2008. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://www.waappleseed.org/media/Forcing_Our_Blues_Into_Gray_Areas2008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.waappleseed.org/media/Forcing_Our_Blues_Into_Gray_Areas2008.pdf Shelf Number: 127382 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement (U.S.)

Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Enforcement: Legal Issues Summary: The term prosecutorial discretion is commonly used to describe the wide latitude that prosecutors have in determining when, whom, how, and even whether to prosecute apparent violations of the law. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and, later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components have historically described themselves as exercising prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement. Some commentators have recently challenged this characterization on the grounds that DHS enforces primarily civil violations, and some of its components cannot be said to engage in "law enforcement," as that term is conventionally understood. However, even agencies that do not prosecute or engage in law enforcement have been recognized as having discretion (sometimes referred to as enforcement discretion) in determining whether to enforce particular violations. Federal regulation of immigration is commonly said to arise from various powers enumerated in the Constitution (e.g., naturalization, commerce), as well as the federal government's inherent power to control and conduct foreign relations. Some, although not all, of these powers belong exclusively to Congress, and courts have sometimes described Congress as having "plenary power" over immigration. However, few courts or commentators have addressed the separation of powers between Congress and the President in the field of immigration, and the executive has sometimes been said to share plenary power over immigration with Congress as one of the "political branches." Moreover, the authority to exercise prosecutorial or enforcement discretion has traditionally been understood to arise from the Constitution, not from any congressional delegation of power. Certain decisions have been widely recognized as within the prosecutorial discretion of immigration officers. These include deciding whether to initiate removal proceedings and what charges to lodge against the respondent; canceling a Notice to Appear or other charging document before jurisdiction vests with an immigration judge; granting deferred action or extended voluntary departure to an alien otherwise subject to removal (deportation); appealing particular decisions or orders; and imposing fines for particular offenses, among other things. Enforcement priorities and resources, as well as humanitarian concerns, have typically played a role in determining whether to exercise discretion in individual cases. For example, the George W. Bush Administration temporarily suspended employer sanctions in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, and the Obama Administration recently began granting deferred action to certain unauthorized aliens brought to the United States as children. While the executive branch's prosecutorial or enforcement discretion is broad, it is not unfettered, and particular exercises of discretion could potentially be checked by the Constitution, statute, or agency directives. Selective prosecution, or prosecution based on race, religion, or the exercise of constitutional rights, is prohibited, although aliens generally cannot assert selective prosecution as a defense to removal. A policy of non-enforcement that amounts to an abdication of an agency's statutory responsibilities could potentially be said to violate the Take Care Clause. However, standing to challenge alleged violations of the Take Care Clause may be limited, and no court appears to have invalidated a policy of non-enforcement founded upon prosecutorial discretion on the grounds that the policy violated the Take Care Clause. Non-enforcement of particular laws could also potentially be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act if a statute provides specific guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers. In addition, an agency could potentially be found to have constrained its own discretion, as some courts found that the INS had done in the 1970s with its operating instruction on deferred action. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: CRS7-5700: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf Shelf Number: 127386 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement (U.S.) Prosecutional Discretion

Author: Hales, Liz Title: The Criminalisation of Migrant Women Summary: The work of a number of key organisations, including the International Organisation for Migration, has led to awareness of the extent of national and international people trafficking and exploitation by smugglers and agents of people seeking to leave their country to seek work or asylum. Within the UK, public knowledge has been influenced by the setting up of the UK Human Trafficking Centre in October 2006, the work of a number of human rights organisations, and media interest in some cases. However, to date, there has been no formal recognition of the numbers of potential victims in custody on criminal charges, nor systematic prison based research that provides evidence on how these individuals have been managed within the Criminal Justice System and by the United Kingdom Border Agency, at a time when the percentage of foreign women in the prison estate continues to increase. Our research on the criminalisation of migrant women, funded for 18 months by the ESRC, aimed to fill this knowledge gap. The research was carried out between May 2010 and November 2011 with migrant women in prison and the immigration holding estate in the South-East of England. The key aims were to gather information in relation to the numbers of migrant women being processed through the criminal justice and immigration systems within England and Wales. Within the context of this picture we aimed to see whether there were any women who were victims of trafficking, smuggling and ‘work under duress’ in custody, and by examining case management identify the extent of compliance in relation to the European Convention on Trafficking and the Convention of Human Rights. Key findings  In 2009 there were 2,454 foreign national receptions into the female prison estate and during the period of the research foreign national prisoners accounted for 19 per cent of the population in custody and 26 per cent of new untried receptions. In four of the five prisons, where the majority of interviews were carried out, the average population was 30 per cent, rising to 31 per cent in HMP Holloway and HMP Bronzefield in the final month. Analysis of data from fpwp/Hibiscus, a key organisation working with foreign women in custody, showed that 41 per cent of their caseload in 2009 involved women charged with offences such as deception and fraud in relation to their immigration status and related offences of use of false documentation to access work or benefits, or pass through customs on entry or exit from the UK. Prison data gathered in the context of the research indicated that 26 per cent overall were arrested in relation to these offences with an additional 4 per cent arrested on offences such as street robberies and sale of counterfeit goods (offences potentially linked with trafficking). Within the immigration estate in 2010, 4,337 women were taken into detention, of which there were 2,799 receptions at Yarl’s Wood IRC, where monthly figures showed that 112 women, one third, were being held post completion of a prison sentence.  In the context of interviews with 103 migrant women in the prison and immigration holding estate, detained or arrested on charges that are potentially linked with entry to or exit from the UK or work under the control of others, evidence gathered indicated that 43 were victims of trafficking, of whom two were formally re-assessed as children whilst in the adult estate.1 An additional five women had entered the country independently, but had then been worked in slavery or servitude like conditions and 10 had entered the UK in the hands of agents and had been arrested resultant on the theft of their relevant documents by their smugglers.  The progress of these 58 women within the target group (that is, those who might have been trafficked or smuggled or made to work under duress) was then monitored in terms of their management within the criminal justice and immigration systems. This was carried out by 59 follow up interviews in custody and 14 more in the community, observations of 33 court appearances, ongoing communication by letter and examination of relevant paper documentation held by the interviewees, their legal representatives and others, wherever this was feasible.  38 of the 48 women within the target group (58) for whom there is data on employment were involved in non-skilled work before departure and, for those who were complicit in the decision to travel to the UK, reasons for migration were a mixture of economic necessity and a need for asylum. For all but eight it was their first move from home. Eight of those trafficked did not travel directly to the UK, but were first moved to other countries to work en route. Five had been trafficked as children and one of the children had been re-trafficked to the UK after being deported back to Africa from the first destination country. Twenty of the women trafficked were forced to work in prostitution and fifteen in cannabis production. Eight worked in domestic servitude, two were acting as drug mules and eight were involved in street robberies and the sale of fake goods. An additional five women were forced into these areas of work after entering the country independently of those who controlled them in the work.  The common experience of all the women within this target group was one of disempowerment and for those trafficked or smuggled this process started from the point of recruitment. All of those interviewed indicated that they had been victims of physical and/or emotional abuse. Twenty-four women disclosed in interview that they had experienced multiple rapes and for an additional two this had been an ongoing threat. For those who migrated to seek asylum, disclosures indicated that these experiences started prior to their move and were thus the key reasons for migration. For others, disclosures in interview indicated that it was integral to the relationship they had with those who brought them to the UK, who worked them under duress and to whom they had been sold. For many, the hold and threats made by those who had recruited, moved and controlled them did not disappear on arrest.  The women’s experiences led to them to report that they felt socially isolated, vulnerable, traumatised, subject to flashbacks, ashamed to tell others what had happened and finding difficulty in knowing whom to trust. They indicated that all of this was exacerbated by the experience of imprisonment and uncertainty about the future and it is not insignificant that being handed over to the police or immigration was a common threat used by those who had held them.  In terms of the offences for which they had been arrested, the two key offence groups were in relation to the use of false identity documentation and the production of cannabis. Within the target group of 58, 20 of the primary charges were for use of false instrument with intent and 14 for the production of a controlled drug (cannabis).  Of the 43 who were identified as victims of trafficking by the researchers, only 11 were processed through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and this did not happen for two of these women until their sentence was completed. Four other women were advised that this option was open to them. Three declined as they were serving short sentences and their goal was to return home as soon as possible, and the fourth was too frightened of the potential implications both to herself and her daughter in making full disclosure of her experiences.  With four of these cases, the Conclusive Grounds decision made on their victim status by UKBA (which acted as the competent authority) was negative. To date, one of these decisions has been overturned following a successful judicial review; such a review was being considered for a second. Even where referrals were made to the NRM that resulted in a positive decision and non-prosecution, the victims spent on average four months in custody. For the other 37 there was no formal recognition of their victim status and no access to appropriate support or temporary protection from deportation other than going down the route of applying for asylum. Of equal significance is the fact that, to date, in only one of the cases did victim disclosures result in a full police investigation in relation to the actions of the perpetrators.A key question of this research is therefore why so few of those whose disclosures at interview with the researchers, which exemplified all the key indicators of being a victim of trafficking, had not been identified as such within the criminal justice system. Similarly we looked at why those arrested on offences committed under duress, in ignorance or resultant on the action of those who had controlled them were held entirely responsible for their actions. Details: Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge,, 2012. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 29, 2013 at: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/loraine_gelsthorpe/criminalreport29july12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/loraine_gelsthorpe/criminalreport29july12.pdf Shelf Number: 127432 Keywords: Female Inmates Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Immigration Migrant Women (U.K.) Rape Sexual Assault Sexual Exploitation

Author: Koslowski, Rey Title: The Evolution of Border Controls as a Mechanism to Prevent Illegal Immigration Summary: This paper, the first in a joint project of the Migration Policy Institute and European University Institute examining US and European immigration systems, analyzes how the challenges in achieving effective US border control have increased dramatically within recent decades and particularly since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The author examines the programmatic and funding responses US policymakers have put in place — including the Secure Border Initiative, the Visa Waiver Program, US-VISIT, and registered-traveler programs — and traces their evolution and effectiveness. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2011. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/bordercontrols-koslowski.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/bordercontrols-koslowski.pdf Shelf Number: 127436 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration

Author: University of Southern California Title: Hitting Homes: The Impact of Immigration Enforcement Summary: Migrants returned to Mexico by U.S. authorities are now more likely to be older, married, and heads of household since the Obama administration made deportations from American communities a major instrument of immigration policy, according to new data from the Border Survey of Mexican Migration. In 2011 nearly half of all Mexicans repatriated from the United States had lived there for more than a year, and midway through 2012 the share was more than a third. As recently as 2008, those longer-term residents comprised only one-tenth of the repatriations, according to the survey, which captures data from both immigrants who are removed or deported after living in the United States and those returned after being apprehended trying to cross the border. As noted elsewhere in this report, compared with the great weight of economic circumstances, the shift in enforcement emphasis has not had a notable impact on either the size of the Mexican-born population or the flow of new migrants into the United States. The forced removals of Mexicans who are longtime residents of U.S. communities has, however, had a distinct psychological effect in addition to the change in the characteristics of those being returned, according to the border survey. Even during the darkest days of the Great Recession, more than 80 percent of repatriated Mexican migrants said they intended to return to the United States. That figure now hovers around 70 percent as a degree of discouragement appears to have set in. Details: Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 2013. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Migration Monitor: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.migrationmonitor.com/3-article/ Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationmonitor.com/3-article/ Shelf Number: 127571 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Enforcement

Author: Wasem, Ruth Ellen Title: Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986 Summary: Estimates derived from the March Supplement of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) indicate that the unauthorized resident alien population (commonly referred to as illegal aliens) rose from 3.2 million in 1986 to 12.4 million in 2007, before leveling off at 11.1 million in 2011. The estimated number of unauthorized aliens had dropped to 1.9 million in 1988 following passage of a 1986 law that legalized several million unauthorized aliens. Jeffrey Passel, a demographer with the Pew Hispanic Research Center, has been involved in making these estimations since he worked at the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the 1980s. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) reported an estimated 11.5 million unauthorized alien residents as of January 2011, up from 8.5 million in January 2000. The OIS estimated that the unauthorized resident alien population in the United States increased by 37% over the period 2000 to 2008, before leveling off since 2009. The OIS estimated that 6.8 million of the unauthorized alien residents in 2011 were from Mexico. About 33% of unauthorized residents in 2011 were estimated to have entered the United States since 2000, but the rate of illegal entry appears to be slowing. The OIS based its estimates on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Although increased border security, a record number of alien removals, and high unemployment, among other factors, have depressed the levels of illegal migration in recent years, the number of unauthorized aliens residing in the United States remains sizeable. Research suggests that various factors have contributed to the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens, and that the increase is often attributed to the “push-pull” of prosperity-fueled job opportunities in the United States in contrast to limited job opportunities in the sending countries. Accordingly, the economic recession that began in December 2007 may have curbed the migration of unauthorized aliens, particularly because sectors that traditionally rely on unauthorized aliens, such as construction, services, and hospitality, have been especially hard hit. Some researchers also suggest that the increased size of the unauthorized resident population during the late 1990s and early 2000s is an inadvertent consequence of border enforcement and immigration control policies. They posit that strengthened border security curbed the fluid movement of seasonal workers. This interpretation, generally referred to as a caging effect, argues that these policies raised the stakes in crossing the border illegally and created an incentive for those who succeed in entering the United States to stay. More recently, some maintain that strengthened border security measures, such as “enforcement with consequences,” coordinated efforts with Mexico to reduce illegal migrant recidivism, and increased border patrol agents, may be part of a constellation of factors holding down the flow. The current system of legal immigration is cited as another factor contributing to unauthorized migration. The statutory ceilings that limit the type and number of immigrant visas issued each year create long waits for visas. According to this interpretation, many foreign nationals who have family in the United States resort to illegal avenues in frustration over the delays. Some researchers speculate that record number of alien removals (e.g., reaching almost 400,000 annually since FY2009) may cause a chilling effect on family members weighing unauthorized residence. Some observers point to more elusive factors when assessing the ebb and flow of unauthorized resident aliens—such as shifts in immigration enforcement priorities away from illegal entry to removing suspected terrorists and criminal aliens, or well-publicized discussions of possible “amnesty” legislation. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2012. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: RL33874: Accessed February 13, 2013 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33874.pdf Shelf Number: 127607 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Policies (U.S.)

Author: Chen, Greg Title: Border Security: Moving Beyond Past Benchmarks Summary: AssociationFor years, but especially after 9/11, the calls for border security have been increasing with many lawmakers demanding that the border must be secured. The idea has gained traction, and recent comprehensive immigration bills have been loaded with border security measures that include more border agents, fencing, and high-tech surveillance, and the expanded use of detention. Proposals, such as the 2007 Senate reform bill (S.1639), went further by requiring that specific benchmarks, “triggers,” be met before legalization could take place.1 Though none of these proposals became law, a resource-heavy approach has been implemented and has resulted in a dramatic build-up of border security and a massive expenditure of resources focused on the following: 1) Achieving “operational control” of the border; 2) Increasing border personnel; 3) Increasing border infrastructure and surveillance; and 4) Increasing penalties for border crossers, including prosecution and incarceration. In FY 2012, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) alone was funded at $11.7 billion, an increase of 64% since FY 2006.2 In 2010, Congress passed a special border security bill providing an additional $600 million on top of the amount already appropriated.3 This report examines past immigration reform proposals, specifically the 2006, 2007, and 2010 Senate bills (S. 2611, S.1639, and S.3932), and evaluates the proposals in these four areas: operational control, border personnel, border infrastructure and technology, and detention. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Lawyers Association, 2013. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=43061 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=43061 Shelf Number: 127634 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Isacson, Adam Title: An Uneasy Coexistence: Security and Migration Along the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez Border Summary: In September 2011, three WOLA staff members — Senior Associate Adam Isacson, Senior Fellow George Withers, and Program Assistant Joe Bateman — paid a five-day visit to El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Isacson returned to El Paso for three days in October. We found two cities that, while separated only by a narrow river, are rapidly growing further apart. Ciudad Juárez is undergoing wrenching change as dysfunctional state institutions confront powerful, hyper-violent criminal groups. El Paso has witnessed an unprecedented buildup of the U.S. government’s security and law enforcement apparatus. The results have been mixed. Violence has not spilled over into El Paso, in part because the drug traffickers do not want it to do so. The flow of migrants from Mexico into the El Paso region has nearly ground to a halt due to greatly increased U.S. security-force presence, the poor U.S. economy, and the danger that organized-crime groups pose for migrants on the Mexican side of the border. The flow of drugs, meanwhile, continues at or near the same level as always. What we saw in El Paso raised concerns about U.S. policy. Present levels of budgets and personnel may not be sustainable. Nor may they be desirable until a series of reforms are implemented. These include human rights training for law enforcement, improved intelligence coordination, reduced military involvement, stronger accountability mechanisms, increased anticorruption measures, and greater attention to ports of entry. They also include a much sharper distinction between violent threats like organized crime or terrorism, and non-violent social problems like unregulated migration. Any reforms, however, need to be guided by a coherent policy, and for the moment the U.S. government still lacks a comprehensive border security strategy. In El Paso, WOLA found that this lack of clarity amid a security buildup has hit the migrant population especially hard. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2011. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://www.wola.org/files/111219_uneasy_coexistence.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.wola.org/files/111219_uneasy_coexistence.pdf Shelf Number: 127636 Keywords: Border Law Enforcement Border Security (U.S.) Drug Trafficking Drug Violence Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Phillips, Susan D. Title: Children in Harm's Way: Criminal Justice, Immigration Enforcement, and Child Welfare Reports Summary: 1998, the Child Welfare League of America published a seminal issue of Child Welfare describing the needs of children with parents in prison. It marked a milestone in what has become an ongoing effort to influence how the child welfare system responds to children whose parents are arrested and the support available to relatives caring for children whose parents are incarcerated. It pointed to policies and practices that either ignored the needs of this group of vulnerable children and their families, or created impediments to reunifying children with parents who had been incarcerated. This publication, produced jointly by The Sentencing Project and First Focus, introduces readers to concerns about a subgroup of this vulnerable group of children: children whose parents are affected by the interplay of the criminal justice, child welfare, and immigration enforcement systems. In the past decade, the federal government dramatically changed its approach to enforcing federal immigration laws and the scale of its efforts. As a result, a growing number of parents are being apprehended by local and state police (often for relatively minor offenses), turned over to federal immigration authorities, held in federal detention centers, and then returned to their home countries. In many cases, their children are U.S. citizens who are forced to leave their homes to be with their parents, or who remain in the United States permanently separated from their parents. Others end up in the foster care system where they may be placed for adoption. The number of people being held in immigration detention centers while waiting for their cases to be heard in administrative immigration proceedings has reached a historic high at a time when prison growth is otherwise beginning to slow. For-profit prison companies are poised to seize on this opportunity to bolster their profit margins. This became most evident in 2010 when Arizona legislators adopted the notorious S.B. 1070 law, perceived by many as an open invitation for law enforcement agencies to engage in racial profiling. Not long after the enactment of S.B. 1070, it became clear that the legislation was based on a blueprint that had been handed out by representatives of the private prison industry at a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Like an echo from the past, the questions being raised about children whose parents are targets of stepped-up immigration enforcement are similar to those that were first raised nearly 20 years ago about children whose parents were then being sent to jails and prisons in record numbers. Those questions include: What happens to children in the wake of authorities taking their parents into custody?; How do children of color view the legal system after seeing so many members of their communities being taken away by police?; And how are communities changed when arrests or immigration enforcement actions can happen at any time? And, a central issue in the articles assembled here: How does the child welfare system help or hinder families in the wake of criminal or immigration court actions against parents? Details: Washington, D.C.: Jointly published by The Sentencing Project and First Focus, 2013. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed February 16, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Children%20in%20Harm's%20Way-final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Children%20in%20Harm's%20Way-final.pdf Shelf Number: 127648 Keywords: Child Protection Child Welfare Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Children Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

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 Control Border Security Human Rights Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Policy

Author: Australian Lawyers for Human Rights Title: People Smugglers: Saviours or Criminals? A report on 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001 - 2006 Summary: With the emergence of the 24 hour news cycle, Australian political debate has been reduced, more than ever before, to a series of catch phrases and oversimplifications. One such example is the slogan ‘stop the boats’. Such techniques fail to communicate the complexity of important issues and tend to create false generalisations in areas of debate that require a more balanced approach. The title of this report draws on a clear conflict in perceptions of people smugglers: not all people smugglers can be considered saviours, nor can they all be criminals. What is required is a balanced approach that appreciates the individual circumstances of each case. This report responds to exaggerations and generalisations that surround the debate on people smugglers, by providing guidance through research into 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001 to 2006, and an analysis of the portrayal of people smugglers in Australian political rhetoric and the Australian media. This report contains seven parts. Part One introduces the reader to ‘people smuggling’, looking at legal and political definitions. Part Two considers some historical examples of ‘people smuggling’ under Australian law. Part Three provides an analysis of the causes of people smuggling, for both passengers and smugglers. Part Four explores the trends in people smuggling in the Australian context. Part Five contains the main research component of this report: an analysis of 16 convicted people smugglers in Australia between 2001-2006. Part Six compares the portrayal of people smugglers in the Australian media, and in political rhetoric to the results that were obtained in Part Five. Part Seven provides some conclusions on the issues surrounding people smugglers in Australia. Details: Sydney: Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, 2010. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2013 at: www.alhr.asn.au Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 127709 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Human Smuggling (Australia) Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants

Author: Ruther, Matthew Howard Title: Essays on the Spatial Clustering of Immigrants and Internal Migration within the United States Summary: The chapters in this dissertation each look at some aspect of immigration or internal migration in the United States, highlighting the spatial nature of population distribution and mobility. Chapters 1 and 2 focus on the effect of immigrant residential clustering on crime and Chapter 3 explores the internal migration behavior of Puerto Ricans. In the first chapter, we investigate the effect of immigrant concentration on patterns of homicide in Los Angeles County. We also suggest an alternative method by which to define immigrant neighborhoods. Our results indicate that immigrant concentration confers a protective effect against homicide mortality, an effect that remains after controlling for other neighborhood structural factors that are commonly associated with homicide. Controlling for the spatial dependence in homicides reduces the magnitude of the effect, but it remains significant. Chapter 2 examines how foreign born population concentration impacts homicide rates at the county level. This chapter utilizes a longitudinal study design to reveal how changes in the immigrant population in the county are associated with changes in the homicide rate. The analysis is carried out using a spatial panel regression model which allows for cross-effects between neighboring counties. The results show that increasing foreign born population concentration is associated with reductions in the homicide rate, a process observed most clearly in the South region of the United States. In Chapter 3 we explore the internal migration patterns of Puerto Ricans in the United States, comparing the migration behavior of individuals born in Puerto Rico to those born in the United States. Second and higher generation Puerto Ricans are more mobile than their first generation counterparts, likely an outcome of the younger age structure and greater human capital of this former group. Puerto Ricans born in the United States also appear to be less influenced by the presence of existing Puerto Rican communities when making migration decisions. Both mainland- and island-born Puerto Rican populations are spatially dispersing, with the dominant migration stream for both groups being between New York and Florida. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2012. 159p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 26, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/239863.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/239863.pdf Shelf Number: 127715 Keywords: Homicide Illegal Immigrants Immigrants and Crime Immigration Neighborhoods and Crime Puerto Rican Immigrants

Author: Australia. Auditor General Title: Individual Management Services Provided to People in Immigration Detention Summary: Immigration detention is one of the most complex, controversial and debated areas of government policy. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) is responsible for administering immigration detention under the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act). The Migration Act requires people who are not Australian citizens and who are unlawfully in Australia to be detained in immigration detention. In 2011–12, immigration detention cost $1.235 billion; $1.04 billion in administered costs and $192.44 million in departmental costs. Over half of the cost of immigration detention ($700 million) was paid to the two key service providers that are contracted to provide detention and health services in Australia’s immigration detention facilities. These contracts are managed by DIAC. Australia has two types of immigration detention: ‘held’ immigration detention, where people are accommodated in immigration detention facilities; and community detention, where people are accommodated in the community. ‘Held’ immigration detention facilities (IDFs) include: •Immigration Detention Centre (IDC); •Alternative Places of Detention (APOD); •Immigration Residential Housing (IRH); and •Immigration Transit Accommodation (ITA). There are currently 19 IDFs located in metropolitan and regional/remote areas throughout Australia’s states and territories. In addition, the Republic of Nauru and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea were designated as ‘regional processing countries’ under the Migration Act in September 2012 and October 2012 respectively. As at 30 September 2012, there were 7670 people in held immigration detention—6552 men, 454 women and 664 children. The majority of detainees (around 72 per cent) were accommodated in IDCs and around one quarter were housed in APODs. The average time detainees spent in immigration detention as at 30 September 2012 was 83 days.1 However, some detainees continue to be detained for very long periods—956 detainees (10.2 per cent) had been in detention for over one year and, of these, 514 (5.5 per cent) for over two years. The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of DIAC’s management of individual management services provided to people in immigration detention. The ANAO assessed whether: •appropriate individual management services were provided to people in immigration detention; •DIAC effectively monitored the individual management services provided to people in immigration detention and managed service provider performance; and •DIAC’s administrative arrangements facilitated the cohesive provision of individual management services to people in immigration detention. The audit focused on DIAC’s oversight of selected individual management services provided to people in held immigration detention. Details: Canberra: Australian National Audit Office, 2013. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Report No.21 2012–13: Accessed March 7, 2013 at: http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2012-2013/Individual-Management-Services-Provided-to-People-in-Immigration-Detention Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Audit-Reports/2012-2013/Individual-Management-Services-Provided-to-People-in-Immigration-Detention Shelf Number: 127866 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (Australia) Immigration

Author: Smith, Rebecca Title: Workers’ Rights on ICE: How Immigration Reform Can Stop Retaliation and Advance Labor Rights Workers’ Rights on ICE Summary: This report outlines how employers across the country are gaming today’s broken immigration system to exploit immigrant workers and evade both labor and immigration laws. The report by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) uses two dozen case studies—including the recent action at Palermo’s Pizza—as examples of employers’ use of immigration enforcement or the threat of it to retaliate against workers who seek their basic workplace rights. One of the key principles of the AFL-CIO’s comprehensive immigration reform’s blueprint is the coverage and enforcement of workplace rights for undocumented workers. At Palermo's Pizza, Workers’ Rights on ICE: How Immigration Reform Can Stop Retaliation and Advance Labor Rights report relates that when workers there began to form a union, management used the threat of a reverification of their immigration status by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to intimidate the workers. Even though ICE told Palermo's it was not conducting an investigation. One day after receiving notice that ICE was not pursuing enforcement action against it, Palermo's fired some 75 striking workers. Palermo's claimed that the firings were not motivated by anti-union animus but to comply with immigration law, a dubious claim in light of ICE’s retraction. Palermo's Pizza workers, who have been on strike since June 1, are protesting unfair labor practices and demanding safe working conditions, recognition for their union and the reinstatement of 90 workers who were, according to a recent Worker Rights Consortium report, illegally fired for trying to organize a union. Other examples of employer abuse in the report include: •A California employer falsely accuses a day laborer of robbery to avoid paying him wages owed. Police turn him over to immigration enforcement agents anyway. •An Ohio company, on the eve of an National Labor Relations Board decision finding it guilty of unfair labor practices, carries out its threat to “take out” union leadership by reverifying union leaders’ immigration status and work eligibility. •A Seattle employer threatens workers seeking to recover unpaid wages with deportation, and an immigration arrest follows. Details: New York: National Employment Law Project, 2013. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Justice/2013/Workers-Rights-on-ICE-Retaliation-Report.pdf?nocdn=1 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Justice/2013/Workers-Rights-on-ICE-Retaliation-Report.pdf?nocdn=1 Shelf Number: 127967 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Labor Immigrants (U.S.) Immigration Reform Undocumented Workers

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 Control Border Security Homeland Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.)

Author: American Immigration Council Title: Two Systems of Justice: How the Immigration System Falls Short of American Ideals of Justice Summary: There is a growing consensus that our immigration system is broken. Severe visa backlogs hurt U.S. businesses, undocumented workers are frequently exploited, and record levels of deportations tear families apart. While much energy is now focused on addressing these problems, one issue that is frequently overlooked is the structure and quality of justice accorded immigrants who are caught in the enforcement net. In reforming our immigration system, we must not forget that the immigration removal system—from arrest to hearing to deportation and beyond—does not reflect American values of due process and fundamental fairness. The failure to provide a fair process to those facing expulsion from the United States is all the more disturbing given the increasing “criminalization” of the immigration enforcement system. Although immigration law is formally termed “civil,” Congress has progressively expanded the number of crimes that may render an individual deportable, and immigration law violations often lead to criminal prosecutions. Further, local police now play an increasingly active role in immigration enforcement. Consequently, even relatively minor offenses can result in a person being detained in immigration custody and deported, often with no hope of ever returning to the United States. This special report is a product of the Immigration Policy Center and the Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Council. It lays out the the incongruency of America's criminal justice system and its immigration justice system, and provides recommendations for how these problems could be fixed. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2013. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 25, 2013 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/two-systems-justice-how-immigration-system-falls-short-american-ideals-justice Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/two-systems-justice-how-immigration-system-falls-short-american-ideals-justice Shelf Number: 128116 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration (U.S.)

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Border Security: Partnership Agreements and Enhanced Oversight Could Strengthen Coordination of Efforts on Indian Reservations Summary: Individuals seeking to enter the United States illegally may attempt to avoid screening procedures at ports of entry by crossing the border in areas between these ports, including Indian reservations, many of which have been vulnerable to illicit cross-border threat activity, such as drug smuggling, according to DHS. GAO was asked to review DHS’s efforts to coordinate border security activities on Indian reservations. This report examines DHS’s efforts to coordinate with tribal governments to address border security threats and vulnerabilities on Indian reservations. GAO interviewed DHS officials at headquarters and conducted interviews with eight tribes, selected based on factors such as proximity to the border, and the corresponding DHS field offices that have a role in border security for these Indian reservations. While GAO cannot generalize its results from these interviews to all Indian reservations and field offices along the border, they provide examples of border security coordination issues. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in December 2012. Information that DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) deemed sensitive has been redacted. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DHS examine the benefits of government-to-government agreements with tribes and develop and implement a mechanism to monitor border security coordination efforts with tribes. DHS concurred with our recommendations Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-13-352: Accessed April 5, 2013 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653590.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653590.pdf Shelf Number: 128290 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration Indian Reservations

Author: Fugio, Christy Title: Buried Alive: Solitary Confinement in the US Detention System Summary: Solitary confinement is a generic term used to describe a form of segregation or isolation in which people are held in total or near-total isolation. People in solitary confinement are generally held in small cells for 23 hours a day and rarely have contact with other people. Solitary confinement has historically been used to control and discipline detainees in a variety of settings, including federal and state prisons, local jails, and immigration and national security detention facilities. Unlike incarcerated prisoners, immigration and national security detainees are held not as punishment for a crime but as a preventive measure. Indeed, it is unlikely that these detainees will ever be charged with a crime. For these people, solitary confinement then becomes entirely punitive, with dire consequences for their mental and physical health. For these people, solitary confinement then becomes entirely punitive, with dire consequences for their mental and physical health. Immigration and national security detainees are particularly likely to be held in isolation for prolonged periods because their precarious legal status makes them less able to challenge their conditions of confinement, including placement in isolation. A review of the medical literature on solitary confinement provides convincing evidence that isolation has severe psychological and physical effects. These effects are exacerbated if the person has previously been subject to torture and abuse, as is often the case with many immigration and national security detainees. Even relatively short periods in solitary confinement can cause severe and lasting physiological and psychological harm. Moreover, in many cases, the resulting harm rises to the level of torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, in violation of domestic and international law. The unequivocal position of Physicians for Human Rights is that solitary confinement should not be used at all in immigration and national security detention. Details: Cambridge, MA: Physicians for Human Rights, 2013. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Solitary-Confinement-April-2013-full.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Solitary-Confinement-April-2013-full.pdf Shelf Number: 128356 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Solitary Confinement (U.S.)

Author: Verhoef, J. Title: Immigration Detention: penal regime or step towards deportation? About respecting human rights in immigration detention Summary: The government wants people who are living in the Netherlands illegally to leave the country voluntarily. If they fail to do so, the government will take a number of steps. One of those steps is immigration detention. Detention is a measure that deprives people of their liberty. A foreign national will be locked up at a detention centre pending swift deportation. A total of 6,100 foreign nationals were kept in detention in 2010, for an average for 76 days. The National Ombudsman has observed that foreign nationals are being detained under an inappropriate regime that seriously strains the respect of fundamental rights. To some extent this is because immigration detention acts insufficiently as the last resort. Moreover, the government wrongly assumes that foreign nationals spend only a relatively short period of time in detention. The current regime fails to reflect the nature of a measure taken under administrative law. The sole purpose of detention is to prevent a foreign national from avoiding deportation. This measure is not intended to be a punishment. Yet in several respects foreign nationals are detained under a more austere regime than that of convicted criminals. Unlike convicted criminals, foreign nationals are kept as standard in two-person cells, for example, while they are not allowed to work, they may not receive any education and they must remain in their cells from 17:00 to 08:00 hrs. What’s more, foreign nationals are subject to the same security measures (frisk searches, strip searches and restraints during transportation) and disciplinary punishments and measures (such as segregation and solitary confinement). What is needed to bring about real improvements is the acknowledgement that immigration detention may be used only as a last resort. In the short term the Dutch government needs to develop less drastic alternatives to immigration detention. The National Ombudsman naturally welcomes as a positive step the government’s current elaboration of alternatives to immigration detention (such as the Reporting project and the Deposit project). In contrast, however, the pilot projects are being carried out only on a small scale, focus on specific target groups, and only last a short time. Immigration detention is the step that remains when the government, after due consideration, concludes that a less severe remedy for preventing a foreign national from avoiding deportation does not exist. When this occurs, it is important for the regime to reflect the nature of immigration detention, namely a measure focused solely on deportation. There should be no elements of punishment in immigration detention. As the Custodial Institutions Act was written with a view to punishment, it is important to give the regime of immigration detention its own dedicated embodiment. Another option is to develop an appropriate regime within the framework of the Custodial Institutions Act. The Act sets down only minimum standards and offers scope to adapt the different regimes. There are all kinds of different institutions for offenders based on the regime of the entire community, varying from closed to open prisons, and even a penitentiary programme that allow prisoners to stay outside the prison by means of electronic surveillance. The National Ombudsman observed that governors of detention centres involved in this study exhibit a willingness to change the approach from pressure and coercion to one of brainstorming and facilitating. Consideration is also being given to more moderate forms of the regime. The National Ombudsman regards this as a first step towards developing a more appropriate regime. Details: The Hague: Netherlands National Ombudsman, 2012. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 2012/105: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: Year: 2012 Country: Netherlands URL: Shelf Number: 128359 Keywords: Human Rights Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (Netherlands)

Author: Stege, Ulrich Title: Betwixt and Between: Turin's CIE. A Human Rights Investigation into Turin's Immigration Detention Centre Summary: This report investigates the extent to which Italian, European and international human rights and migration law is applied in Turin’s centro di identificazione ed espulsione (Turin’s CIE); an immigration detention centre in northern Italy. This study was motivated by the fact that a number of institutions and organisations at local, national and international level have expressed concern about the current praxis of administrative detention of irregular migrants in Italy. The inconsistency between the explicit and implicit aims of immigration detention centers is of particular concern because it gives rise to a situation that is a fertile ground for abuse, inefficiencies and shocking human rights violations. In order to evaluate the application of human rights law in Turin’s CIE, the CIE Research Project considers both individual and systemic problems faced by detainees, their families and people who have direct contact with the centre in a professional or voluntary capacity. These problems are analysed in terms of the conditions of detention as well as the judicial and legal processes that surround immigration detention. Throughout the research a concerted attempt was made to give voice to the lived experience of interviewed migrants; an element which is unfortunately all too often missing from research on immigration in Italy. The research was limited to experiences of detention in Turin’s CIE in the period January 2011 - June 2012 inclusive. As part of this research project, twenty-nine recorded interviews of between forty and ninety minutes were conducted with current and former immigration detainees and experienced lawyers, NGO workers, religious volunteers and a journalist. The interviews were semi structured and different but comparable interview forms were used with different categories of interviewees. These forms were designed in a manner that aimed to reveal information necessary to evaluate the application of civil and political rights, as well as economic, cultural and social rights. Moreover, in order to try to access a broad cross-section of people with experience inside Turin’s CIE, researchers were available to conduct interviews fluently with foreign citizens in their choice of seven languages. The report also draws on a range of secondary sources both in terms of background research and methodological modelling. This report begins by assessing the conditions of detention inside Turin’s CIE in terms of: family relationships, children and CIE; a comparison between CIE and prison; practical day-to-day issues; health and medical issues; relationships with CIE staff; and relationships between detainees. Each of these issues are diverse and yet to an extent interrelated, since they all impact detainees’ everyday lives in detention, their vulnerability and their relative experiences of the conditions within which they live. The study attempts to paint a balanced picture of what it can mean to be detained inside Turin’s CIE; a centre that geographically a bus ride away from the parks, piazzas and coffee shops of Turin, and yet still seems a world away. The report then examines the judicial and legal processes concerning Turin’s CIE by considering: the extent to which detainees understand what CIE is; the Italian legal and procedural framework; relationships between detainees and lawyers; the role of embassies and consulates in the identification procedure; and political asylum and humanitarian protection. This investigation draws on the interviewees’ experiences in order to examine both the positive and negative ways in which the judicial and legal processes surrounding Turin’s CIE can serve to enhance or detract from our ability to give life to the text and intention of human rights law. Judicial and legal processes are two vital mechanisms through which the written word of human rights can be realised and made accessible to all. However, the research found that for CIE detainees judicial and legal processes can also be a great barrier to accessing rights because there is an absence of clear procedures and effective remedy, questionable training in some areas of the public administration and inadequate legal and linguistic assistance for vulnerable individuals. Around the world, political policies about immigration detention are controversial topics which are often linked to the political and economic environment of the day. Consequently, the study also summarises additional miscellaneous matters about Turin’s CIE, which assist to contextualise the centre in terms of its wider economic, social and political context. This report then concludes by presenting a list of seventeen specific problems that were identified as obstructing the full, practical and accessible implementation of human rights law and EU law both inside Turin’s CIE and in terms of the related Italian judicial and administrative procedures. The problems found relate to: family life and the effect that detaining parents has on children; insufficient health care; unsatisfactory protection for asylum seekers and humanitarian entrants; a lack of training and institutional support for people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities; the stressful and degrading nature of living in the CIE; controversies in the Italian administrative law system for deciding on and validating immigration detention; and the discrepancy between the level of rights protection that is afforded in immigration matters where liberty is at stake when compared with the criminal justice system. Details: Turin, Italy: International University College of Turin, Human Rights and Migration Law Clinic, 2012. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: http://www.iuctorino.it/sites/default/files/docs/CIE_Report_September2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Italy URL: http://www.iuctorino.it/sites/default/files/docs/CIE_Report_September2012.pdf Shelf Number: 128360 Keywords: Human Rights Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (Italy

Author: Oakley, Sharon Title: Working Against the Clock : Inadequacy and injustice in the fast track system. Based on research by Bail for Immigration Detainees at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in March 2006 Summary: Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) is an independent charity that aims to improve access to bail for all immigration detainees, to ensure that detention is subject to regular, independent, automatic review, and to end arbitrary detention in the United Kingdom. BID opposes the increasing use of detention in the UK. Where detention is to be used, BID calls for changes to bring the UK into line with human rights standards so that individuals are protected from arbitrary and prolonged detention by effective and accessible legal safeguards. Appeals for help from immigration detainees provided the primary incentive for this research. In the months preceding this study, BID was contacted by hundreds of men and women detained at Harmondsworth and Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) while their cases were ‘fast-tracked’ under the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005. An increasing number of these immigration detainees were appealing to BID for help and complaining about the inadequacies and injustices of the fast track system. Working against the clock is a unique research project commissioned by BID and carried out largely by volunteers. It is the first piece of research to present a focused analysis of the fast track system at Harmondsworth IRC, based upon court observation and interviews with detainees and legal representatives. The Government carried out an evaluation of the pilot phase of the fast track procedure at Harmondsworth IRC in September 2003. The results of the evaluation were not made available to the public, but BID was able to obtain a copy of the evaluation by filing a Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure request. Unfortunately, a significant amount of the report was blacked out, rendering the contents of the report obscure and its findings largely unfathomable.1 Working against the clock presents an analysis of the fast track system, using a small sample of cases to illustrate a range of issues, whilst providing a forum for the voices of immigration detainees and their legal representatives. The findings set out in this report present deplorable inadequacies and injustices in the fast track process. The concluding recommendations to the Immigration Service, Legal Services Commission, Immigration Judges, legal representatives, the public and detainees represent a powerful call for radical changes to this system. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2006. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: www.biduk.org Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 128496 Keywords: Bail Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.K.) Immigration

Author: Cutler, Sarah Title: “Refusal Factory”: Women’s experiences of the Detained Fast Track asylum process at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre Summary: This report by BID is a very welcome piece of research giving testimony to the experiences of many hundreds of women who are subject to the Home Office Super Fast Tracking procedure. Many of these women’s voices would otherwise go unheard, silenced in this country as they have often been in their own countries. The UK has committed to a “fair, fast and firm” asylum policy, however the detention and fast tracking of women has serious implications for the equity of the asylum process.As shown in the report many women are denied access to quality legal representation from within detention centres. Women are frequently denied access to appropriate health care. Medical and psychological consequences of grave human rights violations often remain undetected and many women fear to disclose histories of sexual assault and rape from within detention. All of the above impact upon the judiciousness of the asylum process. As such the quality of initial decision making will inevitably be influenced, as indeed will the ability of decision makers to make a judicious decision in the absence of a full and carefully prepared account of events. Amnesty International has already identified serious problems with the quality of initial decision making (Amnesty International, 2004) and there is a wealth of research pointing towards delayed disclosures in the aftermath of sexual violence (Henry, N.M. 2005 Disclosure, sexual violence and international jurisprudence.University of Melbourne). The dangers of the DFT system highlighted in this report are in line with The Helen Bamber Foundation’s own experience of working with women who have been through the DFT.Many of the women with whom we are currently working, following arduous legal wrangles to release them from the DFT process, are survivors of horrific human rights violations, including rape, torture, sex trafficking, gender specific violence, genocide and war related violence.Their experiences of the DFT have often been experienced as a continuation of abuses already endured in the form of a denial of respect for their humanity. In our experience, disclosure is inhibited by the detention environment, access to essential healthcare services is patchy and women’s health complaints frequently go undiagnosed. In particular, symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder often remain undetected and women’s mental health frequently deteriorates in the detention environment. Women seeking asylum have endured multiple bereavements and separations. Within detention any relationships established are likely to be severed, either by deportation or release. As such, women who remain for long periods in detention find it very difficult to form and maintain relationships for fear that any sense of camaraderie will abruptly come to an end. Furthermore the deprivation of liberty of innocent people runs against the fundamental principle of our rule of law. The UK has a responsibility to protect survivors of torture and we call upon the government to take this responsibility seriously. Effective border control should not detract from this responsibility. This report should make essential reading for government policy makers, Home Office decision makers,members of the judiciary and the voting public. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2007. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 128497 Keywords: Bail Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.K.) Immigration

Author: Campbell, Sarah Title: Last Resort or First Resort? Immigration detention of children in the UK Summary: In 2009 more than 1,000 children in the UK were detained with their families for the purposes of immigration control (Home Office 2010a). Medical studies have found that detention is associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, suicidal ideation, self-harm and developmental delay in children (Lorek et al 2009; Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2004; Mares and Jureidini 2004; Steel et al 2004). The attempted suicide of a 10-year-old girl in immigration detention in the UK in 2009 provided a stark reminder of the implications of these research findings (Taylor 2009). The then Labour government justified the detention of children on the basis that it was used only as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time (Hansard HC 12 October 2009, Col 534W). It argued that in cases where families were detained, this was necessary for the purposes of immigration control for three main reasons: first, to prevent families absconding; second, to effect the imminent removal of families from the UK; and third, that if these families were not detained in order to be forcibly removed, they would have refused to leave the UK voluntarily (Home Office 2002, 4.77; Home Affairs Committee 2009, Q25; Byrne 2008). In order to examine the validity of these reasons for detaining families, Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and The Children’s Society carried out detailed research into the cases of 82 families with 143 children who were detained during 2009, using data from 82 clients’ case files, interviews with 30 family members and 27 legal representatives, and full Home Office files for 10 families. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees' The Children's Society, 2011. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 25, 2013 at: www.biduk.org Year: 2011 Country: United Arab Emirates URL: Shelf Number: 128498 Keywords: Children of Immigrants Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.K.) Immigration

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Title: Assessment Guide to the Criminal Justice Response to the Smuggling of Migrants Summary: The Assessment Guide to the Criminal Justice Response to the Smuggling of Migrants provides an inventory of measures for assessing the legislative, investigative, prosecutorial, judicial and administrative responses to the smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air, for deterring and combating such crime, and for integrating the information and experience gained from such assessment into successful national, regional and international strategies. The Assessment Guide is based on lessons learned from domestic and international efforts to curtail the smuggling of migrants, scholarly analysis and case examinations, and consultation with key stakeholders and relevant experts. The Assessment Guide is a standardized and cross-referenced set of measures designed to enable government officials in immigration, customs and law enforcement agencies and United Nations agencies, as well as other organizations, industry and individuals, to conduct comprehensive assessments of domestic systems, to identify areas of technical assistance, to assist in the design of interventions that incorporate international standards and norms on the prevention and suppression of the smuggling of migrants, and to assist in training on these issues. Details: New York: UNODC, 2013. 174p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2013 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/UNODC_2012_Assessment_Guide_to_the_Criminal_Justice_Response_to_the_Smuggling_of_Migrants-EN.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant-Smuggling/UNODC_2012_Assessment_Guide_to_the_Criminal_Justice_Response_to_the_Smuggling_of_Migrants-EN.pdf Shelf Number: 128607 Keywords: Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Migrants

Author: Neave, Colin Title: Suicide and Self-harm in the Immigration Detention Network Summary: Australia's immigration detention network has been subject to numerous reviews in recent years. This was due to the unprecedented strain on the network arising from increased Irregular Maritime Arrivals and the subsequent unrest and increase in suicide and self-harm incidents in 2010 and 2011. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the department) and its service providers have undertaken, and are continuing to undertake, significant work to address the problems that these reviews have highlighted. We recognise that this investigation started during a particularly difficult period due to the immigration detention policies in place and the significant increase in Irregular Maritime Arrivals.The large numbers of people seeking asylum also led to significant delays in processing of claims and in subsequent merits and judicial reviews sought by individuals. In 2010, the Australian Government suspended processing of asylum claims by people from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan for three and six months respectively. In 2011, the Malaysia Solution was announced by the Australian Government and subsequently invalidated by the High Court. There w as a large number of people in detention and many remained detained for long periods while a waiting finalisation of their asylum claims and substantive visas to be granted. During this period, the department and its service providers were required to manage day-to-day operations under significant strain, while simultaneously responding to changes in Australian Government policy, increase the available infrastructure and recruit and train large numbers of staff. We recognise that establishing appropriate processes and functions to support detention operations in these circumstances was difficult. The department necessarily had a strong focus on day-to-day logistics and the operational challenges that it was dealing with. In our view however, under this pressure, the department may not have fully appreciated some of the lessons gained from the experience of self-harm in immigration detention in the early 2000s. Issues around infrastructure and service provision – such as the adverse impact of overcrowded and/or remote facilities , and limited meaningful activities on the mental health of those in immigration detention facilities – were not fully addressed . In saying this, we also acknowledge that the department was obliged to respond within the constraints imposed by the law, the Australian Government's immigration policies, and capital funding decisions relating to infrastructure. We note and welcome the considerable efforts that the department has made over the last 18 months to address many of the issues that were apparent in the early part of this investigation. As a result of multiple internal and external reviews, the relevant policies and procedures have been reviewed, realigned and more strongly implemented. Important developments include the efforts to strengthen the Psychological Support Program and the new Programs and Activities Framework. Overall, we believe the department is now in a stronger position in terms of its capacity to manage the immigration detention network and associated risks and issues. However, this investigation has found scope for further improvement, and also identified lessons that can be learned from challenges of the recent past. Details: Canberra: Commonwealth Ombudsman, 2013. 171p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 02/2013: Accessed May 25, 2013 at: http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/files/suicide_and_self-harm_in_the_immigration_detention_network.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/files/suicide_and_self-harm_in_the_immigration_detention_network.pdf Shelf Number: 128791 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (Australia) Immigration Suicide

Author: Lee, Erik Title: The State of the Border Report: A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: As the debate over immigration reform has brought the management of the U.S.-Mexico border back into the spotlight, this report provides a comprehensive look at the state of affairs in the management of the U.S.-Mexico border and the border region, focusing on four core areas: trade and competitiveness, security, sustainability, and quality of life. The report suggests that rather than consider each issue individually, the interdependent nature of topics like trade and security demand the border be approached from a more holistic perspective. Details: Washington, DC: Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2013. 174p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2013 at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/mexico_state_of_border.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/mexico_state_of_border.pdf Shelf Number: 128792 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security (U.S., Mexico) Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Heyman, Josiah McC. Title: Guns, Drugs, and Money: Tackling the Real Threats to Border Security Summary: The external borders of the United States matter to security, but how and in what ways is neither automatic nor obvious. The current assumption is that borders defend the national interior against all harms, which are understood as consistently coming from outside—and that security is always obtained in the same way, whatever the issue. Some security policies correctly use borders as tools to increase safety, but border policy does not protect us from all harms. The 9/11 terrorists came through airports with visas, thus crossing a border inspection system without being stopped. They did not cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Future terrorists would not necessarily cross a land border. U.S. citizens and residents, and nationals of Western Europe, also represent an important element of the terrorist threat, and they have unimpeded or easy passage through U.S. borders. Fortified borders cannot protect us from all security threats or sources of harm. Moreover, not all border crossers pose security concerns, even ones who violate national laws. The hundreds of thousands of unauthorized migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border each year have not posed a threat of political terrorism, and external terrorists have not traveled through this border. Enforcement of laws against unauthorized immigration is, in the vast majority of cases, a resource- and attention-wasting distraction from sensible national security measures. That does not mean the U.S.-Mexico border is free from risk of harm, such as increasingly violent drug trafficking organizations operating nearby in Mexico. But that issue needs to be addressed in different ways than current enforcement policy does. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council, 2011. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/guns-drugs-and-money-tackling-real-threats-border-security Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/guns-drugs-and-money-tackling-real-threats-border-security Shelf Number: 128897 Keywords: Border Security (Mexico, U.S.) Drug Trafficking Homeland Security Illegal Immigrants Terrorism

Author: Becker, Gary S. Title: The Challenge of Immigration: A Radical Solution Summary: Executive Summary: • Despite substantial economic growth in underdeveloped countries, there are still huge differences in wage levels between poorer and richer countries. • Low fertility, especially in Europe, is also likely to lead to pressures that will encourage migration in future decades. • Net migration has grown dramatically in recent years. In 1980, net migration to the UK was approximately zero and by 2005 the figure was 190,000 per annum. In the same periodnet migration to the USA more or less doubled to 1.1 million per annum. • There were very substantial migration flows in the late nineteenth century but the USA imposed restrictions from the 1920s onwards. Those restrictions are onerous and involve bureaucratic controls. • Given the extent of welfare states in countries with higher incomes, it would be difficult to go back to a policy of free migration. • There would be many advantages to a policy of charging immigrants a fee. If a fee of (say) $50,000 were charged, it would ensure that economically active migrants who had a real commitment to the country were most attracted. This fee could be used to lower other taxes. • Charging a fee would be a much more efficient way of controlling economic migration than the use of quotas and other bureaucratic systems of control. • Even a fee of $50,000 would allow people on relatively low earnings to enter the USA if there were skill shortages. Given the level of wage differentials, such a fee could be paid back in a few years or in a decade or so. • Certain categories of migrant might be allowed to benefit from a loans system to enable them to pay the fee over a period of years. This could operate rather like a student loans system in higher education. • One advantage of using a fee rather than administrative controls would be that illegal immigrants would have a strong incentive to regularise their status – and would be allowed to do so legally. Such people would have to pay the required fee but would then be free to choose much more remunerative occupations. As such, the use of the price mechanism in migration policy could alleviate the scourge of illegal immigration. Details: London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2011. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2013 at: http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-challenge-of-immigration-a-radical-solution Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-challenge-of-immigration-a-radical-solution Shelf Number: 128965 Keywords: Economic Analysis Illegal Immigrants Immigration Reform

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 Control Border Security Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Policy

Author: Center for Victims of Torture Title: Tortured and Detained: Survivor Stories of U.S. Immigration Detention Summary: This report focuses on the personal and psychological aspects of the detention experience, from apprehension to release, and seeks to offer insights - through first-hand accounts to the extent possible - into what asylum seekers and survivors of torture are seeing, thinking, and feeling as they arrive in the United States, a perceived destination of "safety," and subsequently endure shock and confusion at being arrested and detained. This report does not attempt to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current state of the U.S. immigration detention system. The recommendations contained at the end focus on meeting the unique needs of survivors of torture but most would benefit the U.S. immigration detention system more broadly. The profiles in this report are comprised of selfreported information from the 22 individuals we interviewed in June and July of 2013, though the accounts described here are all consistent with secondary research into U.S. immigration laws, procedures, and practices. The challenges interviewees reported are, likewise, consistent with other in-depth reports of the U.S. immigration detention system. Secondary research into trauma and its effects as well as interviews with clinicians from CVT provided additional perspectives into the particular impact detention has on survivors of torture. All participants consented to having their stories included in this report and used for public purposes. However, to protect individual identities we have changed all names and chose not to include any information that would make the individual easily identifiable. Details: St. Paul, MN: Center for Victims of Torture, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2013 at: http://www.cvt.org/sites/cvt.org/files/Report_TorturedAndDetained_Nov2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cvt.org/sites/cvt.org/files/Report_TorturedAndDetained_Nov2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131653 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.S.) Torture

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Title: Corruption and the Smuggling of Migrants Summary: How does corruption impacts the facilitation of irregular migration by organized crime groups? What actions can be taken? UNODC launched the Issue Paper: Corruption and the Smuggling of Migrants in the margins of the Working Group on the Smuggling of Migrants held in Vienna in November 2013 to assist policy makers and practitioners prevent and address corruption related to the smuggling of migrants. Corruption often undermines national and international efforts to prevent and control the smuggling of migrants, just as it affects the control of other forms of transnational crime such as trafficking in persons, in firearms, or in narcotics. Organized criminal groups make frequent use of corruption, often together with intimidation and violence, to facilitate their migrant smuggling operations. Migrant smuggling can generate large revenues which smugglers can use to corrupt officials and obtain their complicity. Criminal organizations can take advantage of immigration control and public security systems that are weakened by corruption. In fact, most migrant smuggling operations would not last long without resorting to corruption in one form or another. Combating corruption is therefore an essential, yet often neglected, element of any comprehensive strategy to address the problems of migrant smuggling. Developed through expert consultations (national experts from Canada, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Panama, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, together with Europol, Frontex, the International Organization for Migration, the International Centre for Migration and Development, and the Regional Mixed Migration Secretariat - East Africa), the Issue Paper: Corruption and the Smuggling of Migrants looks at the intersections between corruption and the smuggling of migrants, and the main challenges and good practices to prevent and combat these intertwined issues. Details: Vienna: UNODC, 2013. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper: Accessed December 5, 2013 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2013/The_Role_Of_Corruption_in_the_Smuggling_of_Migrants_Issue_Paper_UNODC_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2013/The_Role_Of_Corruption_in_the_Smuggling_of_Migrants_Issue_Paper_UNODC_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131749 Keywords: Corruption Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Organized Crime

Author: Males, Mike Title: Are Immigration Detainer Practices Rational? Summary: As public safety resources become more limited, justice administrators across California have begun to scrutinize the wisdom of immigration detainer programs (Gascon, 2013). Holding people in local jails for federal civil immigration purposes occupies valuable resources that could be used to address violent and serious criminal activity. Instead, these detainers are often enforced against people with minimal and nonviolent criminal histories without the due process afforded them under the criminal justice system. CJCJ has produced several publications analyzing data on California's ICE hold requests from October 2009 to February 2013. The series demonstrated that many ICE holds were being requested for people with no documented criminal histories or who were arrested for low priority marijuana offenses (CJCJ, 2013, 2013a). CJCJ has suggested limiting county compliance with these requests in order to better manage already strained jail capacities (CJCJ, 2013b). Additionally, ICE continues to request holds for individuals detained in youth detention facilities despite the de-prioritization of immigration enforcement for youth (CJCJ, 2013c). The cost of incarceration is high, averaging $114 per day per person in California jails (BSCC, 2012). Therefore, best correctional practices differentiate between low-risk and high-risk offenders and place them in the least restrictive settings necessary to protect public safety. Similarly, immigration enforcement and detention under the Secure Communities Program "prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, those who pose a threat to public safety, and repeat immigration violators" (ICE, 2013). This final publication in the series examines a sample of the data set to determine whether stated criminal justice and immigration priorities are upheld in the practice of detaining suspected undocumented immigrants who have committed criminal offenses. Both systems have expressly stated the need to reserve custodial resources only for those who pose a danger to public safety. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2013. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2014 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/are_immigration_detainer_practices_rational_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/are_immigration_detainer_practices_rational_final.pdf Shelf Number: 131818 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Immigration Enforcement

Author: Crouch, Melissa Title: Trials of People Smugglers in Indonesia: 2007-2012 Summary: This policy paper addresses the critical need for greater knowledge and understanding of how the contemporary Indonesian legal system is dealing with people smuggling. It primarily presents the findings of a survey of court cases from May 2011 to December 2012, in the first year and a half of the operation of Law 6/2011 on Immigration. The paper identifies patterns in court cases in terms of the location of people smuggling operations, profiles of the accused, the criminal charges laid against them, and the severity of penalties handed down by the courts. The paper argues that any efforts to increase the scope and depth of such cooperation between Australia and Indonesia must take into account the progress made by law enforcement agencies in prosecuting people smugglers in Indonesian courts, as well as the challenges they confront. Details: Melbourne: Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: XXILIA Policy Papers: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/Crouch_Missbach_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Indonesia URL: http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/Crouch_Missbach_web.pdf Shelf Number: 131869 Keywords: Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: Anderson, Victoria Title: Second Chances for All. Why Orange County Probation Should Stop Choosing Deportation Over Rehabilitation for Immigrant youth Summary: In recent years, the Orange County Probation Department (OCPD) has adopted a policy of referring immigrant children in its care to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In so doing, OCPD has violated confidentiality laws, undermined the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system, impeded community policing efforts, unlawfully entangled its officers in federal immigration enforcement, and diverted county resources. This report was undertaken by the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic to analyze OCPD's referral policy, document some of these harms, and recommend possible solutions to address those harms. As a result of OCPD's referral policy, Orange County has led the state in juvenile immigration referrals. From December 2010 to November 2012, the OCPD Procedure Manual instructed probation officers to proactively investigate the immigration status of youth and granted OCPD's ICE Liaison Officer discretion to refer practically any child with "questionable immigration status" to ICE. Pursuant to this policy, OCPD referred approximately 170 youth to immigration authorities in the year 2011 alone. Between October 1, 2009 and February 10, 2013, ICE issued immigration detainer requests for numerous youth detained in Orange County Juvenile Hall; Orange County accounted for approximately 43% of all ICE detainer requests issued to juvenile facilities in the state. In November 2012, OCPD revised its referral policy; however, key problematic aspects of the policy were left unchanged. In the months following the policy change, OCPD has made a steady, if reduced, number of referrals. Approximately 24 youth were referred between December 2012 and September 2013. OCPD's referral policy violates state confidentiality law and undermines OCPD's mission to rehabilitate juveniles. The policy violates California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 827, which strictly limits access to juvenile case files, by requiring employees to provide ICE with "all pertinent information" to assist ICE's investigation of referred juveniles. Juvenile referrals also cause both children and their families to distrust the probation department, hindering cooperation necessary for rehabilitation. Furthermore, many juveniles referred to ICE are detained in federal custody for an indefinite period awaiting immigration court proceedings, separating them from their families and subjecting them to physical and mental hardships that increase their risk of recidivism. In cases where children are deported, they experience long-term separation from family and friends, and may be left to fend for themselves in countries where they have no support system. Juvenile referrals do not benefit public safety, and may even hinder policing efforts. Studies have repeatedly found that immigration status does not shape future delinquency. Also, OCPD's own studies indicate that as few as 8% of youth who come into contact with OCPD qualify as "chronic recidivists." Thus, targeting immigrant youth for deportation is unlikely to make Orange County safer. In fact, juvenile referrals can harm public safety because they foster distrust between immigrant communities and local police generally. Surveys show that approximately 44% of Latinos are less likely to contact police officers when they fear police officers will investigate their immigration status or that of their loved ones. OCPD's involvement in federal immigration enforcement exceeds its authority under the Constitution and can lead to illegal detention, deportation, and profiling. Under the Constitution, immigration status may only be determined by federal officers and classified according to federal standards, but OCPD's referral policy directs county officers to independently ascertain juveniles' immigration status, according to a local scheme inconsistent with federal standards. The Constitution also guarantees juveniles the right to be free from unlawful detention, but the referral policy violates that right with its blanket directive to detain juveniles subject to ICE detainers for up to five days past their scheduled release dates. Furthermore, officers untrained in the complexities of immigration status are likely to rely on apparent race and ethnicity in selecting juveniles for immigration investigations, exacerbating risks of illegal racial profiling. Finally, OCPD officers may erroneously refer U.S. citizens or other lawfully present youth to ICE, potentially leading to their unlawful detention and deportation. OCPD's referral policy involves the unnecessary expenditure of county resources to subsidize federal immigration enforcement. OCPD employees - including a dedicated ICE Liaison - spend time on the county payroll investigating juveniles' immigration status and communicating with ICE, and the county incurs additional detention costs when OCPD denies out-of-home placement to juveniles subject to ICE detainers and detains such juveniles past their release dates. Further costs may result from lawsuits filed by those affected by OCPD's referral policy or by civil rights organizations, challenging violations of confidentiality laws, the detention of juveniles on the basis of ICE detainers, racial profiling by OCPD officers, or the erroneous referral and resulting detention or deportation of lawfully present juveniles. Details: Irvine, CA: University of California Irvine, School of Law, immigrant Rights Clinic, 2013. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.uci.edu/academics/real-life-learning/clinics/UCILaw_SecondChances_dec2013.pdf Shelf Number: 131887 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrant Enforcement Immigration Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Probation Rehabilitation

Author: Vanderbruggen, Maaike Title: Point of No Return: The Futile Detention of Unreturnable Migrants Summary: This paper is an outcome of the awareness-raising project "A Face to the Story: The issue of unreturnable migrants in detention", which has been made possible by the support of EPIM, the European Programme on Integration and Migration. The project runs from September 2012 to February 2014, and involves qualitative research based on the stories of 39 unreturnable migrants with experiences of detention in Belgium, France, Hungary or the United Kingdom. The report is the result of a collaboration of Flemish Refugee Action (Belgium), Detention Action (UK), France terre d'asile (France), Menedek - Hungarian Association for Migrants, and The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), which aims to increase public debate on the detention of unreturnable migrants and to put pressure on governments to use detention only as a last resort. With this report and the related campaign, we hope to increase momentum amongst policy-makers at national and EU levels to reduce detention and find solutions for unreturnable migrants. Besides informing decision-makers, this report is also intended to stimulate civil societies to give special attention to this group of migrants, who are often living under the radar. Details: Point of No Return, 2014. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2014 at: http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.be/bestanden/publicaties/PONR_report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.be/bestanden/publicaties/PONR_report.pdf Shelf Number: 132169 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration

Author: Rosenblum, Marc R. Title: The Deportation Dilemma: Reconciling Tough and Humane Enforcement Summary: The United States has deported a record number of unauthorized immigrants and other removable noncitizens in recent years. More than 4.5 million noncitizens have been removed since Congress passed sweeping legislation in 1996 to toughen the nation's immigration enforcement system. The pace of formal removals has quickened tremendously, rising from about 70,000 in 1996 to 419,000 in 2012. This report analyzes the current pipelines for removal and key trends in border and interior apprehensions, deportations and criminal prosecutions. With the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the midst of a review of its deportation policies to see if they can be conducted "more humanely," the report also examines the policy levers the Obama administration has to influence deportation policies, practices and results. Using Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Service data, the authors identify striking trends in the deportation system since 1996: - A fundamental shift from a deportation system focused on informal returns (voluntary return and departure) to one focused on formal removals, which have more severe consequences for those who are repatriated. - Major expansion in the use of nonjudicial removal procedures such as expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, in which immigration enforcement officers rather than immigration judges make deportation decisions. - Escalating criminalization, with a rising proportion of those apprehended at the Southwest border charged with immigration-related criminal offenses. The report explains that three factors have been the key drivers of major changes in deportation outcomes during the last two decades: new laws that expand the grounds for removal and speed the removals process; sizeable and sustained increases in immigration enforcement personnel, infrastructure, and technology; and operational and policy decisions by three successive administrations to shape enforcement outcomes. The report describes the actual state of U.S. immigration enforcement: Who is being deported and where and how are they being apprehended? It also explores how the current administration is carrying out its enforcement mandates. The Obama administration inherited - and expanded upon - unprecedented capacity to identify, apprehend, and deport unauthorized immigrants. Nearly as many people were formally deported during the first five years of the current administration (over 1.9 million) as during the entire eight years of the prior administration (2.0 million). What is new is that the Obama administration also has implemented prosecutorial discretion policies to focus enforcement efforts, even as the overall scope of enforcement has grown. These policies provide guidelines for exercising discretion not to deport certain people in cases that are outside established priority categories. Overall, enforcement at the border and within the United States show sharply different pictures. At the border, there is a near zero-tolerance system, where unauthorized immigrants are increasingly subject to formal removal and criminal charges. Within the country, there is greater flexibility, with priorities and resources focused on a smaller share of the population subject to removal. Such differences are consistent with the different goals and circumstances confronting border and interior enforcement. But the impacts of these differing systems have begun to converge, raising increasingly complex questions and choices for policymakers and the public. The research presented here highlights the deportation dilemma: that more humane enforcement is fundamentally in tension with stricter immigration control; and that a more robust enforcement system inevitably inflicts damage on established families and communities. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-dilemma-reconciling-tough-humane-enforcement Shelf Number: 132208 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigration Immigration Enforcement Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Benton, Meghan Title: Spheres of Exploitation: Thwarting Actors Who Profit from Illegal Labor, Domestic Servitude, and Sex Work Summary: Large-scale migration flows are too often exploited by "bad actors" for profit-ranging from criminals who exploit trafficked people to employers who do not meet legal hiring practices. Even consumers, who may not know the source of their goods and services, sometimes aid the exploitation of migrants. This report analyzes such exploitation in three spheres: the domestic care sector, the labor market, and the sex industry. Across all three, perpetrators are broadly motivated by the lure of high profits and low risks. The report, part of a Transatlantic Council on Migration series on migration "bad actors," details several obstacles governments face in their efforts to weaken such actors: victims may be unwilling to report crimes, the crimes themselves fall into a gray area in which identification and prosecution are complex, and the leaders of criminal organizations often successfully protect themselves from enforcement efforts by implicating their foot soldiers and victims in illegal activity. Policies to disrupt the business model of exploitation seek to increase risks and reduce profits for facilitators, and they may also aim to reduce the supply and demand of exploitable labor. Most policies carry risks and practical challenges. One of the main legal tools-anti-trafficking legislation-aims to increase the risks of severe exploitation, but low prosecution rates and trivial sentences reduce their utility as a deterrent. Measures that target employers also face several challenges, such as proving employer guilt and administering high-enough fines. Increasing subcontractors' regulations, if successfully implemented, can raise standards across the board, but may also inadvertently lead to more severe exploitation (and more illegal immigration) if some operators are pushed underground. The report argues that one of the biggest challenges facing law enforcement is that the focus on serious criminals and lawbreakers ignores those who operate on the edge of legality; the reality is that creative criminal organizations exploit legal routes wherever possible, sometimes flying under the radar of police. This situation often creates unexpected results. Some policies to encourage legal migration-like those that tie workers to a particular employer-can facilitate exploitative practices, while policies designed to reduce exploitation (such as licensing systems) might make some operators more likely to hire unauthorized workers. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/migration-exploitation-illegal-labor-domestic-servitude-sex Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/migration-exploitation-illegal-labor-domestic-servitude-sex Shelf Number: 132222 Keywords: Border Security Domestic Workers Forced Labor Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Sexual Exploitation Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Papademetriou, Demetrios G. Title: A Strategic Framework for Creating legality and Order in Immigration Summary: "Immigration harms" undermine the positive economic and social benefits of immigration and in some cases produce economic and social costs that may outweigh the benefits of migration. These risks of migration are extensive, and they include the exploitation of workers, the erosion of working standards, the presence of illegally resident persons that undermine the rule of law, profit to criminal enterprises, government corruption, potential adverse fiscal and welfare consequences, and-at their most severe-violent criminal activity. This report, part of a Transatlantic Council on Migration series that examines migration "bad actors," analyzes how governments ought to best allocate their resources to address these harms, including choosing which threats to tackle and where to prioritize enforcement efforts. The report explores how immigration policymakers can learn from other public policy regulation efforts to ensure that regulatory actions advance the public interest. After assessing a wide range of tools that immigration policymakers have at their disposal, the report concludes that an effective and strategic enforcement regime to tackle immigration harms includes: (1) the abiilty of governments to generate new evidence and analysis to improve their operational understanding of the threats they face; (2) an allocation of resources the scale and intensity of the violations, as well as the cost-effectiveness of policies designed to address them; (3) strong partnerships across government agencies; and (4) decisions based on transparent criteria that all participants in the system can understand. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 25p.; Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2014 at: http://www.fosterquan.com/content/documents/policy_papers/2014/MPI_Legality_and_Order.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.fosterquan.com/content/documents/policy_papers/2014/MPI_Legality_and_Order.pdf Shelf Number: 132224 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Undocumented Immigrants

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 Control Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migration Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Collett, Elizabeth Title: Trade-Offs in Immigration Enforcement Summary: Unauthorized migrants - those without a legal right of residence - live in all modern industrialized countries. Beyond their responsibility to respond to the challenges of fast-paced, diverse migration patterns, it is vital that public and private sector institutions address the harms associated with illegal or unauthorized migration. Policymakers face significant constraints in addressing this population, including insufficient financial and human resources, and legal frameworks that protect individuals regardless of their residence status. This report, part of a Transatlantic Council on Migration series focused on migration "bad actors," argues that a successful migration enforcement regime is best defined as one that does limited (or zero) harm to a country's institutions of governance and to citizens' livelihoods, while fortifying public trust that the government is running an efficient and effective system. The report concludes that policymakers have two main policy options: to offer legal residence to unauthorized immigrants, or to identify them and seek to return or deport them to their country of origin. Yet return remains an incomplete policy option. Despite political and public distaste for the policy, regularization remains a frequently employed tool. The authors suggest that one of the key elements of success in this field may well be the recognition that success is not solely an enforcement approach, but one which takes the broad range of policy tools (including regularization) into account. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trade-offs-immigration-enforcement Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trade-offs-immigration-enforcement Shelf Number: 132386 Keywords: Border Security Deportations Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigration Enforcement

Author: Bruno, Andorra Title: Unauthorized Aliens in the United States: Policy Discussion Summary: The unauthorized immigrant (illegal alien) population in the United States is a key and controversial immigration issue. Competing views on how to address this population have been, and continue to be, a major obstacle to enacting immigration reform legislation. It is unknown, at any point in time, how many unauthorized aliens are in the United States; what countries they are from; when they came to the United States; where they are living; and what their demographic, family, and other characteristics are. Demographers develop estimates about unauthorized aliens using available survey data on the U.S. foreign-born population and other methods. These estimates can help inform possible policy options to address the unauthorized alien population. Both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Pew Research Center estimate that approximately 11.5 million unauthorized aliens were living in the United States in January 2011. DHS further estimates that there were some 11.4 unauthorized residents in January 2012. Pew has released a preliminary estimate of 11.7 million for the March 2012 unauthorized resident population. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other federal laws place various restrictions on unauthorized aliens. In general, they have no legal right to live or work in the United States and are subject to removal from the country. At the same time, the INA provides limited avenues for certain unauthorized aliens to obtain legal permanent residence. Over the years, a range of options has been offered for addressing the unauthorized resident population. In most cases, the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of aliens in the United States who lack legal status. One set of options centers on requiring or encouraging unauthorized immigrants to depart the country. Those who support this approach argue that these aliens are in the United States in violation of the law and that their presence variously threatens social order, national security, and economic prosperity. One departure strategy is to locate and deport unauthorized aliens from the United States. Another departure strategy, known as attrition through enforcement, seeks to significantly reduce the size of the unauthorized population by across-the board enforcement of immigration laws. One of the basic tenets of the departure approach is that unauthorized immigrants in the United States should not be granted benefits. An opposing strategy would grant qualifying unauthorized residents various benefits, including an opportunity to obtain legal status. Supporters of this type of approach do not characterize unauthorized immigrants in the United States as lawbreakers, but rather as contributors to the economy and society at large. A variety of proposals have been put forth over the years to grant some type of legal status to some portion of the unauthorized population. Some of these options would use existing mechanisms under immigration law to grant legal status. Others would establish new legalization programs. Some would benefit a particular subset of the unauthorized population, such as students or agricultural workers, while others would make relief available more broadly. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 29, 2014 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41207.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41207.pdf Shelf Number: 132399 Keywords: Illegal Aliens (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Warehoused and Forgotten: Immigrants Trapped in Our Shadow Private Prison System Summary: In rural Texas, 3,000 men are locked inside a "tent city," sleeping in bunk beds spaced only a few feet apart. The tents are crawling with insects and the smell of broken, overflowing toilets. This is Willacy County Correctional Center: a physical symbol of everything that is wrong with enriching the private prison industry and criminalizing immigration. More than 25,000 low-security non-U.S. citizens languish at thirteen private prisons like Willacy under Criminal Alien Requirement (CAR) contracts. For years, these for-profit prisons have been able to operate in the shadows, effectively free from public scrutiny. That ends now. Our report documents the ACLU's multi-year investigation into the five CAR facilities in Texas. We uncovered evidence of shocking abuse and mistreatment, families torn apart, and the excessive use of solitary confinement. The second-class prisoners in CAR facilities are trapped at the intersection of three disturbing trends: the national mass incarceration crisis, prison privatization, and the criminalization of immigration. This is the story of how and why things have gotten so bad. Details: New York: ACLU, 2014. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 17, 2014 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/060614-aclu-car-reportonline.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/060614-aclu-car-reportonline.pdf Shelf Number: 132496 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Prison Conditions Private Prisons Privatization Solitary Confinement Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Martinez, Daniel E. Title: No Action Taken: Lack of CBP Accountability in Responding to Complaints of Abuse Summary: Data obtained by the American Immigration Council shine a light on the lack of accountability and transparency which afflicts the U.S. Border Patrol and its parent agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The data, which the Immigration Council acquired through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, covers 809 complaints of alleged abuse lodged against Border Patrol agents between January 2009 and January 2012. These cases run the gamut of physical, sexual, and verbal abuse. Although it is not possible to determine which cases had merit and which did not, it is astonishing that, among those cases in which a formal decision was issued, 97 percent resulted in "No Action Taken." On average, CBP took 122 days to arrive at a decision when one was made. Moreover, among all complaints, 40 percent were still "pending investigation" when the complaint data were provided to the Immigration Council. The data indicate that "physical abuse" was the most prevalent reason for a complaint, occurring in 40 percent of all cases, followed by "excessive use of force" (38 percent). Not surprisingly, more complaints were filed in sectors with higher levels of unauthorized immigration. During the time period studied, more than one in three complaints filed against Border Patrol agents were directed at agents in the Tucson Sector. After accounting for the different numbers of Border Patrol agents in each sector, the complaint rate remained the highest in the Tucson Sector, with the Rio Grande Valley Sector a close second. Complaint rates as measured in terms of numbers of apprehensions were highest in Del Rio, Rio Grande Valley, and San Diego. Taken as a whole, the data indicate the need for a stronger system of incentives (both positive and negative) for Border Patrol agents to abide by the law, respect legal rights, and refrain from abusive conduct. In order to do that, complaints should be processed more quickly and should be carefully reviewed. Furthermore, the seriousness of the complaints demands an external review. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2014. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/No%20Action%20Taken_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 132573 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Prisoner Abuse

Author: Seghetti, Lisa Title: Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview Summary: The number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) arriving in the United States has reached alarming numbers that has strain the system put in place over the past decade to handle such cases. UAC are defined in statute as children who lack lawful immigration status in the United States, who are under the age of 18, and who are without a parent or legal guardian in the United States or no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody. Two statutes and a legal settlement most directly affect U.S. policy for the treatment and administrative processing of UAC: the Flores Settlement Agreement of 1997; the Homeland Security Act of 2002; and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. Several agencies in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) share responsibilities for the processing, treatment, and placement of UAC. DHS Customs and Border Protection apprehends and detains UAC arrested at the border while Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) handles the transfer and repatriation responsibilities. ICE also apprehends UAC in the interior of the country and is responsible for representing the government in removal proceedings. HHS is responsible for coordinating and implementing the care and placement of UAC in appropriate custody. Four countries account for almost all of the UAC cases (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico) and much of the recent increase has come from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. In FY2009, Mexican UAC accounted for 82% of 19,668 UAC apprehensions, while the other three Central American countries accounted for 17%. By the first eight months of FY2014, the proportions had almost reversed, with Mexican UAC comprising only 25% of the 47,017 UAC apprehensions, and UAC from the three Central American countries comprising 73%. Both the Administration and Congress have begun to take action to respond to the surge in UAC coming across the border. The Administration has developed a working group to coordinate the efforts of the various agencies involved in responding to the issue. It also has opened additional shelters and holding facilities to accommodate the large number of UAC apprehended at the border. The Administration has also announced plans to provide funding to the affected Central American countries for a variety of programs and security-related initiatives. Relatedly, Congress is considering funding increases for HHS and DHS. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: R43599: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43599.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43599.pdf Shelf Number: 132583 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration Unaccompanied Alien Children Undocumented Aliens Undocumented Children

Author: Triandafyllidou, Anna Title: Governing Irregular Migration and Asylum at the Borders of Europe: Between Efficiency and Protection Summary: This paper investigates recent developments in EU policy on controlling irregular migration and managing asylum at the EU's southern borders. The paper focuses on the (im) balancing act between efficiency and protection in EU policies. Beginning by expounding the notion of governance of irregular migration and asylum, we turn to critically discuss current European border control practices with a focus on the agencies and policies in place (including the Common European Asylum System). The paper concludes by showing how the EU's balancing act between irregular migration control and asylum management tips clearly towards the former even if it pays lip service to the latter as well as to the need of preventing the loss of human life. Details: Rome: Isituto Affari Internazionali, 2014. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Imagining Europe, no. 6: Accessed July 14, 2014 at: http://www.iai.it/pdf/ImaginingEurope/ImaginingEurope_06.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://www.iai.it/pdf/ImaginingEurope/ImaginingEurope_06.pdf Shelf Number: 132667 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Border Security Illegal Immigrants Irregular Migration (Europe) Migration

Author: Bush, Jeb Title: U.S. Immigration Policy Summary: Few issues on the American political agenda are more complex or divisive than immigration. There is no shortage of problems with current policies and practices, from the difficulties and delays that confront many legal immigrants to the large number of illegal immigrants living in the country. Moreover, few issues touch as many areas of U.S. domestic life and foreign policy. Immigration is a matter of homeland security and international competitiveness-as well as a deeply human issue central to the lives of millions of individuals and families. It cuts to the heart of questions of citizenship and American identity and plays a large role in shaping both America's reality and its image in the world. Immigration's emergence as a foreign policy issue coincides with the increasing reach of globalization. Not only must countries today compete to attract and retain talented people from around the world, but the view of the United States as a place of unparalleled openness and opportunity is also crucial to the maintenance of American leadership. There is a consensus that current policy is not serving the United States well on any of these fronts. Yet agreement on reform has proved elusive. The goal of the Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy was to examine this complex issue and craft a nuanced strategy for reforming immigration policies and practices. The Task Force report argues that immigration is vital to the long-term prosperity and security of the United States. In the global competition to attract highly talented immigrants, the United States must ensure that it remains the destination of first choice. The report also finds that immigrants, who bring needed language and cultural skills, are an increasingly important asset for the U.S. armed forces. What is more, allowing people to come to this country to visit, study, or work is one of the surest means to build friendships with future generations of foreign leaders and to show America's best face to the world. Details: Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations, 2009. 165p. Source: Internet Resource: Independent Task Force Report No. 63: Accessed July 31, 2014 at: http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-policy/p20030 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-policy/p20030 Shelf Number: 132861 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Reform Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: Unaccompanied Alien Children - Legal Issues: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Summary: Recent reports about the increasing number of alien minors apprehended at the U.S. border without a parent or legal guardian have prompted numerous questions about so-called unaccompanied alien children (UACs). Some of these questions pertain to the numbers of children involved, their reasons for coming to the United States, and current and potential responses of the federal government and other entities to their arrival. Other questions concern the interpretation and interplay of various federal statutes and regulations, administrative and judicial decisions, and settlement agreements pertaining to alien minors. This report addresses the latter questions, providing general and relatively brief answers to 14 frequently asked questions regarding UACs. Some of the questions and answers in the report provide basic definitions and background information relevant to discussions of UACs, such as the legal definition of unaccompanied alien child; the difference between being a UAC and having Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status; the terms and enforcement of the Flores settlement agreement; and why UACs encountered at a port of entry-as some recent arrivals have been-are not turned away on the grounds that they are inadmissible. Other questions and answers explore which federal agencies have primary responsibility for maintaining custody of alien children without immigration status; removal proceedings against such children; the release of alien minors from federal custody; the "best interest of the child" standard; and whether UACs could obtain asylum due to gang violence in their home countries. Yet other questions and answers address whether UACs have a right to counsel at the government's expense; their ability under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to have consular officials of their home country notified of their detention; and whether UACs are eligible for inclusion in the Obama Administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: R43623: Accessed August 11, 2014 at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43623.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43623.pdf Shelf Number: 132989 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Undocumented Aliens Undocumented Children (U.S.)

Author: University of Nevada, Las Vegas. William S. Boyd School of Law, Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic, Immigration Clinic Title: The Conditions of Immigration Detention in Nevada: A Report on the Henderson Detention Center, November 19, 2013 Summary: The most recent statistics on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity show that ICE detained 429,247 individuals during the 2011 fiscal year. Compared to the number of immigrants detained in the last twenty years, this represents an enormous expansion of efforts to physically contain immigrants. Indeed, from 1995 to 2009, ICE expanded its daily detention capacity by 400%. During the same timeframe, ICE removals skyrocketed by more than 700%. In other words, ICE has paired a massive expansion of detention with a focus on aggressive efforts to carry out deportations. This sudden and unprecedented expansion of ICE's power and responsibility has placed immigrants in a particularly vulnerable position. Aggressive prosecution and expanded use of detention has simply added to the well-documented vulnerabilities that tend to characterize immigrants as a group. In the United States, immigrants are more likely than those born in the U.S. to lag behind in education, have trouble speaking English, and to be in or near poverty. Moreover, immigrants are less likely to report when they are the victims of criminal and civil violations. These attributes are exacerbated by the fact that most immigrants in detention do not have ready access to counsel because they are often detained some distance from their homes (and population centers generally), and the U.S. removal system does not provide indigent detainees with counsel. ICE's rapid and aggressive expansion of detention and removal, combined with the inherent vulnerabilities of the undocumented population, has led to grave concerns about the treatment of detained immigrants. As a result, ICE's Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) has audited correctional facilities where immigration detainees are housed.13 Yet these efforts have not resolved concerns about immigration detention. This report represents an effort to examine immigration detention conditions in Nevada and determine whether improvements have occurred at the Henderson Detention Center (HDC) since ODO performed its audit of HDC in 2011. Details: Las Vegas: Immigration Clinic, Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic, William S. Boyd School of Law, 2013. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2014 at: http://www.knpr.org/son/images/people/immigrationdetentionnevada.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.knpr.org/son/images/people/immigrationdetentionnevada.pdf Shelf Number: 131908 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (Nevada) Immigration Enforcement Undocumented Immigrants

Author: No More Deaths Title: A Culture of Cruelty: Abuse and Impunity in Short-Term U.S. Border Patrol Custody Summary: In 2006, in the midst of humanitarian work with people recently deported from the United States to Nogales, Sonora, No More Deaths began to document abuses endured by individuals in the custody of U.S. immigration authorities, and in particular the U.S. Border Patrol. In September 2008 No More Deaths published Crossing the Line in collaboration with partners in Naco and Agua Prieta, Sonora. The report included hundreds of individual accounts of Border Patrol abuse, as well as recommendations for clear, enforceable custody standards with community oversight to ensure compliance. Almost three years later, A Culture of Cruelty is a follow-up to that report-now with 12 times as many interviews detailing more than 30,000 incidents of abuse and mistreatment, newly obtained information on the Border Patrol's existing custody standards, and more specific recommendations to stop the abuse of individuals in Border Patrol custody. The abuses individuals report have remained alarmingly consistent for years, from interviewer to interviewer and across interview sites: individuals suffering severe dehydration are deprived of water; people with life-threatening medical conditions are denied treatment; children and adults are beaten during apprehensions and in custody; family members are separated, their belongings confiscated and not returned; many are crammed into cells and subjected to extreme temperatures, deprived of sleep, and threatened with death by Border Patrol agents. By this point, the overwhelming weight of the corroborated evidence should eliminate any doubt that Border Patrol abuse is widespread. Still the Border Patrol's consistent response has been flat denial, and calls for reform have been ignored. We have entitled our report "A Culture of Cruelty" because we believe our findings demonstrate that the abuse, neglect, and dehumanization of migrants is part of the institutional culture of the Border Patrol, reinforced by an absence of meaningful accountability mechanisms. This systemic abuse must be confronted aggressively at the institutional level, not denied or dismissed as a series of aberrational incidents attributable to a few rogue agents. Until then we can expect this culture of cruelty to continue to deprive individuals in Border Patrol custody of their most fundamental human rights. Details: Tucson, AZ: No More Deaths, 2010. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2014 at: http://www.nomoredeathsvolunteers.org/Print%20Resources/Abuse%20Doc%20Reports/Culture%20of%20Cruelty/CultureofCrueltyFinal.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.nomoredeathsvolunteers.org/Print%20Resources/Abuse%20Doc%20Reports/Culture%20of%20Cruelty/CultureofCrueltyFinal.pdf Shelf Number: 133123 Keywords: Border Patrol (U.S.) Border Security Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Prisoner Abuse Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Isacson, Adam Title: Mexico's Other Border: Security, Migration, and the Humanitarian Crisis at the Line with Central America Summary: Mexico's Other Border: Security, Migration, and the Humanitarian Crisis at the Line with Central America, which examines migration patterns, human trafficking and smuggling, security, and U.S. and Mexican policy at Mexico's southern border. With dozens of images, maps, statistics, and testimonies, the report not only explains what Mexico's "other border" looks like, it shows very clearly that the real humanitarian emergency is not just in shelters and detention facilities in south Texas - it runs along the entire migration route to the United States. Mexico's Other Border also outlines what is at stake for policymakers under pressure to "do something" about the current surge in migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Contrary to what some in Washington allege, lax U.S. border security is not to blame for this surge. (In fact, the number of security personnel on the U.S.-Mexico border has doubled in the past eight years.) WOLA found that Mexican authorities and migrant shelters alike have seen a sharp rise in migration from Central America, including the influx of families and unaccompanied children that authorities are now struggling to manage in south Texas and elsewhere on the U.S.-Mexico border. The report documents a modest but accelerating buildup of U.S.-funded security forces and infrastructure on both sides of the Mexico-Guatemala border. In a series of recommendations, authors Adam Isacson, Maureen Meyer, and Gabriela Morales call for an approach that can ease the humanitarian crisis facing Central American migrants in transit, without the risks of a large deployment of undertrained, uncoordinated, and unaccountable military, police, intelligence, and migration forces Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2014. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2014 at: http://www.wola.org/publications/mexicos_other_border Year: 2014 Country: Central America URL: http://www.wola.org/publications/mexicos_other_border Shelf Number: 133260 Keywords: Border Law Enforcement Border Security (U.S.) Drug Trafficking Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Immigration Smuggling

Author: Holper, Mary Title: Confronting Cops in Immigration Court Summary: Immigration judges routinely use police reports to make life-altering decisions in noncitizens' lives. The word of the police officer prevents a detainee from being released on bond, leads to negative discretionary decisions in relief from removal, and can prove that a past crime fits within a ground of removability. Yet the police officers who write these reports rarely step foot in immigration court; immigration judges rely on the hearsay document to make such critical decisions. This practice is especially troubling when the same police reports cannot be used against the noncitizen in a criminal case without the officer testifying, due to both the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and Federal Rules of Evidence, neither of which apply in immigration court. In these days of the increasing criminalization of immigration law and prioritization of deporting so-called "criminal aliens," the police report problem is salient, and impacts thousands of noncitizens every year. This article argues for a right to confront police officers in immigration court by examining three different ways to conceptualize removal proceedings: (1) in light of the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, deportation should be considered punishment, thus guaranteeing all of the protections of a criminal trial, including the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; (2) under the Mathews v. Eldridge case-by-case balancing test of the due process clause, courts should balance the interests at stake and adopt a right to confrontation and cross-examination of police officers in immigration court; and (3) if deportation is conceptualized as "quasi-criminal" and thus deserving of some, but not all, of the protections guaranteed at a criminal trial, one of those protections should be the right to confront one's accuser, especially when the accuser is a police officer. The scholarship has focused on why other rights guaranteed in a criminal trial - court-appointed counsel, freedom from ex post facto laws, freedom from double jeopardy, proportionality principles, and the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule - should apply to removal proceedings. An overlooked criminal protection is the right to confront one's accuser in immigration court. Details: Boston: Boston College - Law School, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 333 : Accessed September 11, 2014 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485328 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485328 Shelf Number: 133286 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Courts

Author: Bail for Immigration Detainees Title: Denial of Justice: the hidden use of UK prisons for immigration detention Summary: Being detained and losing one's liberty is bad enough when a person is held in an immigration removal centre, but immigration detention in a prison is unfair and unjust from the start. Detainees held in the prison estate suffer from multiple, systemic, and compounding barriers to accessing justice, with an often devastating effect on their ability to progress their immigration case, seek independent scrutiny of their ongoing detention from the courts and tribunals, and seek release from detention, as well as on their physical and mental wellbeing. This report describes these practical barriers, which include but are not limited to: - No automatic access to on-site immigration legal advice like that provided for detainees in IRCs. - The existence of financial disincentives to legal aid providers who wish to work with detainees in prisons under current Legal Aid Agency contracts. - Immigration detainees routinely held under serving prisoner regimes. - Prison regimes and restrictions that preclude the holding of mobile phones, adequate access to wing telephones during working hours, and a slow internal postal system in prisons, which delay and frustrate timely communication with legal advisers, the courts, and the Home Office. - Lack of internet access in prisons which hinders legal research for unrepresented detainees, and makes cooperation with the Home Office redocumentation process very difficult - Home Office escorting failures resulting in failure to produce detainees at bail hearings. - Time limited videolink connections to prisons. - Delays in receipt of Home Office bail summaries as a result of slow internal mail in prisons. - Loss of grants of Home Office Section 4 (1)(c ) bail accommodation as a result of production failures and listing delays, sometimes after several months waiting for a grant of a bail address. - Home Office failure to provide travel warrants enabling detainees held in prisons and produced in person at hearing centres to reach their Home Office Section 4(1)(c) bail address if granted bail. - Failure to fit electronic tags within the prescribed two working days resulting in extended detention in prison. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2014. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2014 at: http://www.biduk.org/162/bid-research-reports/bid-research-reports.html Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.biduk.org/162/bid-research-reports/bid-research-reports.html Shelf Number: 133519 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.K.) Immigration

Author: Passel, Jeffrey S. Title: As Growth Stalls, Unauthorized Immigrant Population Becomes More Settled Summary: The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has stabilized since the end of the Great Recession and shows no sign of rising, according to new Pew Research Center estimates. The marked slowdown in new arrivals means that those who remain are more likely to be long-term residents, and to live with their U.S.-born children. There were 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in March 2013, according to a preliminary Pew Research Center estimate, about the same as the 11.2 million in 2012 and unchanged since 2009. The population had risen briskly for decades before plunging during the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009. As growth of this group has stalled, there has been a recent sharp rise in the median length of time that unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. In 2013, according to a preliminary estimate, unauthorized immigrant adults had been in the U.S. for a median time of nearly 13 years - meaning that half had been in the country at least that long. A decade earlier, in 2003, the median for adults was less than eight years. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/09/2014-09-03_Unauthorized-Final.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/09/2014-09-03_Unauthorized-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 133535 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants (U.S.) Immigration Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Capps, Randy Title: Executive Action for Unauthorized Immigrants: Estimates of the Populations that Could Receive Relief Summary: In the absence of legislative movement to reform the U.S. immigration system, the Obama administration is considering executive action to provide relief from deportation to some of the nation's estimated 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants. These actions could include an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, extension of deferred action to new populations, or further refinement of enforcement priorities to shrink the pool of those subject to deportation. Using an innovative methodology to analyze the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data to determine unauthorized status, this issue brief examines scenarios for executive action publicly advanced by members of Congress immigrant-rights advocates, and others, providing estimates for DACA expansion or potential populations (such as spouses and parents of U.S. citizens) that might gain deferred action. Among the possible criteria for deferred action that MPI modeled are length of U.S. residence; close family ties to U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, or DACA beneficiaries; and/or potential eligibility for a green card as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen. The brief's key findings include: - Modifications to current DACA criteria could expand the eligible population by a few tens of thousands or as many as 1.9 million. For example, eliminating the current education requirement while retaining all other criteria would expand the population by about 430,000. - Looking beyond the DACA-eligible population, 3 million unauthorized immigrants had lived in the United States for 15 or more years as of 2012, 5.7 million for at least ten years, and 8.5 million for at least five years. - An estimated 3.8 million unauthorized immigrants were parents or spouses of U.S. citizens as of 2012. - 1.3 million unauthorized immigrants in 2012 had immediate-relative relationships with U.S. citizens that potentially qualify them for green cards, including 770,000 because of their marriage and 560,000 because they were parents of a U.S. citizen. Beyond deferred action, the Obama administration is said to be considering refinement of immigration enforcement priorities to limit the deportation of certain groups of unauthorized immigrants if they are apprehended by federal immigration authorities. While it is not possible to model future apprehensions and thus predict who might be affected by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement priorities, MPI analyzed 11 years of ICE removals data (for fiscal years 2003-13) to determine how changes to current enforcement priorities could have affected past deportations, assuming removals were strictly limited to priority cases. Among the findings: - Narrowing the definition of "recent illegal entrants" to those apprehended within one year of entering the U.S. (currently the definition is three years) would have reduced removals by 232,000 during 2003-13. - Excluding noncitizens convicted exclusively of traffic offenses (other than DUI) would have resulted in 206,000 fewer removals over the period. - Excluding all non-violent crimes would have reduced removals by 433,000. - Foregoing deportation of those with outstanding deportation orders more than a decade old would have resulted in 203,000 fewer removals. The brief makes clear that the reach of potential changes to expand the DACA program or refine immigration enforcement priorities would be even greater if multiple changes were to be implemented at the same time. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: MPI Issue Brief No. 10: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/executive-action-unauthorized-immigrants-estimates-populations-could-receive-relief Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/executive-action-unauthorized-immigrants-estimates-populations-could-receive-relief Shelf Number: 133550 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Unauthorized Immigrants

Author: American Immigration Council Title: Misplaced Priorities: Most Immigrants Deported by ICE in 2013 Were a Threat to No One Summary: No one can say with certainty when the Obama administration will reach the grim milestone of having deported two million people since the President took office in 2008. Regardless of the exact date this symbolic threshold is reached, however, it is important to keep in mind a much more important fact: most of the people being deported are not dangerous criminals. Despite claims by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that it prioritizes the apprehension of terrorists, violent criminals, and gang members, the agency's own deportation statistics do not bear this out. Rather, most of the individuals being swept up by ICE and dropped into the U.S. deportation machine committed relatively minor, non-violent crimes or have no criminal histories at all. Ironically, many of the immigrants being deported would likely have been able to remain in the country had the immigration reform legislation favored by the administration become law. ICE's skewed priorities are apparent from the agency's most recent deportation statistics, which cover Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. However, it takes a little digging to discern exactly what those statistics mean. The ICE report containing these numbers is filled with ominous yet cryptic references to "convicted criminals" who are "Level 1," "Level 2," or "Level 3" in terms of their priority. But when those terms are dissected and analyzed, it quickly becomes apparent that most of these "criminal aliens" are not exactly the "worst of the worst." Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, Immigration Policy Center, 2014. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/misplaced_priorities_march_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/misplaced_priorities_march_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 133553 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants (U.S.) Immigrants and Crime Immigration Policy Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Parker, Christina Title: For-Profit Family Detention: Meet the Private Prison Corporations Making Millions by Locking Up Refugee Families Summary: In this joint report by Grassroots Leadership and Justice Strategies, we review the history of charges of sexual abuse and neglect of children, indifference to medical needs, inadequate and unsanitary food, and brutal treatment by staff, levied in lawsuits, government investigations, and allegations by those held in family detention facilities operated by private, for-profit, prison corporations. These same corporations are now being contracted by the federal government to detain refugee families arriving at our southern border after fleeing the violence in Central America. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership; Brooklyn, NY: Justice Strategies, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/For%20Profit%20Family%20Detention%20Oct%202014_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/For%20Profit%20Family%20Detention%20Oct%202014_0.pdf Shelf Number: 133907 Keywords: Child Abuse and Neglect Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Children Immigrant Detention Prison Privatization (U.S.) Private Prisons Refugees

Author: Amnesty International Title: The human cost of Fortress Europe: Human rights violations against migrants and refugees at Europe's borders, Summary: Every year, thousands of migrants and refugees try to reach Europe. Some are fleeing grinding poverty; others are seeking refuge from violence and persecution. The response of the European Union (EU) and its member states has been to invest in surveillance technology, security forces and detention centres, both internally and in neighbouring countries, with one overriding aim: to construct an impenetrable fortress at Europe's borders to keep people out. Fixated on "protecting" borders, EU member states are employing drastic measures, some of which breach their human rights obligations and cause immense human suffering. At some EU borders, migrants and refugees are denied access to asylum procedures and pushed back into neigbouring countries, often in ways that put them at grave risk. They are ill-treated by border guards and coastguards and left stranded in neighbouring countries where there are serious human rights concerns. With safer routes to Europe being closed off through increased securitization, and in the absence of legal channels into the EU, migrants and refugees are attempting ever more hazardous routes. Thousands have died on the journey since 2000; many more are missing feared dead. This report describes some of the key elements of the EU's migration policy and how this policy plays out at the EU border where Bulgaria and Greece meet Turkey, one of the main routes used by Syrian refugees seeking safety in the EU. The report ends with recommendations calling on the EU and member states to review their migration policy urgently in order to shift its primary focus from protecting borders to protecting people. Details: London: AI, 2014. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR05/001/2014/en Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR05/001/2014/en Shelf Number: 133928 Keywords: Border Security (Europe) Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Migration Policy Refugees

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and Oversight of Facility Costs and Standards Summary: Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses two different methods to collect and assess data on detention costs; however, these methods do not provide ICE with complete data for managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. One method uses the agency's financial management system to estimate total detention costs per detainee per day for the purposes of developing ICE's annual detention budget request. However, ICE identified errors in the entry of data into this system and limitations in the system make it difficult for ICE to accurately record expenditures for individual facilities. ICE's other method involves the manual tracking of monthly costs by individual facilities for the purposes of reviewing data on individual facility costs. However, this method does not include data on all costs for individual facilities, such as for medical care and transportation, and such costs are not standardized within or across facility types. Thus, ICE does not have complete data for tracking and managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. ICE has taken some steps to strengthen its financial management system, such as implementing manual work-arounds to, among other things, better link financial transactions to individual facilities. However, ICE has not assessed the extent to which these manual work-arounds position ICE to better track and manage costs across facilities or facility types and the extent to which additional controls are needed to address limitations in its methods for collecting and assessing detention costs, in accordance with federal internal control standards. Conducting these assessments could better position ICE to have more reliable data for tracking and managing costs across facility types. GAO's analysis of ICE facility data showed that ICE primarily used three sets of detention standards, with the most recent and rigorous standards applied to 25 facilities housing about 54 percent of ICE's average daily population (ADP) as of January 2014. ICE plans to expand the use of these standards to 61 facilities housing 89 percent of total ADP by the end of fiscal year 2014; however, transition to these standards has been delayed by cost issues and contract negotiations and ICE does not have documentation for reasons why some facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards in accordance with internal control standards. Documenting such reasons could provide an institutional record and help increase transparency and accountability in ICE's management of detention facilities. GAO's analysis of ICE facility oversight programs showed that ICE applied more oversight mechanisms at facilities housing the majority of the ADP in fiscal year 2013. For example, 94 percent of detainees were housed in facilities that received an annual inspection. GAO's analysis of ICE's inspection reports showed that inspection results differed for 29 of 35 facilities inspected by both ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) in fiscal year 2013. ICE officials stated that ODO and ERO have not discussed differences in inspection results and whether oversight mechanisms are functioning as intended. Assessing the reasons why inspection results differ, in accordance with internal control standards, could help ICE better ensure that inspection mechanisms are working as intended. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-153: Accessed October 11, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666467.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666467.pdf Shelf Number: 133931 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention (U.S.) Immigrants Immigration Immigration Policy

Author: Roth, Charles Title: Order in the Court: Commonsense Solutions to Improve Efficiency and Fairness in the Immigration Court Summary: The immigration court system is in crisis. Immigration judges with insufficient resources are forced to cope with an enormous and increasing backlog. Bona fide asylum seekers and other noncitizens with viable claims wait years to have their cases heard, and the hearings often are rushed and flawed. With the recently launched "rocket dockets" expediting cases of Central American children, many hearings will be delayed further and grow even more rushed and flawed. But unlike the humanitarian crisis driving these children to seek safety in the United States or the crisis of long overdue comprehensive immigration reform, the procedural crisis of the immigration courts can be readily addressed. With basic procedural reforms, the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the immigration courts, can increase the system's efficiency and provide a higher quality of adjudication at little or no additional cost to taxpayers. These reforms would reduce unnecessary hearing continuances and help administrative court judges to make more deliberate and informed rulings, thereby avoiding costly federal appeals. These recommendations draw on exhaustive research of the immigration court and other court systems and on the experience of attorneys at Heartland Alliance's National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), who practice extensively in the immigration courts. The findings complement those of other recent reports on immigration adjudications by focusing on narrow improvements to the immigration court system that the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can implement without substantial additional resources. Details: Chicago: National Immigrant Justice Center, 2014. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Order%20in%20the%20Courts%20-%20Immigration%20Court%20Reform%20White%20Paper%20October%202014%20FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/Order%20in%20the%20Courts%20-%20Immigration%20Court%20Reform%20White%20Paper%20October%202014%20FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 133915 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Court Reform Illegal Immigrants Immigration Courts (U.S.) Immigration Policy Immigration Reform

Author: Human Rights Watch Title: "You Don't Have Rights Here". US Border Screening and Returns of Central Americans to Risk of Serious Harm Summary: In recent years, the United States has apprehended growing numbers of Central Americans crossing the US-Mexico border without authorization. These migrants have left their countries for many reasons, including fleeing rising violence by gangs involved in the drug trade. US Customs and Border Protection deports the overwhelming majority of migrants it apprehends from Central America in accelerated processes known as "expedited removal" or "reinstatement of removal." These processes include rapid-fire screening for a migrant's fear of persecution or torture upon return to their home country. "You Don't Have Rights Here" details how summary screening at the US border is failing to identify people fleeing serious risks to their lives and safety. It is based primarily on the accounts of migrants sent back to Honduras or in detention in US migrant detention facilities. An analysis of US government deportation data shows that the Border Patrol flags only a tiny minority of Central Americans for a more extended interview to determine if they have a "credible" fear of returning home. Migrants said that Border Patrol officers seemed singularly focused on deporting them and their families despite their fear of return. Some said that after their deportation they went into hiding, fearful for their lives. Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to ensure that immigration authorities give the cases of Central American migrants sufficient scrutiny before returning them to risk of serious harm. It also urges US authorities to stop detaining migrant children, and to improve migrants' access to lawyers. Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1014_web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Central America URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us1014_web.pdf Shelf Number: 133732 Keywords: Border Security Deportation Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement

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 Control Border Law Enforcement Border Security (Europe) Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigration Policy

Author: Thompson, Amy Title: A Child Alone and Without Papers: A report on the return and repatriation of unaccompanied undocumented children in the United States Summary: Every year, the United States apprehends tens of thousands of undocumented children under the age of 18 - many of whom travel to this country unaccompanied, without their parent or legal guardian. Some of these children come to the U.S. to flee violence or the sex trade, others poverty. The children's motivations are complex, their stories unique. Most of the unaccompanied undocumented children who come into custody are removed from the U.S. by federal authorities and repatriated to their country of origin. Repatriation, for the purposes of this report, begins at the point that the United States relinquishes physical custody of the child in his native country. Given the circumstances that lead to child migration and the inherent vulnerabilities of children, removal and repatriation can prove detrimental to the child when not carefully regulated. As such, it is essential that U.S. immigration policies and procedures recognize our child welfare standards, for both the good of the individual child and to preserve our core values regarding the treatment of all children. It is also essential for the United States to have clear, transparent, and consistent mechanisms for removal and repatriation in order to avoid undue risk to the child's safety and well-being. What really happens to the estimated 43,0001 unaccompanied undocumented children who are removed from the United States? And what is the effect of repatriation on these children? A Child Alone and Without Papers explores these issues via analyses of U.S., Mexican, and Honduran policies, interviews with 82 personnel from these countries, and interviews with 33 undocumented and unaccompanied Mexican and Honduran children. In Mexico, we interviewed eight girls and 18 boys, ranging from age seven to 17; in Honduras: seven boys, ranging from age 15 to 17. Mexico and Honduras were selected as they are the most common countries of origin for unaccompanied children and are representative of the two divergent systems for the removal of unaccompanied children: neighboring versus non-neighboring country systems. Details: Austin, TX: Center for Public Policy Priorities, 2008. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://forabettertexas.org/images/A_Child_Alone_and_Without_Papers.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://forabettertexas.org/images/A_Child_Alone_and_Without_Papers.pdf Shelf Number: 133875 Keywords: Child Protection Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Unaccompanied Children Undocumented Children (U.S.)

Author: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Title: Locking Up Family Values, Again Summary: 2009, the Obama Administration closed what then was the United States� largest family immigration detention facility after years of controversy, media exposure, and a lawsuit. Conditions at T. Don Hutto Family Detention Facility, and the impact of detention on families and children, proved that family detention could not be carried out humanely. In the summer of 2014, with an increase in the number of mothers and children fleeing violence and persecution in Central America, the Administration has returned to this widely discredited and costly practice. Part of a strategy to �stem the flow� through detention and expedited removal, the expansion of family detention continues even with a high percentage of families seeking protection and posing no flight or security risks. With the conversion of existing detention facilities and plans for an additional facility, the United States will soon have roughly 40 times as many family detention beds as there were in spring 2014. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) and the Women�s Refugee Commission (WRC), leading experts on the intersection of families and immigration, have collaborated to show the harm family detention causes and outline sensible alternatives. The findings in Locking Up Family Values, Again are informed by our tours of the Artesia and Karnes facilities as well as interviews with facility and government officials, detained families, and legal and social service providers. Much like in our 2007 report, Locking Up Family Values, our findings again illustrate that large-scale family detention results in egregious violations of our country�s obligations under international law, undercuts individual due process rights, and sets a poor example for the rest of the world. Locking Up Family Values, Again documents that most of the families detained � such as 98% at the Karnes facility based on September 2014 statistics � are seeking protection in the United States. The average age of children in the government�s Artesia facility as of October 2014 was six years old, and more than half of all children who entered family detention in Fiscal Year 2014 were six years or younger. Infants, pregnant women, and toddlers are detained at both locations. Families are detained on a �no bond, no release� policy. Thousands of women and children fleeing violence are at risk of permanent psychological trauma and return to persecution if these policies continue. In addition to inadequate access to child care, medical and mental health care, and legal assistance, we find that family detention remains as rife for abuse � especially given the vulnerability of this population � as we observed with Hutto. In October 2014, the Karnes facility was at the center of allegations of sexual assault by guards threatening or bribing detained women. In another example, a detained young mother at a family facility was suddenly accused of abuse, torn apart from her two small children and transferred to an adult facility without explanation or information on her children�s welfare or whereabouts. Our conclusion is simple: there is no way to humanely detain families. This report recommends that the government close Artesia and Karnes and halt plans for opening a new facility, improve its screening procedures, and revise its policy of no or high bonds for families. The report calls on the government to implement the vast array of cost-effective alternatives to detention that are successful in ensuring participants appear for scheduled court hearings. Details: Baltimore, MD: Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2014 at: http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LIRSWRC_LockingUpFamilyValuesAgain_Report_141030.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LIRSWRC_LockingUpFamilyValuesAgain_Report_141030.pdf Shelf Number: 133966 Keywords: Families Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants (U.S.) Immigration Policy

Author: Passel, Jeffrey S. Title: Unauthorized Immigrant Totals Rise in 7 States, Fall in 14 Summary: This report provides estimates of the 2012 unauthorized immigrant population and estimates of recent population trends in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It also estimates national and state-level shares of unauthorized immigrants in the overall population, foreign-born population and labor force, and the share of students in kindergarten through 12th grade with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent. The report also includes estimates of the birth countries and regions of unauthorized immigrants at the state and national levels. Accompanying this report are interactive maps showing unauthorized immigrant population size, as well as shares of the overall population, shares of the foreign-born population and shares of the labor force, in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Additional interactive maps show the share of elementary and secondary school students with at least one unauthorized parent, and the share of Mexicans among unauthorized immigrants, by state. Another map displays change for 2009 to 2012 in the unauthorized immigrant population at the state level. The estimates use the "residual method," a widely accepted and well-developed technique based on official government data. The data come mainly from the American Community Survey and March Supplement to the Current Population Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Details: Washington, DC: Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project, 2014. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/11/2014-11-18_unauthorized-immigration.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/11/2014-11-18_unauthorized-immigration.pdf Shelf Number: 134168 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration (U.S.) Undocumented Immigrants

Author: International Commission of Jurists Title: "Undocumented": Justice for Migrants in Italy: A mission report Summary: The objective of protecting human rights and upholding the rule of law in the context of migration has grown ever more challenging and in the face of burgeoning migration to the European Union (EU). In this regard, there is no doubt that Italy is now one of the most important gateways to the EU. In recent years, the central Mediterranean route has reclaimed its central role for migration travels to mainland EU countries, as appears clear from graph no. 1 comparing the number of transits through the different entry routes to the EU. The situation has been exacerbated in 2014, when, according to UNHCR, by 14 August 2014 the number of arrivals of migrants and asylum seekers had reached around 100,000 persons, more than double the total numbers of 2013 (see, graph no. 1). At least since 2008, the response of Italy to the increased numbers of migrant arrivals to its shores had been one of rejection, an approach best exemplified by the policy of push-backs on the high seas designed and implemented through the infamous 2008 Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation with Libya during the reign of Muammar Gadaffi. Pursuant to that treaty, the Italian authorities began a practice of push-backs to Libya that was ultimately condemned by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy as a violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion, of the principle of non-refoulement and of the right to an effective remedy. Recently, fortunately, the situation on the high seas seemed to have improved. On 18 October 2013, Italy unilaterally activated the operation Mare Nostrum, through which the Italian military navy and aviation, the Carabinieri, the Guardia di Finanza, the Police, coastguard and the military personnel of the Italian Red Cross have been patrolling the high seas, but this time in order to rescue migrants in distress and to bring them ashore on Italian territory. Although the conduct of this ongoing operation is outside the scope of this report, the ICJ welcomes the efforts of Italy to save lives in the Mediterranean Sea under operation Mare Nostrum. Nonetheless, this laudable effort has naturally strained Italy's resources more than in the past. At its meeting with representatives of the Directorates of Civil Liberties and Immigration and of Public Security of the Italian Ministry of Interior, the mission heard that, at the time of the visit, there were some 47,000 persons held in reception centres and that the overall reception capacity of the country was overstretched. Details: Geneva, SWIT: International Commission of Jurists, 2014. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 29, 2015 at: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5452554a4.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Italy URL: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5452554a4.pdf Shelf Number: 134493 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Migrants Migration (Italy) Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Seghetti, Lisa Title: Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry Summary: Border enforcement is a core element of the Department of Homeland Security's effort to control unauthorized migration, with the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) within the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as the lead agency along most of the border. Border enforcement has been an ongoing subject of congressional interest since the 1970s, when illegal immigration to the United States first registered as a serious national problem; and border security has received additional attention in the years since the terrorist attacks of 2001. Since the 1990s, migration control at the border has been guided by a strategy of "prevention through deterrence"-the idea that the concentration of personnel, infrastructure, and surveillance technology along heavily trafficked regions of the border will discourage unauthorized aliens from attempting to enter the United States. Since 2005, CBP has attempted to discourage repeat illegal migrant entries and disrupt migrant smuggling networks by imposing tougher penalties against certain unauthorized aliens, a set of policies eventually described as "enforcement with consequences." Most people apprehended at the Southwest border are now subject to "high consequence" enforcement outcomes. Across a variety of indicators, the United States has substantially expanded border enforcement resources over the last three decades. Particularly since 2001, such increases include border security appropriations, personnel, fencing and infrastructure, and surveillance technology. In addition to increased resources, the USBP has implemented several strategies over the past several decades in an attempt to thwart illegal migration. Recently, the Obama Administration announced executive actions to "fix" the immigration system. These actions address numerous issues, including a revised security plan at the southern border. The Border Patrol collects data on several different border enforcement outcomes; and this report describes trends in border apprehensions, recidivism, and estimated got aways and turn backs. Yet none of these existing data are designed to measure illegal border flows or the degree to which the border is secured. Thus, the report also describes methods for estimating illegal border flows based on enforcement data and migrant surveys. Drawing on multiple data sources, the report suggests conclusions about the state of border security. Robust investments at the border were not associated with reduced illegal inflows during the 1980s and 1990s, but a range of evidence suggests a substantial drop in illegal inflows in 2007-2011, followed by a slight rise in 2012 and a more dramatic rise in 2013. Enforcement, along with the economic downturn in the United States, likely contributed to the drop in unauthorized migration, though the precise share of the decline attributable to enforcement is unknown. Enhanced border enforcement also may have contributed to a number of secondary costs and benefits. To the extent that border enforcement successfully deters illegal entries, such enforcement may reduce border-area violence and migrant deaths, protect fragile border ecosystems, and improve the quality of life in border communities. But to the extent that aliens are not deterred, the concentration of enforcement resources on the border may increase border area violence and migrant deaths, encourage unauthorized migrants to find new ways to enter illegally and to remain in the United States for longer periods of time, damage border ecosystems, harm border-area businesses and the quality of life in border communities, and strain U.S. relations with Mexico and Canada. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2014. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: R42138: Accessed January 30, 2015 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42138.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42138.pdf Shelf Number: 134497 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security (U.S.) Illegal Immigrants Immigration Migration Surveillance Technology

Author: Hoatson, Lesley Title: Evaluating the impact of International Detention Coalition. Work towards ending and limiting unnecessary immigration detention and developing alternatives Summary: The IDC commissioned a comprehensive External Evaluation to consolidate key insights. Conducted by Lesley Hoatson, an accredited evaluator of NGO, UN and government programs, the evaluation looks at the impact of the IDC's work. It provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of advocacy outcomes as well as recommendations to strengthen the work of the IDC, following interviews with a wide range of members, funders, governments and stakeholders. Significantly the evaluation finds: - A broad range of stakeholders hold overwhelming support, respect and trust for the IDC - The IDC is seen as leading a community of practice that has moral authority and uses this political capital to move detention reform forward - The IDC has been a major contributor to the shift in the international debate towards alternatives to detention by offering leadership, technical expertise, groundbreaking research, capacity building and training - 90% of the 77 countries the IDC is working in now have NGOs advocating for alternatives to immigration detention, representing a 5 fold increase since 2009 - From this work has come changes to law, policy and practice and a significant number of people have either been released from detention Details: Melbourne: International Detention Coalition, 2014. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IDC-Evaluation-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IDC-Evaluation-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135220 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Asylum Seekers Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention

Author: Vaughan, Jessica M. Title: Catch and Release: Interior immigration enforcement in 2013 Summary: A review of internal ICE metrics for 2013 reveals that hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens who were identified in the interior of the country were released instead of removed under the administration's sweeping "prosecutorial discretion" guidelines. In 2013, ICE reported 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of whom came to their attention after incarceration for a local arrest. Yet ICE officials followed through with immigration charges for only 195,000 of these aliens, only about one-fourth. According to ICE personnel, the vast majority of these releases occurred because of current policies that shield most illegal aliens from enforcement, not because the aliens turned out to have legal status or were qualified to stay in the United States. Many of the aliens ignored by ICE were convicted criminals. In 2013, ICE agents released 68,000 aliens with criminal convictions, or 35 percent of all criminal aliens they reported encountering. The criminal alien releases typically occur without formal notice to local law enforcement agencies and victims. These findings raise further alarm over the Obama administration's pending review of deportation practices, which reportedly may further expand the administration's abuse of "prosecutorial discretion". Interior enforcement activity has already declined 40 percent since the imposition of "prosecutorial discretion" policies in 2011.1 Rather than accelerating this decline, there is an urgent need to review and reverse the public safety and fiscal harm cause by the president's policies. Key Findings - In 2013, ICE charged only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially deportable aliens they encountered. Most of these aliens came to ICE's attention after incarceration for a local arrest. - ICE released 68,000 criminal aliens in 2013, or 35 percent of the criminal aliens encountered by officers. The vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration's prosecutorial discretion policies, not because the aliens were not deportable. - ICE targeted 28 percent fewer aliens for deportation from the interior in 2013 than in 2012, despite sustained high numbers of encounters in the Criminal Alien and Secure Communities programs. - Every ICE field office but one reported a decline in interior enforcement activity, with the largest decline in the Atlanta field office, which covers Georgia and the Carolinas. - ICE reports that there are more than 870,000 aliens on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law. - Under current policies, an alien's family relationships, political considerations, attention from advocacy groups, and other factors not related to public safety can trump even serious criminal convictions and result in the termination of a deportation case. - Less than 2 percent of ICE's caseload was in detention at the end of fiscal year 2013. - About three-fourths of the aliens ICE detained in 2013 had criminal and/or immigration convictions so serious that the detention was required by statute. This suggests the need for more detention capacity, so ICE can avoid releasing so many deportable criminal aliens. Unless otherwise noted, the data for this report are from the 2013 fiscal year-end edition of ICE's "Weekly Departures and Detention Report" (WRD), which is prepared by the Information Resource Management Unit of ICE's Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).2 This report compiles a variety of ICE caseload statistics, including encounters, arrests, detention, and removal of aliens. The tables in this report use data taken directly from the WRD. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2014. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 29, 2015 at: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/vaughan-ice-3-14_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/vaughan-ice-3-14_0.pdf Shelf Number: 135405 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants and Crime Immigration (U.S.) Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Grassroots Leadership Title: The Dirty Thirty: Nothing to Celebrate About 30 Years of Corrections Corporation of America, Summary: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the nation's oldest and largest for-profit private prison corporation, is commemorating its 30th anniversary throughout 2013 with a series of birthday celebrations at its facilities around the country. Over the last 30 years, CCA has benefited from the dramatic rise in incarceration and detention in the United States. Since the company's founding in 1983, the incarcerated population has risen by more than 500 percent to more than 2.2 million people. Meanwhile, the number of people held in immigration detention centers has exploded from an average daily population of 131 people to over 32,000 people on any given day.[ CCA has made profits from, and at times contributed to, the expansion of tough-on-crime and anti-immigrant policies that have driven prison expansion. Now a multi-billion dollar corporation, CCA manages more than 65 correctional and detention facilities with a capacity of more than 90,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The company's revenue in 2012 exceeded more than $1.7 billion. While the company has become a multibillion dollar corporation, it has also become exceedingly controversial, with a record of prisoner abuse, poor pay and benefits to employees, scandals, escapes, riots, and lawsuits marking its history. Faith denominations, civil rights groups, criminal justice reform organizations, and immigrant rights advocates have repeatedly argued that adding the profit motive to the prison and immigrant detention systems provides perverse incentives to keep incarceration rates high. To mark the company's milestone anniversary, Grassroots Leadership and the Public Safety and Justice Campaign have sought to highlight why there is nothing to celebrate about 30 years of for-profit incarceration. This report highlights just some of the shameful incidents that litter CCA's history. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2013. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 30, 2015 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for_web.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/GRL_Dirty_Thirty_formatted_for_web.pdf Shelf Number: 135436 Keywords: Corrections Corporation of America Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Private Prisons (U.S.) Privatization

Author: Alpes, Maybritt Jill Title: Migration brokerage, illegality, and the state in Anglophone Cameroon Summary: Migration brokers are important participants within the increasingly commercialized policing of borders. Focusing on connections between migration brokers and state authorities, this paper asks how migration brokers relate to the realm of the law, as well as how the law relates to migration brokerage. By examining illegality only when it becomes visible to aspiring migrants and brokers within their context of departure, this paper demonstrates how state regulation is intimately intertwined with the emergence of migration brokerage. The argument of the paper provides a counter-point to studies of migration and illegality that often adopt an implicitly statist perspective by categorising brokers as either legal or illegal, as well as by framing brokers as agents that work 'against' the state. The paper is based on fourteen months of ethnographic fieldwork in Anglophone Cameroon between 2007 and 2010 and illuminates the work of two NGOs that engage in so-called 'travel consultations'. It contributes to on-going discussions within the 'Migration Industry and Markets for Migration Control Network'. Details: Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, 2013. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: DIIS Working Paper 2013:07: Accessed May 26, 2015 at: http://www.diis.dk/files/media/publications/import/extra/wp_2013_jill_alpes_web_1.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Cameroon URL: http://www.diis.dk/files/media/publications/import/extra/wp_2013_jill_alpes_web_1.pdf Shelf Number: 129735 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration

Author: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Title: Unlocking Human Dignity: A Plan to Transform the U.S. Immigrant Detention Systems Summary: The US immigrant detention system grew more than fivefold between 1994 and 2013. During these years, the average daily detained population rose from 6,785 to 34,260 (Figure 1). The number of persons detained annually increased from roughly 85,000 persons in 1995 to 440,557 in 2013 (Kerwin 1996, 1; Simansky 2014, 6). Since the beginning of the Obama administration's detention reform initiative in 2009, annual detention numbers have reached record levels (Figure 2). More persons pass through the U.S. immigrant detention system each year than through federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities (Meissner et al. 2013, 131). This growth has occurred in what may be the most troubled institution in the vast U.S. immigration enforcement system. The numbers only hint at the toll that this system exacts in despair, fractured families, human rights violations, abandoned legal claims, and diminished national prestige. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lacks the authority to imprison criminals and does not hold anybody awaiting trial or serving a criminal sentence. Congress and DHS use the anodyne language of "processing" and "detention" to describe this system. Yet each year DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) holds hundreds of thousands of non-citizens and the occasional U.S. citizen (Carcamo 2014), many for extended periods, in prisons, jails, and other secure facilities where their lives are governed by standards designed for criminal defendants. Detention brands immigrants as criminals in the public's eye and contributes to the sense that they deserve to be treated as such. In many respects, immigrant detainees are treated less favorably than criminal defendants. U.S. mandatory detention laws cover broad categories of non-citizens, including lawful permanent residents (LPRs), asylum-seekers, petty offenders, and persons with U.S. families and other strong and longstanding ties to the United States. Sixty percent of the unauthorized have resided in the United States for 10 years or more and 17 percent for at least 20 years (Warren and Kerwin 2015, 86-87, 99). Moreover, DHS has interpreted the laws to preclude the release of mandatory detainees, even release coupled with the most intensive restrictions and monitoring. By way of contrast, most criminal defendants receive custody hearings by judicial officers shortly after their apprehension and they can be released subject to conditions that will reasonably ensure their court appearance and protect the public. Detention is treated as a pillar of the U.S. immigration enforcement system akin to border control or removal, but in fact it is a means to an end that would be far better served by a more humane, less costly system. Its purpose is to ensure that non-citizens in removal proceedings appear for their hearings and, if they are removable and lack legal relief, that their removal can be effected. Detention is also justified as a tool to protect others, although this consideration is more relevant to the criminal justice system. In fact, there are tested, effective, and humane ways to accomplish these goals short of detention. Supervised or conditional release programs have long been a mainstay of the criminal justice system, but have only recently begun to gain traction in the immigration context. Moreover, detention makes it far less likely that indigent and low-income immigrants will be able to secure legal counsel and, thus, to present their claims for relief and protection. Details: Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2015 at: http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/upload/unlocking-human-dignity.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-and-refugee-services/upload/unlocking-human-dignity.pdf Shelf Number: 135887 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Immigration Policy Undocumented Immigrants

Author: United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Title: Unaccompanied Alien Children: Actions Needed to Ensure Children Receive Required Care in DHS Custody Summary: From fiscal years 2009 through 2014, DHS apprehended more than 200,000 UAC, and the number of UAC apprehended in fiscal year 2014 (about 74,000) was more than four times larger than that for fiscal year 2011 (about 17,000). On the journey to the United States, many UAC have traveled thousands of miles under dangerous conditions. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 included a provision for GAO to, among other things, review how DHS cares for UAC. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which DHS has developed policies and procedures to (1) screen all UAC as required and (2) care for all UAC as required. GAO reviewed TVPRA and other legal requirements, DHS policies for screening and caring for UAC, fiscal year 2009 through 2014 apprehension data on UAC, and 2014 Border Patrol UAC care data. GAO also randomly sampled and analyzed case files of Mexican UAC whom Border Patrol apprehended in fiscal year 2014. GAO interviewed DHS and HHS officials in Washington, D.C., and at Border Patrol and OFO facilities in Arizona, California, and Texas selected on the basis of UAC apprehension data. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DHS, among other things, provide guidance on how agents and officers are to apply UAC screening criteria, ensure that screening decisions are documented, develop processes to record reliable data on UAC care, and document the interagency process to transfer UAC from DHS to HHS. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-521: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://gao.gov/assets/680/671393.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://gao.gov/assets/680/671393.pdf Shelf Number: 136062 Keywords: Child Protection Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigrant Detention Unaccompanied Alien Children

Author: Flynn, Matthew Title: Bureaucratic Capitalism and the Immigration Detention Complex Summary: The work of post-structuralist political philosopher Giorgio Agamben (1998,2005) has had a major influence on the study of immigration detention in Europe and elsewhere. In particular, his concepts homo sacer ("bare life") and "zones of exemption" depict the growth of immigration detention practices as an expression of sovereign power through inclusive exclusion. In other words, states demonstrate their power to confer rights upon their citizens by denying those rights to others. This paper argues that post-structuralist approaches to the study of immigration detention present a number of theoretical and conceptual problems. Post-structuralist analyses focusing on discourses divorced from actors present teleological problems in terms of theory. Additionally, poststructural accounts of detention centres using concepts such as homo sacer and Banoptican (see Bigo 2007) tend to conflate human rights and citizenship rights, which does not hold up empirically because many asylum seekers and irregular migrants still have access to legal redress. In contrast to post-structural accounts, the notion of "bureaucratic capitalism" developed by sociologist Gideon Sjoberg (1999) provides an analytical framework that is both critical and non-deterministic in explaining the motives of many actors involved in detention regimes. Specifically, immigration detention can be explained by employing conceptual frameworks used to assess the corporate-state nexus; human agency; rationalization processes like specialization and division of labour; hierarchy, responsibility, and blameability; and secrecy systems. Sjoberg's meso-level theory provides critical insights into detention regimes in the United States and Europe as well as the role of private- and public-sector interests seeking rents. Moreover, focusing on the organization of detention helps reveal the causes of human rights violations as well as their possible redress Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2015. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 9: Accessed July 15, 2015 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Matt_Flynn_GDP_Paper_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Matt_Flynn_GDP_Paper_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136065 Keywords: Human Rights Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Undocumented Citizens

Author: Garcia, Michael John Title: State and Local "Sanctuary" Policies Limiting Participation in Immigration Enforcement Summary: While the power to prescribe rules as to which aliens may enter the United States and which aliens may be removed resides solely with the federal government, the impact of alien migration-whether lawful or unlawful-is arguably felt most directly in the communities where aliens settle. State and local responses to unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions have varied considerably, particularly as to the role that state and local police should play in enforcing federal immigration law. Some states, cities, and other municipalities have sought to play an active role in immigration enforcement efforts. However, others have been unwilling to assist the federal government in enforcing measures that distinguish between residents with legal immigration status and those who lack authorization under federal law to be present in the United States. In some circumstances, these jurisdictions have actively opposed federal immigration authorities' efforts to identity and remove certain unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions. Although state and local restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts have existed for decades, there has reportedly been an upswing in the adoption of these measures in recent years. Moreover, the nature of these restrictions has evolved over time, particularly in response to recent federal immigration enforcement initiatives like Secure Communities (subsequently replaced by the Priority Enforcement Program), which enable federal authorities to more easily identify removable aliens in state or local custody. Entities that have adopted such policies are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary" jurisdictions, though there is not necessarily a consensus as to the meaning of this term or its application to a particular state or locality. Recent reports that an alien who shot and killed a woman, after being released by San Francisco authorities who had declined to honor an immigration detainer issued by federal authorities, have brought increased attention to state and local practices of declining to honor such detainers, as well as "sanctuary" policies more generally. This report discusses legal issues related to state and local measures that limit law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The report begins by providing a brief overview of the constitutional principles informing the relationship between federal immigration authorities and state and local jurisdictions, including the federal government's power to preempt state and local activities under the Supremacy Clause, and the Tenth Amendment's proscription against Congress directly "commandeering" the states to administer a federally enacted regulatory scheme. The report then discusses various types of measures adopted or considered by states and localities to limit their participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts, including (1) limiting police investigations into the immigration status of persons with whom they come in contact; (2) declining to honor federal immigration authorities' requests that certain aliens be held until those authorities may assume custody; (3) shielding certain unlawfully present aliens from detection by federal immigration authorities; and (4) amending or applying state criminal laws so as to reduce or eliminate the immigration consequences that might result from an alien's criminal conviction. For discussion of legal issues raised by states and localities seeking to play an active role in enforcing federal immigration law, see CRS Report R41423, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law, by Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: R43457: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43457.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43457.pdf Shelf Number: 136136 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Immigration Enforcement

Author: Rosenblum, Marc R. Title: Understanding the Potential Impact of Executive Action on Immigration Enforcement Summary: While much of the attention to the Obama administration's announcement of executive actions on immigration in November 2014 has focused on key deferred action programs, two changes that have not faced legal challenge are in the process of being implemented and may substantially affect the U.S. immigration enforcement system. These changes include the adoption by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of new policy guidance on which categories of unauthorized immigrants and other potentially removable noncitizens are priorities for enforcement, and the replacement of the controversial Secure Communities information-sharing program with a new, more tailored Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). The new policy guidance, which builds on previous memoranda published by the Obama administration in 2010 and 2011, further targets enforcement to noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes, are threats to public safety, are recent illegal entrants, or have violated recent deportation orders. MPI estimates that about 13 percent of unauthorized immigrants in the United States would be considered enforcement priorities under these policies, compared to 27 percent under the 2010-11 enforcement guidelines. The net effect of this new guidance will likely be a reduction in deportations from within the interior of the United States as DHS detention and deportation resources are increasingly allocated to more explicitly defined priorities. By comparing the new enforcement priorities to earlier DHS removal data, this report estimates that the 2014 policy guidance, if strictly adhered to, is likely to reduce deportations from within the United States by about 25,000 cases annually - bringing interior removals below the 100,000 mark. Removals at the U.S.-Mexico border remain a top priority under the 2014 guidelines, so falling interior removals may be offset to some extent by increases at the border. Taking the enforcement focus off settled unauthorized immigrants who do not meet the November 2014 enforcement priorities would effectively offer a degree of protection to the vast majority - 87 percent - of unauthorized immigrants now residing in the United States, thus affecting a substantially larger share of this population than the announced deferred action programs (9.6 million compared to as many as 5.2 million unauthorized immigrants). This report analyzes how many unauthorized immigrants fall within each of the new priority categories and how implementation of these priorities could affect the number of deportations from the United States, as well as what the termination of Secure Communities and launch of PEP could mean for federal cooperation with state and local authorities on immigration. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/understanding-potential-impact-executive-action-immigration-enforcement Shelf Number: 136235 Keywords: Criminal Aliens Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigration Immigration Enforcement Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Ewing, Walter A. Title: The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States Summary: For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime: immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education. In other words, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not "criminals" by any commonly accepted definition of the term. For this reason, harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime. Unfortunately, immigration policy is frequently shaped more by fear and stereotype than by empirical evidence. As a result, immigrants have the stigma of "criminality" ascribed to them by an ever-evolving assortment of laws and immigration-enforcement mechanisms. Put differently, immigrants are being defined more and more as threats. Whole new classes of "felonies" have been created which apply only to immigrants, deportation has become a punishment for even minor offenses, and policies aimed at trying to end unauthorized immigration have been made more punitive rather than more rational and practical. In short, immigrants themselves are being criminalized. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Report: Accessed August 3, 2015 at: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_criminalization_of_immigration_in_the_united_states_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_criminalization_of_immigration_in_the_united_states_final.pdf Shelf Number: 136285 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Slack, Jeremy Title: Border Militarization and Health: Violence, Death and Security in Mexico and the United States Summary: Despite proposed increases in spending on personnel and equipment for border enforcement tied to the amended version of the U.S. Senate's current immigration reform bill, the public health impacts of border militarization are relatively under-examined. We begin to explore these health impacts by drawing on the Migrant Border Crossing Study (MBCS) a new data source based on 1,110 surveys of a random sample of deportees we carried out with a bi-national team in five Mexican border cities and in Mexico City. The violence generated by current border and immigration enforcement practices has led to a humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border. We specifically examine the risks and dangers associated with contemporary border crossing experiences, migrant deaths in the desert, abuses committed by U.S. authorities involved in immigration enforcement, and migrants' conditions while in U.S. custody, including access to medical attention. The paper also draws from research with families of migrants in Puebla to expand our understandings of the health impacts of migration that extend beyond people impacted directly by U.S. policies to include their families and return migrants' experiences. We end this paper with suggestions about how to address negative health impacts through policy changes. Details: Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Center for Latin American Studies, 2014. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 14, 2015 at: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=scott_whiteford Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=scott_whiteford Shelf Number: 136420 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Migrant Deaths

Author: Global Detention Project Title: A Survey of Private Contractor Involvement in U.S. Facilities Used to Confine People for Immigration-related Reasons Summary: The private prison industry in the United States has grown significantly during the last several decades and along with it there has been an apparent increase in the outsourcing of services at facilities used for immigration detention purposes. However, while much has been written about private ownership and management of detention facilities, the phenomenon of non-state-actor involvement in immigration detention extends beyond these activities. For instance, while private contractors are responsible for overall management of some two dozen immigration-related detention facilities in the United States, this report demonstrates that private contractors provide a range additional services at nearly 100 prisons, shelters, and detention centers across the United States that have been used to hold migrants and asylum seekers. Part of the difficulty in investigating this phenomenon is that the U.S. immigration detention estate is massive (involving several hundred facilities) and employs numerous types of institutions, from local jails and federal prisons to juvenile detention centers and dedicated immigration detention centers. Thus, to accurately document the extent of non-state-actor involvement in the U.S. immigration detention regime it is necessary to look at all these different types of facilities and assess the role played by different actors in them. This survey represents an initial, modest attempt to begin to fill some of the gaps in our understanding of this phenomenon. The information included in the following charts has been compiled based on an extensive search of available websites provided by facilities in the United States that have been used for the purpose of migration detention or by service providers active in those facilities. Based solely on this review of online information, the Global Detention Project was able to determine that of the hundreds of facilities that have been used in recent years to hold immigration detainees, no less than 83 explicitly mention on their websites some form of privatization. In addition, of the two dozen dedicated immigration facilities, all but one report outsourcing services to private contractors. The most common form of private involvement in these facilities is management. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), one of the largest private prison companies, manages seven of the 24 dedicated facilities. However, private companies offer a range of other services at detention sites and a narrow focus on specialized immigration facilities fails to capture the full range of involvement of non-state entities in migration-related detention. In fact, one of the more notable outcomes of this limited research project has been to demonstrate the multifaceted nature of the outsourcing of responsibilities at U.S. detention centers. Private actors provide food services, security, healthcare, among a host of other services. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2012. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 20, 2015 at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/Survey_of_US_contractors_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/Survey_of_US_contractors_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 136511 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Private Prisons Privatization

Author: Collins, Jock Title: Immigrant Crime in Europe and Australia: Rational or Racialised Responses? Summary: In Australia and the European Union today there is a very negative immigration discourse linked to the (alleged) criminality of immigrant minorities - particularly those from Asia and the Middle East - and the existence of ethnic criminal gangs. The issue of immigrant crime - linked to the issue of undocumented migrants and refugees - is driving much of the political agenda in Australia and Europe. This paper first reviews the recent European and Australian experience of immigrant crime and the politicisation and racialisation of the immigrant crime issue. It then draws on the findings from a two-year research project into Youth, Ethnicity and Crime in Sydney - funded by the Australian Research Council, the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and 25 industry partners, including 10 local government authorities and 10 ethnic community organizations in Sydney - to explore the myths and realities of immigrant crime in Sydney, including gender dimensions. The paper then critically analyses media portrayals of such crime and investigates appropriate policy responses at federal, provincial and local government level. Finally, the implications of the immigrant crime debate for immigration and settlement policies in Australia and Europe are discussed. Details: Paper presented to conference entitled The Challenges of Immigration and Integration in the European Union and Australia, 18-20 February 2003, University of Sydney. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2015 at: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41423/3/collins_paper.pdf Year: 2003 Country: Australia URL: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41423/3/collins_paper.pdf Shelf Number: 136527 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigrants and Crime Undocumented Citizens

Author: Johnson, Kevin R. Title: Race-Based Law Enforcement: The Racially Disparate Impacts of Crimmigration Law Summary: This Essay was prepared for the Case Western Law Review's symposium on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). Racially-charged encounters with the police regularly make the national news. Local law enforcement officers also have at various times victimized immigrants of color. For example, New York City Department (NYPD) officers in 1999 killed Amadou Diallo, an unarmed immigrant from Guinea, in a hail of gunfire; two years earlier, officers had tortured Haitian immigrant Abner Louima at a NYPD police station. Both victims were Black, which no doubt contributed to the violence. In less spectacular fashion, police on the beat by many accounts regularly engage in racial profiling in traffic stops of U.S. citizens and noncitizens of color. Removals of "criminal aliens" have been the cornerstone of the Obama administration's immigration enforcement strategy. Well-publicized increases in the number of removals of immigrants also have been the centerpiece of President Obama's political efforts to persuade Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package. The hope behind the aggressive enforcement strategy has been to convince Congress that this is the time to enact comprehensive immigration reform. In the last few years, a body of what has been denominated "crimmigration" scholarship has emerged that critically examines the growing confluence of the criminal justice system and the immigration removal machinery in the United States. That body of work tends to direct attention to the unfairness to immigrants, as well as their families, of the increasing criminalization of immigration law and its enforcement. This Essay agrees with the general thrust of the crimmigration criticism, but contends that it does not go far enough. Namely, the emerging scholarship in this genre fails to critically assess the dominant role that race plays in modern law enforcement and how its racial impacts are exacerbated by the operation of a federal immigration removal process that consciously targets "criminal aliens." Part I of this Essay considers parallel developments in the law: (1) the Supreme Court's implicit sanctioning of race-conscious law enforcement in the United States, with the centerpiece of this symposium, Whren v. United States, the most well-known example; and (2) the trend over at least the last twenty years toward increased cooperation between state and local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. Part II specifically demonstrates how criminal prosecutions influenced by police reliance on race necessarily lead to the racially disparate removal rates experienced in the modern United States. Part III discusses how some state and local governments have pushed back on cooperation with federal immigration authorities, with effective community police practices being an important policy rationale invoked by local law enforcement for that resistance. Part III of this Essay further contends that more attention should be paid to the racially disparate impacts of linking immigration removals to the outcomes of a racially-tainted criminal justice system. It further sketches some modest reforms to the U.S. immigration laws that might tend to blunt, rather than magnify, some of these racial impacts. Details: Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, School of Law, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 437: Accessed August 25, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2640755 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2640755 Shelf Number: 136571 Keywords: Crimmigration Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Reform Racial Disparities Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement

Author: International Detention Coalition Title: Does Detention Deter? Summary: This briefing paper reviews the international research literature on the effectiveness of border control policies - particularly immigration detention - in reducing irregular migration. The brief argues that detention is not only ineffective at reducing irregular migration to desired levels, but also weakens other migration management outcomes such as case resolution, departure for refused cases and integration for approved cases. Given these weaknesses, governments would be better placed prioritizing alternatives to detention. The brief further shows policy development and targeted resource allocation could improve the prospects of migrants by increasing avenues for legal migration and improving life chances in countries of origin and transit. The brief shows destination countries must consider big picture, multi-layered responses to address root causes of irregular movement and reduce the pressures on migrants to undertake risky journeys in an irregular manner. Details: Melbourne: International Detention Coalitions, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: http://idcoalition.org/detentiondatabase/does-detention-deter/ Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://idcoalition.org/detentiondatabase/does-detention-deter/ Shelf Number: 136615 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Migrants

Author: American Bar Association. Commission on Immigration Title: Family Immigration Detention: Why the Past Cannot Be Prologue Summary: The report, developed by the ABA Commission on Immigration with the assistance of the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, focuses on the government's response to the 2014 influx in arrivals of Central American mothers with young children to the southwestern U.S. border. It finds that the government's buildup of family detention centers �and the practice of detaining families in jail-like settings are at odds with the presumption of liberty and impinge on the families' due process right to legal counsel. The report urges the government and the Department of Homeland Security to anticipate and prepare for periodic increases in the migration of individuals and families seeking asylum without resorting to detention. The report also recommends several specific reforms, including: - releasing families held in detention facilities; - adopting a policy of dealing with families seeking asylum within the community instead of through detention; - employing the least restrictive means of ensuring appearance at hearings and protection of the community; - developing standards for families and children that do not follow a penal model; and - ensuring access to legal information and representation for all families subjected to detention at every stage of their immigration proceedings Details: Chicago: American Bar Association, 2015. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/commission_on_immigration/FINAL%20ABA%20Family%20Detention%20Report%208-19-15.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/commission_on_immigration/FINAL%20ABA%20Family%20Detention%20Report%208-19-15.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 136708 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Human Rights First Title: U.S. Detention of Families Seeking Asylum: A One-Year Update Summary: On June 20, 2014-ironically, on World Refugee Day-the Obama administration announced its strategy for addressing the increase in families and children seeking protection at the U.S. southern border. Part of this plan: detain and quickly deport families from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala in an attempt to deter more from coming. At the time, U.S. immigration authorities had fewer than 100 beds for detaining families with children, all in one facility in Pennsylvania. They quickly increased that number-first by using a makeshift facility in Artesia, New Mexico, then by converting a facility in Karnes County, Texas, and more recently, by opening a large facility in Dilley, Texas to hold up to 2,400 children and their mothers. All told, the administration's plans would increase family detention by 3,800 percent to 3,700 detention beds for children and their parents. One year later, as World Refugee Day 2015 approaches, the Obama Administration continues to send many mothers and children who fled persecution and violence in Central America into U.S. immigration detention. About five thousand children and mothers have been held in U.S. immigration detention since June 2014. Some have been held for nearly a year, and as of April 25, 2015, nearly one-third has spent more than two months in U.S. detention facilities. More than half of the children held in fiscal year 2014 were very young, from newborns to 6-year-olds. The mothers and children held at these facilities face an array of obstacles, from a lack of access to counsel to the day-to-day trauma of detention. Medical and mental health experts report that detention damages the mental health of children, causing depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidal behavior. Medical professionals who have interviewed these mothers confirm that detention is harming their mental health, and several have reportedly attempted suicide. Many of the women are survivors of violence who are already suffering from the effects of prior traumas. At the 2,400-bed Dilley facility, mothers have reported that their and their children's sleep is disrupted each night as officers come into their rooms each hour, shining flashlights and pulling blankets off faces to "count" each person. Beyond the human cost, immigration detention is extremely expensive. In addition to the over $2 billion Congress spends each year on immigration detention (even mandating that the agency maintain 34,000 beds regardless of need), the administration requested, and in March Congress appropriated, an additional $345.3 million to fund a sharp increase in the number of mothers and children held in detention. Family detention costs, on average, $1,029 per day for a family of three. By contrast, community-based supervision or other alternatives to detention cost much less, from 17 cents to $17 dollars a day in some cases. U.S. detention policies and practices relating to asylum seekers violate the nation's obligations under human rights and refugee protection conventions. While the administration has characterized these women and children as "illegal" border crossers, seeking asylum is not an "illegal" act. In fact, the United States has a legal obligation to protect those seeking asylum, one rooted in conventions the United States helped draft in the wake of World War II. Many of these mothers and children are indeed refugees entitled to protection under our laws and treaty commitments. Earlier this year, 87.9 percent passed initial credible fear screening interviews, indicating that they have a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum. When represented by quality pro bono counsel, many are able to prove their eligibility for asylum or other relief. For instance, about 77 percent of those represented by pro bono attorneys through the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) have been determined by U.S. immigration judges to be "refugees" entitled to asylum or other protection. Details: New York: Human Rights First, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-one-yr-family-detention-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-one-yr-family-detention-report.pdf Shelf Number: 136788 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Soni, Saket Title: The Criminal Alien Removal Initiative in New Orleans: The Obama Administration's Brutal New Frontier in Immigration Enforcement Summary: As 2013 draws to a close, members of Congress are home for the holidays without having passed immigration reform. Meanwhile, immigrants across the United States continue to live under siege. The Obama Administration continues to deport immigrants at the blistering rate of 1,100 a day, separating people from their families and uprooting them from their communities. At the current rate, 20,900 more will be deported by the time Congress returns on January 7. By this time next year, 401,500 more will be deported. Immigrants in New Orleans are already facing the new frontier of immigration enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New Orleans is piloting a brutal program of race-based community raids that will become the new normal all across the country - unless we stop it. The program, called the Criminal Alien Removal Initiative (CARI), involves indiscriminate community raids at apartment complexes, grocery stores, laundromats, Bible study groups, and parks based purely on racial profiling. Often working with local law enforcement, New Orleans ICE arrests people who appear Latino and uses high-tech mobile biometric devices, first created for U.S. military use in Iraq and Afghanistan, to conduct immediate biometric record checks. Most people are handcuffed before the fingerprinting begins, and based on the results, many are immediately separated from their families and transported to ICE detention centers for deportation. Details: New Orleans, LA: New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, 2013. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015: http://nowcrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/CARI-report-final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://nowcrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/CARI-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 131799 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre Summary: Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire held 354 detainees at the time of this inspection. Most of those held were single women but the centre also held a small number of adult families and there was a short-term holding facility for single men. The centre has been controversial since it opened in 2001 and in recent months it has been the subject of new allegations about the treatment of women held there and the conduct of staff. We last inspected the centre in June 2013 and at that time concluded that the centre was improving, although significant concerns remained and for the most vulnerable women we found the decision to detain was much too casual. This inspection found that in some important areas the treatment and conditions of those held at the centre had deteriorated significantly, the main concerns we had in 2013 had not been resolved and there was greater evidence of the distress caused to vulnerable women by their detention. We did not find evidence of a widespread abusive or hostile culture among staff - although there were some matters of concern. Women told us about, and we observed, positive attempts by staff to ameliorate the impact of detention for those in their care, although staff numbers and training gaps limited what they could do. We made some adjustments to our normal inspection methodology for this inspection. We amended our inspection criteria to reflect our new expectations for women's prisons, which incorporate the requirements of the UN 'Bangkok Rules' for the treatment of women prisoners. In addition to our normal confidential detainee survey, we asked specific survey questions to address particular issues of concern, such as inappropriate sexual behaviour. We also offered every woman in Yarl's Wood a confidential interview with a female inspector, using interpretation where necessary, and carried out confidential interviews with a sample of staff. We interviewed 92 women detainees in Yarl's Wood and a further eight who had recently been released, as well as 39 staff. The inspection was conducted over three weeks and included intelligence gathered from a variety of voluntary and community groups. Yarl's Wood is a complex and challenging place to manage and in which to work - and had become more so since the last inspection. About 12% of detainees were ex-prisoners, an increase since the previous inspection. Many women told us harrowing stories about their histories of abuse, rape, trafficking and other victimisation. At best, they were distressed and anxious about their detention and the uncertainty surrounding their possible deportation. In our survey, a disturbing 54% of the women held told us they felt depressed or suicidal when they first arrived. A new contract with reduced staffing levels was being introduced as the inspection took place and we were concerned that staffing levels were insufficient. We found that many women were relieved to have someone to listen to them while they described, in often distressing detail, what had happened to them in the past and their anxieties about the future. Staff rarely had time to do this and there was no counselling service. On top of all this, the allegations that had been made about the centre had clearly shocked staff and lowered morale, and both staff and detainees told us about a loss of mutual trust that had occurred since recent news reports. The needs of the men held on the Bunting Unit, the short-term holding facility, needed close attention in their own right. Most of the men had been detained after being found in or disembarking from lorries. Most had endured hazardous and arduous journeys and were grateful for the good care they received in Yarl's Wood. The unit was decent and clean, staff were professional and most of the men only stayed a few days. The experience of the women held was less positive. Forty-five per cent said they felt unsafe at the centre. They told us their fears arose from the uncertainty of their status in the country, a poor introduction to the centre, very poor health care and having too few visible staff on the units. Many women said that past histories of abuse affected their current feelings. The number of violent incidents had increased, albeit from a low base, and both staff and detainees thought the increase was due to the higher number of former prisoners and women with serious mental health problems. In both surveys and interviews, we asked current detainees, former detainees and staff about sexually inappropriate behaviour between staff and detainees. In our confidential survey, four women reported instances of sexually inappropriate comments from staff, one woman reported sexual contact from staff, and one reported comments, contact and abuse. None of these responses gave further details of the incidents concerned. In our interviews, no women said they were aware of staff involved in any illegal activity or sexual abuse of detainees. Three women were aware of an incident some years previously when a detainee became pregnant by an officer. Staff were emphatic they had not witnessed any rogue behaviour by colleagues and would report it if they did. Nevertheless, the whistle-blowing procedure was not sufficiently clear and some staff were not confident about using it. We did not find evidence of widespread abuse in the centre but the vulnerability of the women held, the closed nature of the institution and the power imbalance between the staff and detainees - common to any prison - made individual instances an ever-present risk. Constant vigilance was required to protect women from this risk. Given the very vulnerable and anxious state in which so many women arrived at the centre, early days processes were weak. An unacceptable 38% of detainees (excluding the Bunting unit) arrived at the centre between 10pm and 6am. The reception area was welcoming but the process took too long. Health care screening, which involved asking intimate questions, was sometimes carried out by a male nurse. Not all women received an induction briefing and the briefing did not contain all that women needed to know. Detainee 'greeters' provided positive support to most new arrivals. Levels of self-harm were high but a small number of women accounted for a significant proportion of the incidents. Women on assessment, care in detention and teamwork (ACDT - casework management for detainees at risk of suicide or self-harm) praised the support they received from staff, but other forms of support, such as links with the Samaritans, peer support and counseling were absent. Constant supervision was used for women in the most acute crisis but the use of male staff to do this when women were sleeping was inappropriate. Two detainees had died from natural causes since the last inspection, one of these during this inspection. Security was generally thoughtful and proportionate and some of the most intrusive elements of physical security had been removed. Most use of force was well managed, but we were very concerned about one incident in which an officer appeared to use excessive force. He was rightly suspended. The amount of separation had increased since the last inspection. Some but not all of this could be explained by the difficulties in managing ex-prisoners and women with acute mental health needs. The separation unit was not an appropriate therapeutic environment for women who were eventually transferred to a secure hospital and work to develop a care suite was welcome. Immediate physical safety issues were much less a concern for the women held than uncertainty about their immigration cases and the length of detention. We were particularly concerned about the length of time some women were detained and the detention of the most vulnerable women without clear reason. In the six months prior to the inspection, more than double the number of women who were removed (443) were released back into the community (894), which raises questions about the validity of their detention in the first place. A few detainees were held for very long periods. At the time of the inspection, 15 detainees had been held for between six months and a year and four for more than a year. The longest had been held for 17 months. The Home Office's own policy states pregnant women should not normally be detained, but 99 had been held in 2014. Only nine of these women had eventually been removed from the UK. Rule 35 reports should protect detainees who have been tortured or who are extremely vulnerable in other ways from being detained. The Rule 35 reports we examined at Yarl's Wood were among the worst we have seen. All were handwritten and many were difficult to read, lacked detail and were perfunctory. Some responses were dismissive. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Yarls-Wood-web-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Yarls-Wood-web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136816 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement

Author: Koball, Heather Title: Health and Social Service Needs of U.S.-Citizen Children with Detained or Deported Immigrant Parents Summary: Between 2003 and 2013, the U.S. government deported 3.7 million immigrants to their home countries. According to the most reliable estimates, parents of U.S.-born children made up between one-fifth and one-quarter of this total. This Urban Institute-MPI report examines the involvement of families with a deported parent with health and social service systems, as well as their needs and the barriers they face accessing such services. Drawing from fieldwork in five study sites in California, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, and Texas, the researchers find that family economic hardship is highly prevalent following parental detention and deportation, while child welfare system involvement is rarer. Schools represent a promising avenue for interaction with these families and delivery of services, as school officials are perceived as safer intermediaries by unauthorized immigrant parents who may be skeptical of interaction with other government agencies. Other important sources of support include health providers, legal service providers, and community- and faith-based organizations that immigrants trust. The authors suggest a number of ways to provide services and reduce harm to children with detained and deported parents. First, health and human service agencies could improve their staff's language capacity, cultural competence, and knowledge of issues associated with immigration status. Another approach involves building bridges between health and human services agencies and informal local organizations that immigrants trust. Coordination among the key agencies (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, social service agencies, and foreign country consulates) is critical, especially for the provision of child welfare services. And small organizations implement many promising strategies to serve children with detained and deported parents, but often face limited resources and high staff turnover. Institutionalizing such strategies would provide a stronger safety net for these children and families in need. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/health-and-social-service-needs-us-citizen-children-detained-or-deported-immigrant-parents Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/health-and-social-service-needs-us-citizen-children-detained-or-deported-immigrant-parents Shelf Number: 136850 Keywords: Child Welfare Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Children Immigration Enforcement

Author: Capps, Randy Title: Implications of Immigration Enforcement Activities for the Well-Being of Children in Immigrant Families: A Review of the Literature Summary: Rising immigration enforcement in the U.S. interior over the past decade increased the chances that the estimated 5.3 million children living with unauthorized immigrant parents, the vast majority of them born in the United States, could experience the deportation of a parent. This MPI-Urban Institute report reviews the evidence on the impacts of parental deportation on children, and on their needs for health and social services. The literature mostly dates from a period of peak enforcement: 2009 through 2013, when there were nearly 4 million deportations from the United States. While data on parental removals during this period are limited, perhaps half a million were of parents of U.S.-citizen children. The economic and social instability that generally accompanies unauthorized status is further aggravated for children with a parent's deportation, with effects including psychological trauma, material hardship, residential instability, family dissolution, increased use of public benefits, and, among boys, aggression. At the extreme end, some families became permanently separated as parents lose custody of or contact with their children. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute and Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/implications-immigration-enforcement-activities-well-being-children-immigrant-families Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/implications-immigration-enforcement-activities-well-being-children-immigrant-families Shelf Number: 136856 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Children Immigration (U.S.) Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Undocumented Immigrants

Author: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Title: With Liberty and Justice for All: The State of Civil Rights at Immigration Detention Facilities Summary: The purpose of this report is to comprehensively examine the U.S. Government's compliance with federal immigration laws and detention policies, and also detail evidence regarding possible infringement upon the constitutional rights afforded to detained immigrants. More specifically, this report examines the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component agencies' treatment of detained immigrants in immigration holding, processing, and detention centers throughout the United States. Prior to writing this report, the Commission gathered facts and data to analyze whether DHS, its component agencies, and private detention corporations with whom the federal government contracts to detain immigrants were complying with the Performance Based National Detention Standards, Prison Rape Elimination Act Standards, the Flores Settlement Agreement and other related immigrant child detention policies, and the United States Constitution. During the Commission's January 30, 2015, briefing, the Commission received written and oral testimony from DHS immigration detention officials and advocates detailing the strengths, weaknesses, and constitutional and civil rights implications of the U.S. immigration detention system. In May 2015, the Commission visited Karnes Family Detention Center and Port Isabel Detention Centers - both located in Texas - to corroborate the written and oral evidence the Commission gathered. Based upon an analysis of data gathered from the Commission's fact-gathering visit, evidence collected during panelists' briefing presentations and additional research, the Commission makes numerous findings and recommendations. The Commission's complete findings and recommendations are contained in the report, however the following bear special attention: The Commission recommends that DHS act immediately to release families from detention. The Commission also recommends that Congress should no longer fund family detention and should reduce its funding for immigration detention generally, in favor of alternatives to detention. The Commission found, among other issues, that several DHS immigration detention facilities were not complying with federal mandates and agency policies regarding the treatment of detained immigrants and detained unaccompanied immigrant children. Moreover, the Commission found evidence, both anecdotal and eyewitness that the U.S. Government was interfering with the constitutional rights afforded to detained immigrants. While the U.S. Government made improvements to the U.S. immigration detention system, the Commission, among other numerous suggestions, recommends that the government convene an intergovernmental compliance task force to investigate, analyze, and strengthen compliance regiments carried out by the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Removal Operations' Detention Standards Compliance Unit. Moreover, the Commission recommends that the U.S. Government work harder to ensure detainees' access to due process and the right to assistance of counsel under the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2015. 276p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2015 at: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136891 Keywords: Homeland Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration

Author: Bandyopadhyay, Subhayu Title: Illegal Immigration and Fiscal Competition Summary: Reflecting recent enforcement policy activism of US states, this paper examines federal-state overlap of illegal immigration policy in a spatial context. Keeping the US-Mexico context in mind, we assume that labor from a source nation enters a host nation through bordering states. Once in the host, illegal immigrants may stay in the state of entry or move to another state. The host nation's federal government and/or the state governments choose border and internal enforcement policies, and also provide local goods. As a benchmark, we define the completely centralized solution as the case where the federal government chooses all the policies, while the state governments are passive. At higher levels of decentralization (i.e., as states take more responsibility in deciding some of the policies), the overlap of federal and state policies is associated with both vertical and horizontal externalities. Among other results, we find that if inter-state mobility is costless, internal enforcement is overprovided, and border enforcement and local goods are under-provided under decentralization, leading to relatively high levels of illegal immigration. While inter-state migration costs moderate such overprovision/under-provision, extreme levels of inter-state immobility may lead to too little illegal immigration, and an overprovision of local goods. Details: Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 9061: Accessed October 5, 5015 at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9061.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp9061.pdf Shelf Number: 136959 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration

Author: Gros, Hanna Title: Summary: Every year thousands of non-citizens ("migrants") are detained in Canada; in 2013, for example, over 7300 migrants were detained. Nearly one third of all detention occurs in a facility intended for a criminal population. Migrants detained in provincial jails are not currently serving a criminal sentence, but are effectively serving hard time. Our research indicates that detention is sometimes prolonged, and can drag on for years. Imprisonment exacerbates existing mental health issues and often creates new ones, including suicidal ideation. Nearly one third of all detention occurs in a facility intended for a criminal population, while the remaining occurs in dedicated immigration holding centres (IHCs) in Toronto (195 beds), Montreal (150 beds), and Vancouver (24 beds, for short stays of less than 72 hours). Nearly 60% of all detention occurs in Ontario. A Canadian Red Cross Society report notes that, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) held 2247 migrants in detention in Ontario provincial jails in 2012. Unfortunately, more up-to-date statistics are not publicly available. Immigration detention is costly. In 2011-2012, the last year for which there is publicly - available information, CBSA spent nearly $50,000,000 on detention - related activities. In 2013, CBSA paid the provinces over $26,000,000 to detain migrants in provincial jails - over $20,000,000 of that was paid to the province of Ontario. CBSA states that detention in a provincial jail costs $259 per day, per detainee. This report finds that Canada's detention of migrants with mental health issues in provincial jails is a violation of binding international human rights law and constitutes arbitrary detention; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; discrimination on the basis of disability; violates the right to health; and violates the right to an effective remedy. We find that migrants with mental health issues are routinely detained despite their vulnerable status. Some detainees have no past criminal record, but are detained on the basis that they are a flight risk, or because their identity cannot be confirmed. Due to the overrepresentation of people with mental health issues in Canada's criminal justice system, some migrants with mental health issues are detained on the basis of past criminality - this is after serving their criminal sentence, however minor the underlying offence. Some spend more time in jail on account of their immigration status than the underlying criminal conviction. Despite Canada's strong commitment to the rights of persons with disabilities, migrants with serious mental health issues are routinely imprisoned in maximum-security provincial jails (as opposed to dedicated, medium-security IHCs). Indeed, the Canadian government publicly states that one of the factors it considers in deciding to transfer a detainee from an IHC to a provincial jail is the existence of a mental health issue. Counsel and jail staff we spoke to noted that migrants are often held in provincial jails on the basis of pre-existing mental health issues (including suicidal ideation), medical issues, or because they are deemed 'problematic' or uncooperative by CBSA. The government claims that detainees can better access health care services in jail, even though all our research indicates that mental health care in provincial jails is woefully inadequate and has been the subject of recent reports and human rights complaints. Alarmingly, we could find no established criteria in law to determine when a detainee can or should be transferred from an IHC to a provincial jail - the decision is at the whim of CBSA. Detainees' counsel are not notified of the transfer in advance and do not have the right to make submissions to challenge it. Of course, outside of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, all detainees are held in jails since there are no dedicated facilities to house migrants. Once a detainee finds him or herself in provincial jail, they fall into a legal black hole where neither CBSA nor the provincial jail has clear authority over their conditions of confinement. This is especially problematic since, in Ontario at least, there is no regular, independent monitoring of provincial jails that house immigration detainees. Unfortunately, while the laws and policies on their face pay lip service to the importance of exploring alternatives to detention, the numerous counsel and experts we interviewed all identified the lack of meaningful or viable alternatives to detention for those with mental health issues due to ingrained biases of government officials and quasi-judicial decision-makers who review continued detention. In practice, the detention review process, which is meant to mitigate the risk of indefinite detention, actually facilitates it. Ontario counsel we spoke to uniformly expressed frustration with the futility of the reviews, where a string of lay decision-makers preside over hearings that last a matter of minutes, lack due process, and presume continued detention absent "clear and compelling reasons" to depart from past decisions. It is an exercise in smoke and mirrors. The immigration detainees we profile spent between two months and eight years imprisoned in maximum-security provincial jails, and each had a diagnosed mental health issue and/or expressed serious anxiety or suicidal ideation. Without exception, detention in a provincial jail, even for a short period, exacerbated their mental health issues, or created new ones. This is, of course, unsurprising given the overwhelming evidence that immigration detention is devastating for those with mental health issues. Without exception, the immigration detainees we spoke to communicated incredible despair and anxiety - over their immigration status, their seemingly indefinite detention, their lack of legal rights, their conditions of confinement, and the lack of adequate mental health resources to allow them to get better. They are treated like "garbage," "animals," or something less than human. The detention of migrants with mental health issues in provincial jails violates the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in Canadian society. It violates numerous human rights treaties to which Canada is a party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as jus cogens norms of customary international law. Details: Toronto: International Human Rights Program (IHRP) University of Toronto Faculty of Law, 2015. 129p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/IHRP%20We%20Have%20No%20Rights%20Report%20web%20170615.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/IHRP%20We%20Have%20No%20Rights%20Report%20web%20170615.pdf Shelf Number: 137152 Keywords: Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Mental Health Services Migrants Undocumented Immigrants

Author: European Commission Title: Study on smuggling of migrants: characteristics, responses and cooperation with third countries Summary: A consortium comprising Optimity Advisors, the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) was commissioned by the European Commission's DG Migration and Home Affairs to undertake a "Study on smuggling of migrants: Characteristics, responses and cooperation with third countries." (HOME/2011/EVAL/01). This document contains the Final Report for this study. Despite it being a pressing political issue, migrant smuggling remains an rather under-reported area of research, with scattered and incomplete information available. For example, no systematic review and evaluation of existing policies against smuggling facilitation has been carried out to date, and the understanding of the role of third countries in the smuggling process remains limited. Investigation and research undertaken on the issue of migrant smuggling by European and national authorities and agencies, in particular by Frontex and Europol as well as national police research units, is often restricted; given the sensitive nature of the topic, the information is not always publicly available. Published research arises mainly from PhD studies based on individual aspects of migrant smuggling, routes, population etc. In addition, numerous case studies exist, for example, on individual geographical areas or destination countries/regions, which are relevant in time and context. There are few larger and more comprehensive studies covering these themes. For example, in 2011, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime published a review of research on migrant smuggling in order to fill this gap by surveying sources and research studies. Its review also covers concepts, methodologies, the scope of the problem, profiles of those smuggled and those who smuggle, networks and the human and social costs. Even though more empirical information has been added since then, this review remains extremely comprehensive and one of the few larger studies on the phenomenon. The research undertaken for this study is intended to contribute to the research evidence and close some of the existing gaps, particularly in relation to the business of migrant smuggling. Nevertheless, the study has identified priorities for further research; these are described in the concluding section. The Final Report consists of the following main sections: !! Chapter 2 provides the objectives and scope of this study; !! Chapter 3 presents the methodology; !! Chapter 4 presents findings on the phenomenon and dynamics of migrant smuggling; !! Chapter 5 provides the legal and policy frameworks, programmes and operational responses, including the relevant institutions addressing migrant smuggling; !! Chapter 6 discusses the main conclusions based on data collection and case study findings. Details: Luxembourg: European Commission, DG Migration and Home Affairs, 2015. 179p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 17, 2015 at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/nov/eu-com-study-smuggling-of-migrants.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/nov/eu-com-study-smuggling-of-migrants.pdf Shelf Number: 137314 Keywords: Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Migrant Smuggling Migration

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Country Office Pakistan Title: Pakistan's law enforcement response to the smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons. Summary: This report assesses the legal frameworks, law enforcement strategies, capacities, and methodologies pertaining to migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons in Pakistan, focusing specifically on the mandate, organisation, and operations of Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency. The report identifies, maps, outlines, and explores existing law enforcement responses and assess these against international law requirements and against the standards set by international best practice guidelines. This report reveals strengths of existing arrangements and identifies areas where further development or reform may be needed. This report shows that Pakistan has solid policy, legislative, and organisational frameworks to combat trafficking in persons and, to a lesser degree, the smuggling of migrants. The Government of Pakistan has to be commended for setting up a National Action Plan for Combating Human Trafficking in 2004 and enacting the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance two years earlier. This report shows enforcement mandates pertaining to trafficking in persons, especially those of the FIA, are sufficiently clear and are supported by relevant enforcement powers. Legislative and law enforcement frameworks for migrant smuggling are not well developed or, as confirmed by other reports, non-existent and concerns remain over ongoing confusion between migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons in Pakistani law and by Pakistani authorities. Pakistan is also not a Signatory to the United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Air, and Sea and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children. Pakistan has, however, signed the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. Pakistan's relatively sound policy, legal, and organisational frameworks are, however, not matched by consistent implementation and execution; words are often not followed by actions. This assessment has found major deficiencies in the training of FIA personnel and in the facilities and equipment used by and available to FIA investigators and front-line officers. Most FIA officers working in units charged with investigating migrant smuggling and trafficking in persons obtain no training at all and frequently lack the most basic equipment to carry out their duties. FIA facilities in local areas are often in poor condition and lack reliable electricity supplies. Practical mechanisms for the protection of smuggled and migrants and, in particular, victims of trafficking in persons are, for the most part, non-existent, under-developed, or are only addressed in very rudimentary and ad-hoc ways. Also of concern are deficiencies in inter-departmental cooperation, national coordination, human resources, case management and data storage, information and evidence gathering. Details: Islamabad : United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Country Office Pakistan, 2011. 147p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2015 at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/pakistan//2011.10.00_Pakistans_Law_Enforcement_Response_final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Pakistan URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/pakistan//2011.10.00_Pakistans_Law_Enforcement_Response_final.pdf Shelf Number: 137340 Keywords: Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigration Enforcement Migrant Smuggling Migrants Organized Crime

Author: Title: Streamline: Measuring Its Effect on Illegal Border Crossing Summary: Streamline is an initiative to criminally prosecute individuals who illegally enter the United States through defined geographic regions along the Southwest border. We reviewed: (1) whether Border Patrol measures Streamline' effect on illegal re-entry; (2) whether the cost of Streamline can be determined; and (3) how Streamline affects U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations' (ER)) resources. Details: Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: OIG-15-95: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-95_May15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-95_May15.pdf Shelf Number: 137459 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Operation Streamline

Author: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Hieleras (Iceboxes) in the Rio Grande Valley Sector: Lengthy Detention, Deplorable Conditions, and Abuse in CBP Holding Cells Summary: Each year, the Border Patrol-a division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) - holds hundreds of thousands of individuals in detention facilities near the U.S. southern border. These facilities are not designed for overnight custody, and yet they are routinely used in this way. Until recently, CBP policy was clear that these facilities were to serve exclusively as short-term holding cells-meaning that a person should be held there less than 12 hours. Evidence presented in this report, which pertains to Border Patrol holding cells in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, reveals that, instead, individuals are routinely held for days. In October 2015, CBP updated its guidance on how long it may detain individuals. The new guidance states that "short-term" detention generally should last no longer than 72 hours. Notably, however, no structural changes have been made to the facilities. These facilities, which are often referred to as "hieleras" (Spanish for "freezers" or "iceboxes"), remain wholly inadequate for any overnight detention. Moreover, the conditions are reprehensible, even with respect to truly short-term detention. In addition to the fact that there are no beds in the holding cells, these facilities are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lacking in adequate food, water, and medical care. Recent accounts from families held in short-term facilities also demonstrate that Border Patrol officers harass and ridicule individuals in their custody and separate mothers from their minor children. This report focuses on two aspects of detention in CBP facilities in RGV. First, based on never-before-released government data and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), it examines length of detention. Second, analyzing new survey data from the Binational Defense and Advocacy Program (in Spanish, Programa de Defensa e Incidencia Binacional, or PDIB), as well as declarations from a sample of women who were recently detained in RGV facilities, it sheds light on the conditions of detention that are prevalent in Border Patrol holding cells in the RGV sector. Government data show that during the months of August, September, October, and December of 2013, on average, 1173 individuals were detained in RGV facilities at any given time. Also, on average, 212 individuals were held in custody for over 72 hours at any given time. The share of individuals detained for over 72 hours ranged from 2.3 percent of all detainees at its lowest point to 42.5 percent at its peak. A significant number of individuals were held in detention even after their CBP "processing" was completed - meaning that these individuals were ready to be released or transferred to another federal agency. These data reveal that the Border Patrol regularly uses holding cells to detain people for prolonged periods, forcing men, women, and children to sleep on concrete floors and hard benches in holding cells that have no beds and are not equipped for sleeping. Additionally, our analysis of the PDIB survey data collected between June and November 2015 reveals that previously reported issues such as extreme temperatures, overcrowding, and inadequate food are routine. Three out of every four individuals detained in the RGV sectors reported having been exposed to extremely cold temperatures. Everyone who was held in detention in the RGV sector agreed that there was not enough space in the holding cell to lie down, and all but one indicated that there was not enough space for people to sit down. Almost all of the interviewees who were detained in RGV asserted that the food they received while detained was insufficient. In an effort to better illustrate the conditions individuals experience while in detention, the report also analyzes personal accounts of women who were held in CBP facilities in the Border Patrol RGV Sector. These accounts, shared by women who were held in Border Patrol cells in October or November 2015, reveal the markedly dehumanizing conditions to which these women were subjected while in Border Patrol custody. Recurring themes include overcrowding, separation of mothers from their children, inadequate access to medication and/or medical care, extreme temperature, lack of access to showers, food insufficiency, and sleep deprivation. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2015. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2016 at: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/hieleras_iceboxes_in_the_rio_grande_valley_sector.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/hieleras_iceboxes_in_the_rio_grande_valley_sector.pdf Shelf Number: 137460 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Immigration Enforcement

Author: European Parliament. Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Policy Department C Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs Title: Fit for Purpose? The Facilitation Directive and the Criminalisation of Humanitarian Assistance to Irregular Migrants Summary: This study assesses the implementation of the humanitarian exception provisions of the Facilitation Directive and their impact on irregular migrants, along with the organisations and individuals providing assistance to them within EU member states. It maps the existing international and EU legal frameworks on people smuggling and their implementation in the national law of selected member states, assessing them against international, supranational and regional human rights instruments as well as the EU Charter. It subsequently gathers and presents data on the prosecution and conviction rates of those who have provided humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants and identifies important knowledge gaps and methodological caveats. Drawing on primary survey data, this study also explores the material, direct and perceived effects of the Facilitation Directive from the perspective of civil society and local authorities. It identifies the practical challenges and experiences of cities and civil society arising from implementation of the Facilitation Directive and puts forward a series of policy recommendations to the European Parliament for improving and amending the Directive. The study aims at enhancing the European Parliament's ability to make sound, evidence-based policy directed towards key stakeholders in this area and at strengthening its important role in ensuring democratic accountability at a time when the 'Facilitators' Package' is under revision Details: Luxembourg: European Parliament, 2016. 132p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2016 at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/536490/IPOL_STU(2016)536490_EN.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/536490/IPOL_STU(2016)536490_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 137719 Keywords: Human Rights Abuses Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Immigration

Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention Summary: Egregious violations of ICE medical care standards played a prominent role in eight deaths in immigration detention facilities from 2010 to 2012. Fatal Neglect: How ICE Ignores Deaths in Detention, a report jointly produced by the American Civil Liberties Union, Detention Watch Network, and National Immigrant Justice Center, examines these deaths and the agency's response to them. Our research shows that even though ICE conducted reviews that identified violations of medical standards as contributing factors in these deaths, routine ICE detention facility inspections before and after the deaths failed to acknowledge - or at times dismissed - these violations. Instead of forcing changes in culture, systems, and processes that could reduce future deaths, ICE's deficient inspections system essentially swept the agency's own death review findings under the rug. Details: New York: ACLU, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/fatal_neglect_acludwnnijc.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/fatal_neglect_acludwnnijc.pdf Shelf Number: 137986 Keywords: Deaths in Custody Health Care Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention

Author: Great Britain. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre - Harmondsworth site Summary: Harmondsworth immigration removal centre (IRC) is Europe's largest immigration detention facility, holding up to 661 male detainees. It is located a few hundred metres from Heathrow Airport and is run for the Home Office by Care and Custody, a division of the Mitie Group. Since the start of a new contract in September 2014, both Harmondsworth and the adjacent Colnbrook IRC have been under the same management. The centres are now known collectively as Heathrow IRC but are not yet integrated to the extent that they can be inspected as a single entity. Harmondsworth was last inspected in August 2013, when it was run by the GEO Group. At that time, we were concerned to find that uncertainty about the future of the contract had undermined progress and created an atmosphere of drift which was having a tangible negative impact on the treatment of and conditions for detainees. Many of the concerns that we identified in 2013 have not been rectified and in some respects matters have deteriorated. The lack of investment in the last stages of the previous contract was evidenced in particular by the appalling state of some of the residential units. While the decline had been arrested by the time of this inspection, the centre had not yet recovered and we identified substantial concerns in a number of areas. The vulnerability of the detainee population appeared to have increased since the last inspection. In our survey, 80% of men said that they had had problems on arrival and nearly half said they had felt depressed or suicidal. However, despite an improved reception environment, early days risk assessment processes were not good enough and the complex mix of detainees on the first night unit made it impossible for staff to provide a calm and supportive environment for people undergoing one of the most stressful periods of their lives. More detainees than at the last inspection also reported feeling unsafe or victimised, but safer custody structures to help managers to interrogate and address such concerns were underdeveloped. While use of force was not high and subject to good governance, some detainees were segregated for too long, and we were not assured that this serious measure was always justified or properly authorised. Many men were held for short periods but well over half were detained in the centre for over a month and some for very long periods. Eighteen detainees had been held for over a year and one man had been detained on separate occasions adding up to a total of five years. The quality of Rule 35 reports was variable but nearly a fifth of these reports had identified illnesses, suicidal intentions and/or experiences of torture that contributed to the Home Office concluding that detention could not be justified. This unusually large number reflects the vulnerabilities identified in our survey. The centre has a mix of older and newer, prison-like accommodation. Some of the newer accommodation was dirty and run down but the condition of some parts of the older units was among the worst in the detention estate; many toilets and showers were in a seriously insanitary condition and many rooms were overcrowded and poorly ventilated. An extensive programme of refurbishment was underway, the impact of which we will report on in future inspections. The centre should never have been allowed to reach this state. We saw little positive engagement between staff and detainees, and staff had too little understanding of the backgrounds and needs of the people in their care. There has been little discernible change in this finding over the course of the previous three inspections, suggesting a need to address the issue through concerted long-term work. Equality and diversity work was improving but outcomes were still poor overall. Detainees had very little faith in the complaints procedure. Health care was recovering from a low base but substantial concerns remained - for example, over medicines management. The chaplaincy provided valued support for detainees and the cultural kitchen was a positive development. Given the importance of constructive activity to detainees' mental health and well-being, it was surprising that activity places were underused. Despite some improvements in access to activities, movements were still too restricted which affected detainees' ability to reach the available resources. There was less work available and poor use was made of some recreational facilities. Only a third of detainees said they could fill their time at the centre. By contrast, the centre had substantially improved preparation for release and removal, and had engaged particularly well with some third-sector agencies. Welfare work had improved and Hibiscus Initiatives offered practical assistance in preparing detainees for discharge. Visits provision was generally good and many detainees received support from the local visitors group, Detention Action. Overall, while this report describes some good work, it highlights substantial concerns in most of our tests of a healthy custodial establishment. While the state of drift that we described in our last report has been arrested and the direction of travel is now positive, it is unacceptable that conditions were allowed to decline so much towards the end of the last contract. The Home Office and its contractors have a responsibility to ensure that this is not allowed to happen again. Following the inspection, we were informed by the Home office that lessons had been learned and that a new set of principles were established to prevent a recurrence of this situation. We will assess the success of these measurements in due course. Details: London: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2016. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/02/Harmondsworth-web-2015.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/02/Harmondsworth-web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 138041 Keywords: Detention Centers Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants

Author: Carper, Thomas R. Title: Stronger Neighbors - Stronger Borders: Addressing the Root Causes of Illegal Migration from Central America Summary: Given the increasingly dangerous world in which we live today, there is broad agreement among Americans that secure borders are more important than ever. In response to those concerns, our country has spent nearly $250 billion over the past decade to make our southern border with Mexico more secure. We've built over 600 miles of fencing. We've doubled the number of Border Patrol agents to more than 21,000. And we've deployed technology such as drones, helicopters, sophisticated surveillance systems, and ground sensors. But all of these security enhancements along our borders could not hold back the waves of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families who arrived at our southern border in 2014, mostly into Texas. Significant flows continue even today. The overwhelming majority of these migrants are coming -not from Mexico -but from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, three Central American countries collectively known as the Northern Triangle. For the most part, the children and families aren't evading Border Patrol agents. They are surrendering and asking for help. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 2015. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 5, 2016 at: http://www.carper.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0d5438ad-7cfb-4afe-be3f-f94a01546f6a/stronger-neighbors---stronger-borders.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.carper.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0d5438ad-7cfb-4afe-be3f-f94a01546f6a/stronger-neighbors---stronger-borders.pdf Shelf Number: 138111 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Migrants

Author: Kandel, William A. Title: Unaccompanied Alien Children: Potential Factors Contributing to Recent Immigration Summary: Since FY2008, the growth in the number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras seeking to enter the United States has increased substantially. Total unaccompanied child apprehensions increased from about 8,000 in FY2008 to 52,000 in the first 8 1/2 months of FY2014. Since 2012, children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (Central America's "northern triangle") account for almost all of this increase. Apprehension trends for these three countries are similar and diverge sharply from those for Mexican children. Unaccompanied child migrants' motives for migrating to the United States are often multifaceted and difficult to measure analytically. Four recent out-migration-related factors distinguishing northern triangle Central American countries are high violent crime rates, poor economic conditions fueled by relatively low economic growth rates, high rates of poverty, and the presence of transnational gangs. In 2012, the homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants stood at 90.4 in Honduras (the highest in the world), 41.2 in El Salvador, and 39.9 in Guatemala. International Monetary Fund reports show economic growth rates in the northern triangle countries in 2013 ranging from 1.6% to 3.5%, relatively low compared with other Central American countries. About 45% of Salvadorans, 55% of Guatemalans, and 67% of Hondurans live in poverty. Surveys in 2013 indicate that almost half of all unaccompanied children experienced serious harm or threats by organized criminal groups or state actors, and one-fifth experienced domestic abuse. In 2011, Mexico passed legislation to improve migration management and ensure the rights of migrants transiting the country. According to many migration experts, implementation of the laws has been uneven. Some have questioned whether passage of such legislation has affected in some way the recent flows of unaccompanied children. However, the impact of such laws remains unclear. Although economic opportunity may motivate some unaccompanied children to migrate to the United States, labor market conditions for low-skilled minority youth have worsened in recent years, even as industrial sectors employing low-skilled workers enjoy improved economic prospects. Educational opportunities may also provide a motivating factor to migration as perceptions of free and safe education may be widespread among the young. Family reunification is reported to be one of the key motives of unaccompanied children. Many have family members among the sizable Salvadoran, Guatemalan, and Honduran foreign-born populations residing in the United States. While the impacts of actual and perceived U.S. immigration policies have been widely debated, it remains unclear if, and how, specific immigration policies have motivated children to migrate to the United States. Misperceptions about U.S. policies may be a contributing factor. The existence of long-standing humanitarian relief policies confounds causal links between them and the recent surge in unaccompanied children. A notable and recent exception is revised humanitarian relief provisions for unaccompanied children included in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, which affects asylum claims, trafficking victim protections, and eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. Some argue that unaccompanied children and their families falsely believe they would be covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative and legalization provisions in proposed comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) legislation. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2014. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: R43628: Accessed March 12, 2016 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43628.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43628.pdf Shelf Number: 138183 Keywords: Asylum Child Protection Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigrant Detention Immigration Unaccompanied Alien Children

Author: Ewins, James Title: Independent Review of the Overseas Domestic Workers Visa Summary: The government commissioned this review in March 2015 as part of its commitment to stop modern slavery in all its forms. James Ewins was asked to assess how far existing arrangements for the admission of overseas domestic workers are effective in protecting workers from abuse and exploitation, and to make recommendations. The government is carefully considering the report's recommendations and will announce its response in due course. Details: London: HM Government, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 14, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486532/ODWV_Review_-_Final_Report__6_11_15_.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486532/ODWV_Review_-_Final_Report__6_11_15_.pdf Shelf Number: 138227 Keywords: Domestic Workers Forced Labor Human Slavery Illegal Immigrants

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Title: Recent trends of human trafficking and migrant smuggling to and from Pakistan Summary: Pakistan is a destination, transit, and source country for smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons. It has taken some important steps in combating these transnational crimes, including the promulgation of domestic legislation such as the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance also known as (PAC HTO) in 2002 as well as establishing Anti-Human Trafficking Units and Circles under the jurisdiction of the Federal Investigation Agency. However, migrant smuggling and human trafficking remain issues of concern. 1.1 Smuggling of migrants to Pakistan The best estimate of irregular migrants to Pakistan puts the population at more than four million. Afghans are the largest group at approximately 2.7 million, followed by the combined population of Bengali, Bangladeshi, and Burmese nationals at more than one million. However, Pakistan as a destination country for irregular migration is not a new phenomenon. Irregular migration to Pakistan has two key features: historic and protracted. Approximately 74 per cent of all Afghan nationals in the country were born in Pakistan, and 80 per cent of Afghan households arrived in Pakistan before 1985. Similarly, a majority of the Bengali, Bangladeshi, and Burmese nationals arrived prior to 1997. The number of new arrivals of irregular migrants is very small when compared to the existing population in Pakistan. The attractiveness of Pakistan as a destination country has declined due to its political and economic circumstances. Border management and interdiction of new arrivals will only have limited impact on the regulation of the existing population of irregular migrants. As such, Pakistan must explore ways to regularise and regulate the status of the existing irregular migrant population. UNODC recommends to the Government, in cooperation with UNHCR to find long-term solutions for the Afghan population in Pakistan, particularly as the Proof of Registration Cards for 1.6 million Afghans expired on 30 June 2013. In addition, with UN assistance, the Government should also find solutions for the combined Bengali, Bangladeshi, and Burmese population, including stateless people. 1.2 Smuggling of migrants from Pakistan Pakistani nationals are among the ten most-detected nationalities that attempt irregular migration to the European Union (EU) and Australia. At the same time, Afghans are also one of the most detected nationalities for irregular migration. The number of Afghan nationals using smuggling networks to enter the EU and Australia far exceeds the number of Pakistanis. However, the migration patterns of the two populations are entangled, and both populations use the same routes and smuggling networks. Moreover, Pakistan is a key transit country for Afghans. To enter the EU, Pakistani and Afghan nationals predominantly use the Eastern Mediterranean Route, by both land and sea. Pakistani, Afghan, and Bangladeshi nationals have reported they rendezvous in Iran and travel in a mixed group to the EU through Turkey and then Greece. Pakistani and Afghan nationals both feature prominently on the Western Balkans Route for secondary movement within the EU and the Schengen Zone. Both have also been detected in significant numbers along the sea route from Greece to the southern Italian regions of Apulia and Calabria. The vast majority of Pakistani and Afghan nationals attempt to enter the EU through blue and green borders. The number that attempts clandestine entry at border check posts is low. Irregular migrants appear to use a combination of tactics; clandestine crossing of blue and green borders and legal entry or exits at border check posts using legitimate but fraudulently obtained documentation. The volume of migration appears to be sensitive to push factors in the countries of origin. For example, the 2010 floods in Pakistan appear to have led to an exceptional spike in the volume of EU migration in 2011 by Pakistani nationals. Moreover, the routes used for smuggling of migrants appear to be responsive to changing interdiction and border control tactics. For example, improved land interdiction led to an increase in the use of sea routes. Changing status of a country - such as accession to EU membership - also has an impact on the routes used. With the recent economic downturn in the EU, particularly in Greece, Spain, and Italy, it is anticipated that some secondary movement by Pakistani and Afghan nationals will be detected as they seek better economic opportunities. Although the number of Afghan irregular migrants far exceeds the number of Pakistanis, more Pakistanis are found to use fraudulent documentation. Further, more Pakistanis are detected as facilitators of smuggling. This suggests that the smuggling networks are more organised and sophisticated in Pakistan, and that both Pakistani and Afghan nationals use Pakistani networks. In addition, the European Union raised concerns about the increased use of legitimate but fraudulently obtained documentation. As an island country, almost all irregular migrants to Australia arrive by sea from Indonesia. The number of irregular maritime arrivals from Afghanistan also far exceeds the number from Pakistan, but both populations are of concern to Australia. Again, smugglers use a combination of tactics; irregular migrants often exit Pakistan on valid passports and visas, and then travel by air to Malaysia or Thailand. From there, they travel clandestinely over land and sea to Indonesia, from where they attempt the final segment of the journey to Australia by sea. The majority of Pakistani and Afghan nationals that attempt irregular migration to Australia by sea are religious or ethnic minorities. They lodge protection applications on arrival and their claims have had an extremely high rate of acceptance, demonstrating that they have legitimate and compelling flight reasons. Members of the community tend to view smugglers as providing a necessary service to help them escape the persecution they suffer in their countries of origin. Smugglers that operate on this route appear to be well established and known to the community. They do not appear to recruit, but find business through word of mouth recommendations from successful migrants. Intending migrants approach the smugglers proactively. Businesses that claim to be visa consultants are often involved in smuggling rings. Facilitators and agents generally have ties to the migrant community and have often attempted or succeeded on the same route. Visa consultants often operate as fronts for smuggling networks. Therefore, UNODC recommends that the Government of Pakistan considers implementing regulation of visa consultancies Details: Islamabad: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), July 2013. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/pakistan//2013.12.26_Research_Report_HTMS_COPAK_HTMSS_Designed_for_printing.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Pakistan URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/pakistan//2013.12.26_Research_Report_HTMS_COPAK_HTMSS_Designed_for_printing.pdf Shelf Number: 137571 Keywords: Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Migrants

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen DHS Management of Short-Term Holding Facilities Summary: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for providing safe, secure, and humane confinement for detained aliens who may be subject to removal or have been ordered removed from the United States. For example, during fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 823,768 aliens and held them temporarily in holding facilities. GAO was asked to examine DHS's management and oversight of holding facilities. This report examines the extent to which DHS has (1) standards in place for the short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established standards and (2) processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in holding facilities. GAO reviewed CBP and ICE data on time in custody and complaints. GAO also interviewed agency officials and visited 32 holding facilities selected based on geographical location and facility type, among other factors. The visit results are not generalizable, but provided insight to the oversight of holding facilities and management of complaints. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DHS establish a process to assess time in custody data for all individuals in holding facilities; issue guidance on how and which complaint mechanisms should be communicated to individuals in short-term custody; include a classification code in all complaint tracking systems related to DHS holding facilities; and develop a process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints. DHS concurred with the recommendations and identified planned actions. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2016. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-16-514: Accessed May 27, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677484.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677484.pdf Shelf Number: 139230 Keywords: Homeland Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Immigration Policy Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Great Britain. House of Lords. European Union Committee Title: Operation Sophia: the EU's naval mission in the Mediterranean: an impossible challenge Summary: Since 2014, Europe has been struggling to respond to an exceptional number of irregular but voluntary migrants 2 seeking to cross European borders. On 19 April 2015, off-the-coast of the Italian island of Lampedusa, a boat carrying nearly 700 migrants capsized and almost all its passengers drowned. The Lampedusa tragedy changed EU policy. Four days later, the European Council pledged to take steps to prevent further loss of life at sea, fight the people smugglers and prevent illegal migration flows. In May, a new naval mission-Operation Sophia-was deployed in the central Mediterranean. It currently patrols a vast area of the high seas off the coast of Libya to Italy, gathering information, rescuing migrants, and destroying boats used by smugglers. Critics suggested that search and rescue activity by Operation Sophia would act as a magnet to migrants and ease the task of smugglers, who would only need their vessels to reach the high seas; these propositions have some validity. On the other hand, search and rescue are, in our view, vital humanitarian obligations. We commend Operation Sophia for its success in this task. The mission does not, however, in any meaningful way deter the flow of migrants, disrupt the smugglers' networks, or impede the business of people smuggling on the central Mediterranean route. The arrests that Operation Sophia has made to date have been of low-level targets, while the destruction of vessels has simply caused the smugglers to shift from using wooden boats to rubber dinghies, which are even more unsafe. There are also significant limits to the intelligence that can be collected about onshore smuggling networks from the high seas. There is therefore little prospect of Operation Sophia overturning the business model of people smuggling. The weakness of the Libyan state has been a key factor underlying the exceptional rate of irregular migration on the central Mediterranean route in recent years. While plans for two further phases would see Operation Sophia acting in Libyan territorial waters and onshore, we are not confident that the new Libyan Government of National Accord will be in a position to work closely with the EU and its Member States any time soon. In other words, however valuable as a search and rescue mission, Operation Sophia does not, and we argue, cannot, deliver its mandate. It responds to symptoms, not causes. Details: London: House of Lords, 2016. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: HP Paper 144: Accessed July 13, 2016 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/144/144.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/144/144.pdf Shelf Number: 139636 Keywords: Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Immigration Migrants

Author: Bhui, Hindpal Singh Title: Can Inspection Produce Meaningful Change in Immigration Detention? Summary: Although prison inspection in the United Kingdom has a long history, inspection of immigration detention was properly established only in 2004. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), a government-appointed independent human rights-based monitoring institution, holds this responsibility. In this GDP Working Paper, a lead HMIP inspector discusses the nature and impact of the Inspectorate's work, examining both the theory and practice of inspection. The paper places the discussion in the broader context of prison reform and debates on migration and border controls. The author argues that in liberal-democratic societies there are two broad approaches to promoting human rights reforms and challenging abuses: working from the inside to achieve progress with the risk that principles may be compromised and good intentions confounded; or promoting change from the outside, which is more uncompromising but less influential, at least in the short-term. This is a dilemma that confronts human rights based inspection of immigration detention in the UK. The main focus of HMIP is on improving the treatment of detainees and conditions in detention, not challenging the system of detention, even if immigration detention policy arguably lacks legitimacy in a way that criminal imprisonment does not. The author explores the "effectiveness" of detention inspection and whether inspection can be said to have promoted meaningful change. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper No. 12: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bhui_gdp_working_paper_may_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bhui_gdp_working_paper_may_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 139833 Keywords: Detention Facilities Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Migrants

Author: Armacost, Barbara E. Title: "Sanctuary" Laws: The New Immigration Federalism Summary: The policy of "immigration federalism" has justified granting state and local police officers greatly increased responsibilities for enforcing immigration laws, but the devolution of power has also generated enormous controversy. Supporters argue that the vast number of local police and their knowledge of local conditions can substantially assist federal immigration enforcement. Critics say that the policy has caused serious problems, including increased racial profiling and more pretextual arrests for minor crimes, and that the resulting alienation of immigrant communities has reduced public safety. The controversy is not just academic, as more than 270 local jurisdictions have adopted policies designed to resist immigration federalism. Some argue that these laws have only one purpose: to thwart federal enforcement and shelter illegal immigrants. National legislators have proposed legislation to squelch local resistance by cutting federal funds to those localities. Such responses are, however, fundamentally inconsistent with the very theory of federalism. The widespread resistance to immigration federalism is a state/local-inspired reaction to the serious, if unintended consequences of localized immigration policing. A true immigration federalist should view such local resistance not as mere opposition to quash, but as a "new immigration federalism," a source of insight into the on-the-ground problems with current immigration policies. This article argues that the policies enacted as part of the local resistance movement point the way both to specific solutions, and to a better - and more theoretically sound - immigration federalism. This "new immigration federalism" is already having an effect on federal immigration policy. Details: Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, School of Law, 2016. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2016-45 : Accessed August 30, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823925## Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823925## Shelf Number: 140092 Keywords: Crimmigration Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Sanctuary Laws

Author: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Detained Beyond the Limit: Prolonged Confinement by U.S. Customs and Border Protection along the Southwest Border Summary: For some time now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has been in the spotlight for its questionable practices regarding the treatment of migrants. One such practice concerns the manner in which the Border Patrol-a component of CBP-operates its holding facilities near the U.S.' southern border. Each year, hundreds of thousands of individuals are held in these facilities, which are meant to hold individuals for a short time while they undergo initial processing and until a decision is made about the appropriate next step in their case. The holding cells, which are often referred to as "hieleras" (Spanish for "freezers" or "iceboxes"), are typically small concrete rooms with concrete benches and no beds. They are not designed for overnight custody, and yet they are routinely used in this way. Government records analyzed in this report, which contain information on length of detention for all Border Patrol sectors along the U.S.' southwest border, reveal that individuals are frequently held for days and sometimes even months in such facilities. As numerous reports, media accounts, and documented complaints of former detainees have previously shown, these facilities remain wholly inadequate for any overnight detention. Moreover, the conditions are reprehensible-as consistently reported by many who were held in them-even with respect to truly short-term detention. In addition to the fact that there are no beds in the holding cells, these facilities are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lack adequate food, water, and medical care. This report, which is based on never-before-released government data and documents obtained by the American Immigration Council through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), examines length of detention in nine Border Patrol sectors: Big Bend, Texas; Del Rio, Texas; El Centro, California; El Paso, Texas; Laredo, Texas; Rio Grande Valley, Texas; San Diego, California; Tucson, Arizona; and Yuma, Arizona. Between September 1, 2014 and August 31, 2015, 326,881 individuals were held in CBP facilities across the southwest border. Of the cases analyzed, which include only cases with complete data (326,728), 69,016 (21.1 percent) were women. Mexican nationals represent the largest share (57.1 percent) of those detained in CBP facilities during this period, followed by Guatemalans (16.9 percent), Salvadorans (12.7 percent), and Hondurans (9.8 percent). Looking at all sectors combined, the data reveals that a shocking 217,485 individuals (or 67 percent of the total number detained during this period) were held in CBP facilities for 24 hours or more; 93,566 (29 percent) for 48 hours or more; and 44,202 (14 percent) for 72 hours or more. The average number of hours that individuals were detained shows some variation, ranging from 65 hours at its lowest point in July 2015 to 104 hours at its peak in October 2014. Length of detention varies considerably across border sectors. For example, lengthy detention is remarkably frequent in the Laredo, Rio Grande Valley, Tucson, Yuma, and El Centro sectors. Laredo in particular shows the most disturbing numbers; 54 percent (19,000) of the 35,494 individuals held in detention facilities in Laredo were detained for at least 72 hours. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) raises questions about the possible existence of irregularities in the way Border Patrol officers capture information on length of detention. Consequently, the data presented here should be interpreted with caution. However, the findings of our analysis are consistent with those reported in previous publications by the American Immigration Council. For example, according to a report released in May 2015, 58,083 individuals-or over 80 percent of people detained by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013-were held for over 24 hours, and 10.9 percent (7,839 individuals) were held for 72 hours or more. Another report which focused on the Rio Grande Valley Sector showed that during the months of August, September, October, and December of 2013, the share of individuals detained for over 72 hours ranged from 2.3 percent of all detainees at its lowest point to 42.5 percent at its peak. Lengthy detention is especially problematic given the inhumane conditions that characterize these holding facilities. The findings presented in this report document a troublesome reality: lengthy detention is not just a random occurrence that happens to a few individuals in one or two Border Patrol sectors; it is, instead, a systemic practice that affects, to varying degrees, all the sectors along the southwest border. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/detained_beyond_the_limit.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/detained_beyond_the_limit.pdf Shelf Number: 146113 Keywords: Border Patrol Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement

Author: Fasani, Francesco Title: Immigrant Crime and Legal Status: Evidence from Repeated Amnesty Programs Summary: Do general amnesty programs lead to reductions in the crime rate among immigrants? We answer this question by exploiting both cross-sectional and time variation in the number of immigrants legalized generated by the enactment of repeated amnesty programs between 1990 and 2005 in Italy. We address the potential endogeneity of the "legalization treatment" by instrumenting the actual number of legalized immigrants with alternative predicted measures based on past amnesty applications patterns and residential choices of documented and undocumented immigrants. We find that, in the year following an amnesty, regions in which a higher share of immigrants obtained legal status experienced a greater decline in non-EU immigrant crime rates, relative to other regions. The effect is statistically significant but relatively small and not persistent. In further results, we fail to find any evidence of substitution in the criminal market from other population groups - namely, EU immigrants and Italian citizens - and we observe a small and not persistent reduction in total offenses. Details: Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2016. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: IZA Discussion Paper No. 10235 : Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2846326 Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2846326 Shelf Number: 145422 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants and Crime Immigration Policy

Author: Gros, Hanna Title: "No Life for a Child": A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation Summary: Canada should urgently implement alternatives to detaining children rather than housing them in immigration detention facilities or separating them from their detained parents, the University of Toronto’s International Human Rights Program (IHRP) said in a report released today. In failing to do so, Canada is violating its international legal obligations. Over the past several years, Canada has held hundreds of children in immigration detention, including children from Syria and other war-torn regions. According to figures obtained by the IHRP through access to information requests, an average of 242 children were detained each year between 2010 and 2014. These figures are an underestimate because they do not account for all children living with their parents in detention as 'guests, who were not subject to formal detention orders. Some of these include children with Canadian citizenship. The 70-page report, "'No Life for a Child': A Roadmap to End Immigration Detention of Children and Family Separation," uncovers the deficient legal underpinnings and detrimental practical implications of Canadian immigration detention for children. The report makes 11 recommendations to ensure that Canada complies with its international human rights obligations, and analyzes various international models of alternatives to detention and family separation. The report concludes that children and families with children should be released from detention outright or given access to community-based alternatives to detention, such as reporting obligations, financial deposits, guarantors, and electronic monitoring. 'No Life for a Child' is based on IHRP interviews with detained mothers and children, as well as mental health experts, social workers, child rights activists, and legal professionals. The report profiles children, including infants, who lived in detention or were separated from their families. The report finds that conditions of detention are woefully unsuited for children. Immigration Holding Centres resemble medium-security prisons, with significant restrictions on privacy and liberty, inadequate access to education, insufficient recreational opportunities and poor nutrition. One of the children profiled in the report, Michel (not his real name), spent the first 28 months of his life living under these conditions in a Toronto detention facility. Michel’s mother was detained when she was two-months pregnant, because Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) suspected that she was a flight risk. After giving birth to Michel, the two continued to be detained for nearly three years before they were deported in late 2015. According to Michel’s mother, although Michel was a Canadian citizen, 'he lives the same life as a detained child.' According to medical experts, immigration detention causes serious and lasting psychological harm to children, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and suicidal ideation. The report finds that it is the fact of detention — not just the conditions of detention — that is fundamentally harmful to children’s well-being. The report also finds that family separation is not an adequate alternative to child detention because it causes significant psychological distress, and may expose children to the hardships of the child welfare system. Instead, the report recommends that families should be given access to community-based alternatives to detention. The report builds upon years of advocacy by refugee and child rights groups in Canada that have called on the government to ensure that children’s best interests are a primary consideration in decisions affecting them, and ultimately, to end child detention and family separation. International bodies have also repeatedly criticized Canada for its immigration detention practices. The report notes recent initiatives by Canada's federal government and CBSA indicating a strong willingness to reform the immigration detention regime, with a particular view to protecting children and addressing mental health issues. The government has also expressed an intention to engage extensively with non-governmental organizations and other civil society stakeholders in the process of revising relevant policy and designing new programs. Details: Toronto: International Human Rights Program (IHRP) University of Toronto Faculty of Law, 2016. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2016 at: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/Report-NoLifeForAChild.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://ihrp.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/PUBLICATIONS/Report-NoLifeForAChild.pdf Shelf Number: 145777 Keywords: Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Child Detention Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: McAuliffe, M.L., ed. Title: Migrant Smuggling Data and Research: A Global Review of the Emerging Evidence Base Summary: Migrant Smuggling Data and Research: A global review of the emerging evidence base presents a unique review of what is being collected and what can be done to further build the evidence base on migrant smuggling globally. The report is the result of a collaboration between the International Organization for Migration and researchers from a range of backgrounds and academic disciplines, and supported by the Government of Turkey. The report shows that important research has been undertaken on the transnational crime aspects of migrant smuggling, including on routes, smuggling organization (such as criminal networking and facilitation), smuggler profiles and fees/payment. Likewise, there is an emerging academic literature on migrant smuggling, particularly the economic and social processes involved in smuggling, which has largely been based on small-scale qualitative research, mostly undertaken by early career researchers. Contributions from private research companies, as well as investigative journalists, have provided useful insights in some regions, helping to shed light on smuggling practices. There remains, however, sizeable gaps in migration policy research and data, particularly in relation to migration patterns and processes linked to migrant smuggling, including its impact on migrants (particularly vulnerability, abuse and exploitation), as well as its impact on irregular migration flows (such as increasing scale, diversity and changes in geography). Addressing these systemic and regional gaps in data and research would help deepen understanding of the smuggling phenomenon, and provide further insights into how responses can be formulated that better protect migrants while enhancing States’ abilities to manage orderly migration. Details: Geneva, SWIT: International Organization for Migration, 2016. 340p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2016 at: https://publications.iom.int/books/migrant-smuggling-data-and-research-global-review-emerging-evidence-base Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://publications.iom.int/books/migrant-smuggling-data-and-research-global-review-emerging-evidence-base Shelf Number: 145000 Keywords: Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Migrant Smuggling Migrants

Author: National Immigration Law Center Title: States Reject Immigration Enforcement Measures and Advance Inclusive Policies in 2016 Summary: 2016 marked a departure from earlier years, with a high-pitched partisan battle between state elected officials and President Barack Obama on immigration and refugee policy, as well as backlash against localities that had chosen to limit their entanglement with immigration enforcement efforts. Despite significant challenges, the groundwork built by immigrant rights advocates and allies proved effective in defeating virtually all the restrictive bills that were introduced. Thanks to strategic organizing by advocates, directly affected communities, faith-based groups and businesses, and to the testimony of municipal and law enforcement leaders, almost all of the anti-immigrant proposals died. Details: Los Angeles: NILC, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2016 at: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/states-advance-inclusive-policies-2016-10.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/states-advance-inclusive-policies-2016-10.pdf Shelf Number: 145307 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Law Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Manuel, Kate M. Title: State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: From the Mid-1990s to the Present Summary: States and localities can have significant interest in the manner and extent to which federal officials enforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) regarding the exclusion and removal of unauthorized aliens. Some states and localities, concerned that federal enforcement disrupts families and communities, or infringes upon human rights, have adopted 'sanctuary' policies limiting their cooperation in federal efforts. Other states and localities, in contrast, concerned about the costs of providing benefits or services to unauthorized aliens, or such aliens settling in their communities, have adopted measures to deter unauthorized aliens from entering or remaining within their jurisdiction. In some cases, such states or localities have also sued to compel federal officials to enforce the immigration laws, or to compensate them for costs associated with unauthorized migration. This report provides an overview of challenges by states to federal officials' alleged failure to enforce the INA or other provisions of immigration law. It begins by discussing (1) the lawsuits filed by six states in the mid-1990s; (2) Arizona's counterclaims to the federal government's suit to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 1070; and (3) Mississippi's challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. It then describes the challenge brought by over 25 states or state officials in December 2014 to the Obama Administration's proposal to expand DACA and create a similar program for unauthorized aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident aliens (LPRs) (commonly known as DAPA)." Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf Shelf Number: 146677 Keywords: Border Security Criminal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Sanctuary Cities

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Title: Smuggling of Migrants: A risk assessment of border communities: Cambodia, Lao PDR and Thailand Summary: Southeast Asia continues to experience rapid economic and social development. In the Greater Mekong Sub-Region (GMS), economic development in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Thailand is progressing at different paces. The resulting economic disparity between these countries is a driving force for both regular and irregular labor migration to Thailand. Since regular labor migration channels and opportunities are not sufficient to match the demand for unskilled or low-skilled migrant workers in Thailand, irregular migration continues to flourish. In this context, migrant smuggling - the procurement of illegal entry of a person into a State of which the person is not a national for a financial or other material benefit - accounts for much of the irregular migration in the GMS. Driven by supply and demand, illegal flows of goods and people tend to be more prevalent in specific border areas, which become core hubs for organizing illegal border transportation and crossing. This makes the underdeveloped border communities of these GMS countries susceptible targets for organized criminal groups that seek to generate profits from transporting and facilitating illegal entry for migrants. The objectives of this study are to determine key motivators and facilitators of irregular migration, explore the concept of Border Community Committees and their potential effectiveness in reducing the smuggling of migrants, evaluate existing mechanisms for combating irregular migration, and assess the role of law enforcement officials in preventing and prosecuting migrant smuggling and irregular migration practices. Details: Bangkok: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Regional Office for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2016 at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/2014/08/patrol/Final_Report_SOM_in_Border_Communities_11_25_Aug_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Asia URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/2014/08/patrol/Final_Report_SOM_in_Border_Communities_11_25_Aug_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 146667 Keywords: Border Security Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Migrant Smuggling Migrants Organized Crime

Author: Police Executive Research Forum Title: Responding to Migrant Deaths Along the Southwest Border: Lessons from the Field Summary: The United States is grappling with a migration crisis. Since the late 1990s, migrants from Mexico and Central America have been dying by the thousands as they cross into the United States through the unforgiving deserts and scrubland of the Southwest United States. Agencies along the U.S.-Mexico border have been stretched thin as they have tried to save migrants in distress and, when those efforts fail, identify the deceased and return their remains to their loved ones. In 2013, with support from the Ford Foundation, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) began to explore the issue of migrant deaths along the Southwestern border and identify strategies to reduce these fatalities. PERF staff members travelled to Mexico City and South Texas to meet with practitioners and conducted in-depth interviews of experts and stakeholders from nonprofit organizations, local and federal law enforcement agencies, medical examiners’ offices, and universities. After gathering input from these representatives, PERF held an unprecedented, multi-state, multi-agency meeting in Washington, D.C. on June 1, 2016 to discuss interdisciplinary partnership-building and strategies to reduce migrant deaths and improve processes for identifying and repatriating migrants’ remains. This report is the result of PERF’s efforts. It highlights the factors that contribute to the migrant deaths crisis; identifies the key stakeholders in the field and the resources that they represent; examines the partnership-building efforts that are already in place along the border to increase successful rescues of migrants in distress and improve identifications of those who perish; and presents new opportunities for collaboration and information-sharing moving forward. This report serves as a chronicle of the efforts of practitioners in the field, highlights the crisis of migrant deaths in the Southwest, and proposes short-term and long-term solutions for practitioners and policy-makers. It is important to recognize that the migrant deaths crisis is a large-scale humanitarian issue. More than 6,500 migrants have died along the U.S-Mexican border since 1998, and that number is almost certainly an underestimate of the scale of the tragedy. While this report provides guidance on how to reduce these deaths now, in the current legal environment, the real solution lies in comprehensive immigration reform legislation that will provide new pathways to legal immigration and reduce incentives for attempting dangerous illegal border crossings. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2016 at: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/respondingmigrantdeaths.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/respondingmigrantdeaths.pdf Shelf Number: 146666 Keywords: Border Security Human Rights Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Policies Migrant Deaths

Author: Bucci, Steven Title: America's 'Maginot Line': A study of static border security in an age of agile and innovative threats Summary: Borders and border security are once again becoming increasingly important to the nation state. Many take a default position that our coastline is our border and that border security involves merely police, security guards and immigration or customs officials. But Australia's geography no longer provides the physical barrier from the outside world that it once did. This strategy provides a case study analysis of post-9/11 changes to US border security policies. It examines each of America's different borders: the friendly northern borders, maritime borders, and the militarised southern border. It provides recommendations for Australia's border security. Details: Barton, ACT, AUS: Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2016 at: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/americas-maginot-line-a-study-of-static-border-security-in-an-age-of-agile-and-innovative-threats/US-border-security.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/americas-maginot-line-a-study-of-static-border-security-in-an-age-of-agile-and-innovative-threats/US-border-security.pdf Shelf Number: 141155 Keywords: Border Security Homeland Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement

Author: McKenzie, David Title: Eliciting Illegal migration rates through list randomization Summary: Most migration surveys do not ask about the legal status of migrants due to concerns about the sensitivity of this question List randomization is a technique that has been used in a number of other social science applications to elicit sensitive information This paper trials this technique by adding it to surveys conducted in Ethiopia, Mexico, Morocco, and the Philippines It shows how, in principal, this can be used both to give an estimate of the over rate of illegal migration in the population being surveyed, as well as to determine illegal migration rates for subgroups such as more or less educated households The results suggest that there is some useful information in this method: higher rates of illegal migration in countries where illegal migration is thought to be more prevalent and households who say they have a migrant are more likely to report having an illegal migrant Nevertheless, some of the other findings also suggest some possible inconsistencies or noise in the conclusions obtained using this method The authors suggest directions for future attempts to implement this approach in migration surveys Details: London: Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, Department of Economics, University College London, 2013. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: CReAM Discussion Paper Series, no. 10/13: Accessed November 17, 2016 at: http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_10_13.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_10_13.pdf Shelf Number: 144853 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Illegal Migration Migrants

Author: Southern Poverty Law Center Title: Shadow Prisons: Immigrant Detention in the South Summary: Just days after winning election, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he intends to round up and deport up to 3 million immigrants. Such a plan, if carried out immediately, would require a massive – and costly – expansion of America's prison and detention infrastructure at a time when politicians and policymakers across the ideological spectrum are working to reduce the nation’s prison population, the world's largest. And it would likely be a major boost to the fortunes of private prison companies that profit from incarceration – even though most studies show that privately operated prisons are generally more dangerous, less effective and no less expensive than government-run facilities. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decided to add 10,000 beds to its immigrant detention system, increasing the capacity to 45,000 immigrants per day. But, as a result of Trump's proposed deportation plan, the DHS could need many thousands more. Unsurprisingly, private prison stocks have soared since Trump's election. An expansion of the immigrant detention system threatens to greatly exacerbate the mass incarceration crisis in America. And it would violate our nation's basic values and cement our reputation as a country intolerant of immigrants. The findings of this study demonstrate that the immigrant detention system is already rife with civil rights violations and poor conditions that call into question the DHS’s commitment to the due process rights and safety of detainees. Many of these detainees have lived here for years; others recently fled violence in their home countries to seek refuge in the United States. This report is the result of a seven-month investigation of six detention centers in the South, a region where tens of thousands of people are locked up for months, sometimes even years, as they await hearings or deportation. The South is a leader in immigration detention, holding one out of every six detainees in the United States. A closer look makes it clear why it holds this distinction. Detained immigrants in the South are frequently denied the opportunity of a bond hearing that would free them until their cases are adjudicated. The region's immigration courts, which are often inaccessible to the public, are hostile to immigrants not fortunate enough to have an attorney. And so they wait behind bars in remote Southern facilities virtually indistinguishable from prisons. Many of the facilities are former jails or prisons that were shut down after civil rights investigations and lawsuits revealed poor conditions and abuse. Now, it’s the detainees who face abusive and dangerous conditions at these facilities, which fail to meet basic legal and regulatory standards. And it's the detainees who often find there is little hope for release as their due process rights are denied. The investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and the Adelante Alabama Worker Center focuses on detention centers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana. Three are operated by private companies and three by county sheriffs. All are paid by the DHS on a per diem basis. The report is based on tours of each facility and more than 300 in-person interviews with detainees. They represent more than 5 percent of the average daily population of the detention centers studied. From facility to facility, their stories are remarkably similar accounts of abuse, neglect and rights denied – symptoms of an immigrant detention system where the failures of the nation's immigration system intersect with the failures of its prison system. Details: Atlanta, GA: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2016 at: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_shadow_prisons_immigrant_detention_report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/leg_ijp_shadow_prisons_immigrant_detention_report.pdf Shelf Number: 147908 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigrant Detention Immigration Private Prisons

Author: De Genova, Nicholas Title: Detention, Deportation, and Waiting: Toward a Theory of Migrant Detainability Summary: The global expansion of deportation regimes has spurred an analogous expansion of migrant detention. Arguably even more than the onerous punitive power of deportation, detention imposes the sovereign power of a state on to the lives of non-citizens in a manner that transmutes their status into de facto legal non-personhood. That is to say, with detention, the condition of deportable migrants culminates in summary (and sometimes indefinite) incarceration on the basis of little more than their sheer existential predicament as “undesirable” non-citizens, often with little or no recourse to any form of legal remedy or appeal, and frequently no semblance to due process. Castigated to a station outside the law, their detention leaves them at the mercy of the caprices of authorities. The author argues that to adequately comprehend the productivity of this power to detain migrants, we must have recourse to a concept of detainability, the possibility of being detained. The paper situates the analysis of immigration detention in the framework of contemporary critical theory, interrogating the economy of different conditionalities and contingencies that undergird various degrees by which distinct categories of migrants are subjected to detention power. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/detention-deportation-waiting-toward-theory-migrant-detainability-gdp-working-paper-no-18 Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/detention-deportation-waiting-toward-theory-migrant-detainability-gdp-working-paper-no-18 Shelf Number: 147936 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Reitano, Tuesday Title: Breathing Space: The impact of the EU-Turkey deal on irregular migration Summary: The €6billion agreement reached between the European Union (EU) and Turkey on migration achieved a dramatic drop in the number of crossings and stopped a fast-growing criminal industry in its tracks. But smugglers interviewed for this paper are watching closely for signs of a change of tack, and not without reason. The Erdogan administration has been progressively at odds with the EU as it finds itself hemmed in by growing internal dissent, multiple terror threats and a failing economy. The breathing space provided by the arrangement is running out and the EU does not seem to have a credible alternative in the event of a collapse. Details: Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: ISS Paper 297: Accessed December 5, 2016 at: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gi-iss-breathing-space-nov-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Turkey URL: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gi-iss-breathing-space-nov-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147884 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration Migration Policy

Author: Herbert, Matthew Title: At the edge: Trends and routes of North African clandestine migrants Summary: In 2015, over 16,000 Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans were caught while attempting to migrate to Europe covertly. Though North Africans are a relatively small portion of the masses of clandestine migrants, they are a critical group to understand. They are the innovators and early adaptors of new methods and routes for migrant smuggling, such as their pioneering in the 1990s and 2000s of the routes across the Mediterranean that now fuel Europe's migration crisis. Understanding how and why North Africans migrate, the routes they use, and how these are changing, offers insights into how clandestine migration methods and routes in general may shift in the coming years. In shaping better responses to actual dynamics, it is important for countries to proactively address the chronic conditions that drive forced migration before they generate social instability. Details: Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: ISS Paper 298: Accessed December 5, 2016 at: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/at-the-edge-paper-final-.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Africa URL: http://globalinitiative.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/at-the-edge-paper-final-.pdf Shelf Number: 140301 Keywords: Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Migration

Author: United Nations Support Mission in Libya Title: "Detained and Dehumanised": Report on Human Rights Abuses Against Migrants in Libya Summary: The situation of migrants in Libya is a human rights crisis. The breakdown in the justice system has led to a state of impunity, in which armed groups, criminal gangs, smugglers and traffickers control the flow of migrants through the country. The United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) has also received credible information that some members of State institutions and some local officials have participated in the smuggling and trafficking process. Libya is a destination and transit country for migrants. Many suffer human rights violations and abuses in the course of their journeys. They are subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, other ill-treatment, unlawful killings, sexual exploitation, and a host of other human rights abuses. Migrants are also exploited as forced labour and suffer extortion by smugglers, traffickers, as well as members of State institutions. Women migrants are the most exposed, amidst numerous and consistent reports of rape and other sexual violence. Migrants are held arbitrarily in detention centres run mostly by the Department for Combatting Illegal Migration (DCIM). They are brought to the centres where there is no formal registration, no legal process, and no access to lawyers or judicial authorities. Conditions in detention are generally inhuman: severely overcrowded, without adequate access to toilets or washing facilities, food, or clean water. In several detention centres visited by UNSMIL, migrants were observed in large numbers in a single room without even sufficient space to lie down. Amidst severe challenges faced by the health sector in Libya as a result of the conflict, some hospitals have refused to treat migrants, citing a lack of payment and fear of infectious diseases. Information received by UNSMIL shows a consistent and widespread pattern of guards beating, humiliating and extorting migrants, including by taking money for their release. A number of migrants interviewed by UNSMIL had sustained gunshot or knife injuries; several migrants had visible wounds and head injuries. UNSMIL also received reports that groups pledging allegiance to the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have been involved in the abduction and abuse of migrants in Libya. Migrants, as well as representatives of international non-governmental organizations that carry out search and rescue operations, have also recounted dangerous, life-threatening interceptions by armed men believed to be from the Libyan Coast Guard. After interception, migrants are often beaten, robbed and taken to detention centres or private houses and farms, where they are subjected to forced labour, rape, and other sexual violence. From 1 January to 22 November 2016, 168,542 migrants arrived in Italy from Libya and 4164 are known to have died at sea. The actual number is likely to be higher. The European Union is seeking to disrupt the smuggling of migrants and trafficking of humans by a number of means including through its naval Operation Sophia 1 . Lifesaving search and rescue operations are carried out by ships belonging to the European Union Operations Sophia and Triton2 , and ships of individual European States such as the Italian Coast Guard, non-governmental organizations, and merchant ships3 . Rescued migrants are taken to Italy. Some senior government officials in Europe have called for the establishment of migrant camps in North Africa and the return of boats to Libya. However, European Union policy and international law prohibits the return of any individual to a place where she or he is at risk of torture or other serious human rights abuses. The Libyan Coast Guard has also carried out limited search and rescue operations in Libyan territorial waters. The Libyan authorities, with the support of the international community, must do all in their power to address this human rights crisis, starting as a matter of urgency with the situation of migrants in detention. In addition, as the issue of migration has a wider regional and international dimension, countries of origin and destination need to play their role in addressing the crisis. In this present report, UNSMIL and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) propose immediate and mid-term recommendations, with a view to addressing this situation in a manner which is both comprehensive and human rights-based. In this regard, recommendations addressed to the Libyan authorities include, with a view to urgently ending the arbitrary detention of all migrants, to release immediately migrants who are in the most vulnerable situations; reduce the number of detention centres; ensure female detainees are held separately from male detainees; improve conditions of detention; facilitate the work of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in the country; and, in the medium-term, to amend Libyan legislation in order to decriminalize irregular migration; ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol and adopt a national asylum law. In addition, OHCHR and UNSMIL recommend that countries of destination beyond Libya, including Member States of the European Union, expand safe and regular entry channels and the availability of durable solutions; continue search and rescue operations; and ensure that training and support for Libyan institutions which engage with migrants is accompanied by comprehensive efforts to address the human rights of migrants, including through ending their arbitrary detention and improving their treatment in detention. A number of recommendations are also directed to migrants' countries of origin including to facilitate voluntary, humanitarian and sustainable repatriation of migrants and to work on human rights and development programmes aimed at providing alternatives to irregular migration. Details: UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 15, 2016 at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/585104cf4.html Year: 2016 Country: Libya URL: http://www.refworld.org/docid/585104cf4.html Shelf Number: 140479 Keywords: Forced Labor Human Rights Abuses Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Torture

Author: Regional Mixed Migration Secretariat Title: Behind Bars: The detention of migrants in and from the East & Horn of Africa Summary: Regional Focus This study focuses on immigration detention in the East and Horn of Africa, as well as Yemen, Israel and Saudi Arabia which are countries where a significant number of migrants from this region migrate to. The report also includes a short section on the use of immigration detention in Italy and Malta, the first points of entry in Europe for Horn of Africa migrants (mainly Eritreans and Somalis) travelling the north-western route out of the region to Europe. The use of immigration detention The use of immigration detention is widespread in the main destination and transit countries affecting migrants in and from East Africa and Horn of Africa countries. Instead of being a measure of last resort, detention of migrants is a routine practice in some of these countries (Djibouti, Israel Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania and Yemen). In 2013 and 2014 for example, several countries, such as Kenya, Saudi Arabia and Tanzania carried out mass operations during which thousands of migrants were detained. In most countries, irregular migrants are generally detained, either by law or as a de facto policy. Immigration detention is used for a variety of reasons, which commonly includes: controlling migration flows, as a deterrence measure for future migrants, security reasons (such as identity and health checks) or protection of the labour market. The detention of migrants can also be the result of chaotic or dysfunctional processes. For example, when migrants are detained because there are no resources (financial, transport) available for deportation; when a detention centre is full but the local prison has space; or when the local police demand bribes from migrants and detain them until they pay for their release. In short, migrants are detained for a variety of reasons, including more ad hoc, informal reasons that are not captured in formal immigration policy. International legislation Although most countries have ratified a range of relevant international conventions that regulate the detention of all persons, including migrants, states in the region frequently act in violation of their international obligations: t 5IF International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for example, which is legally binding on all countries that are part of this research except Saudi Arabia, states among other things that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention”, that “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him”. Nevertheless, arbitrary arrests are common in all countries and migrants are often not informed (or at least do not understand) the charges against them. t 5IF International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) guarantees the “right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, in the enjoyment of the right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State”. Yet, the country sections provide examples of operations during which large numbers of migrants and urban refugees were detained and certain nationalities were specifically targeted, such as Somalis during operation ‘Usalama Watch’ in Kenya or Sub-Saharan African migrants in Israel. t In most countries, children (under the age of eighteen years), both accompanied and unaccompanied, are detained, sometimes together with other adults, which violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). t 5IFSF IBWF CFFO TFWFSBM FYBNQMFT PG refoulement of refugees and asylum seekers, for example of Eritreans and Sudanese by Israeli authorities and Somalis by Saudi authorities, which violates the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the 1951 Refugee Convention. Arbitrary detention The country sections of this report describe how arbitrary detention is common in every country in the region. Especially, but not exclusively, during mass operations as referred to above. On these occasions, authorities did not carry out individual determinations to assess whether detention is reasonable, necessary and proportional, but instead migrants were detained in large groups without individual consideration. Periodic reviews are often not carried out and detained migrants are not always – or only after many days – brought before a judge or into a court. Migrants in Israel can be detained indefinitely, which by definition classifies as arbitrary detention. Details: Nairobi, Kenya: RMMS, 2015. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 23, 2016 at: http://www.regionalmms.org/images/ResearchInitiatives/Behind_Bars_the_detention_of_migrants_in_and_from_the_East___Horn_of_Africa_2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Africa URL: http://www.regionalmms.org/images/ResearchInitiatives/Behind_Bars_the_detention_of_migrants_in_and_from_the_East___Horn_of_Africa_2.pdf Shelf Number: 147786 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Migrants

Author: Durcan, Graham Title: Immigration Removal Centres in England: A mental health needs analysis Summary: Between March 2015 and March 2016, over 30,000 people were held in UK immigration detention. Many of these people had experienced torture, trauma and oppression in their countries of origin. In response to the Shaw Report (2016) which highlighted the poor mental wellbeing of people detained in Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs), Centre for Mental Health was commissioned by NHS England to conduct a rapid mental health needs analysis of IRCs in England. The resulting review aims to support NHS England and the Home Office in planning to meet the wellbeing and mental health needs of people held in IRCs. To gain a full oversight of mental health needs in IRCs, we conducted interviews with staff and detainees, asked managers to complete a survey, and conducted observations of each IRC. Ten IRCs (or 'holding facilities') were included in the needs analysis. Mental health and immigration detention Research into the impact of detention has consistently highlighted that: • Immigration detention has a negative impact on mental health • The longer someone spends in detention, the more negative an impact it has upon their mental health • Depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder are the most common mental health problems A study conducted across four UK IRCs in 2009 found that four out of five detainees met a clinical threshold for depression. Mental wellbeing in IRCs All immigration detainees will face challenges to their wellbeing during their stay. Even if they do not reach a clinical threshold, the distress they experience is still disabling and even life-threatening. Across the IRCs in our needs analysis, the most commonly reported problem was depressed mood and anxiety problems, and the most severe reported problems were hallucinations or delusions. Most of the detainees we interviewed had experienced some form of trauma in their life before detention, e.g. fleeing a country where they were being persecuted; witnessing loved ones being killed; experiencing domestic violence, sex trafficking or female genital mutilation; or fleeing a death sentence. They also highlighted issues of mental health stigma and language barriers in discussing wellbeing. Impact of detention on mental wellbeing Detainees and staff both described the impact of detention on people's wellbeing. The challenges to wellbeing were partly caused by loss of liberty, the feeling of staying in a prison-like regime, and uncertainty about their future. Additionally, confusion about the legal procedures caused a huge amount of distress to detainees. Details: London: Centre for Mental Health, 2017. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2017 at: https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/immigration-removal-centres Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/immigration-removal-centres Shelf Number: 145100 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Mental Health Services

Author: Joyner, Kara Title: Arresting Immigrants: Unemployment and Immigration Enforcement in the Decade Following the September 11 Terrorist Attacks Summary: Recent research on the arrest of immigrants in the United States is largely descriptive and focused on a few localities. This study provides an examination of immigrant arrest involving two different agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): The Border Patrol (BP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Descriptive time series analyses track yearly changes in immigrant arrest in the decade following the September 11 terrorist attacks (2002- 2012). For many DHS jurisdictions, changes in the rates of immigrant arrest closely mirrored changes in the rates of unemployment. Fixed effects models pooling yearly data for the ICE jurisdictions demonstrate that the associations between changes in unemployment rates and changes in immigrant arrest rates were positive and significant. The strength of the associations varied considerably across jurisdictions, with magnitudes that ranged from weak to strong. The results suggest that decisions to arrest immigrants in the interior region of the country during this period were discretionary. Details: Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University The Center for Family and Demographic Research, 2016. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: 2016 Working Paper Series: Accessed February 4, 2017 at: http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2016-007/PWP-BGSU-2016-007.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2016-007/PWP-BGSU-2016-007.pdf Shelf Number: 145878 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants and Crime Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Schans, D. Title: Raising awareness, changing behavior? Summary: Several migrant receiving countries such as Australia, the U.S. and Switzerland have launched migration information campaigns in migrant sending and transit countries about the risks involved in (irregular) migration. With the current high influx of migrants more and more of such campaigns are launched. Such campaigns can target different goals: to help to prevent irregular movements by ensuring that people are sufficiently informed about the potential risks; to manage expectations people might have about the opportunities they will have after migration or to outright prevent migration altogether. This research project will look at several aspects of migration information campaigns: the design, the implementation, the assumptions underlying the campaign and the possible effects of these campaigns. The use of social media will receive separate attention. How and to what extent migration information campaigns are part of social media platforms used by refugees and migrants and whether or not they influence migration decisions remains unclear though. Details: The Hague: WODC-Research and Documentation Centre) of the Ministry of Security and Justice , 2016. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Cahier 2016-11: Accessed February 4, 2017 at: https://english.wodc.nl/binaries/Cahier%202016-11_2683_Volledige%20tekst_tcm29-239610.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Netherlands URL: https://english.wodc.nl/binaries/Cahier%202016-11_2683_Volledige%20tekst_tcm29-239610.pdf Shelf Number: 145881 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Media Campaigns Migration Publicity Campaigns Social Media

Author: Schriro, Dora Bess Title: Obstacles to Reforming Family Detention in the United States Summary: The prospect of ending the detention of immigrant families in the United States appears more remote than ever as the new president begins implementing his immigration agenda. This paper, authored by the former director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of Detention Policy and Planning, provides an inside look at how policymakers early in the Obama administration sought to roll back family detention and the fate of those efforts. It examines ambitious early reform proposals and subsequent challenges that spurred officials to significantly ramp up family detention. The author concludes with a series of recommendations and urges renewed calls for reforms in the face of the Trump administration's intended immigration crackdown Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2017. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper No. 20: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/obstacles-to-reforming-family-detention-in-the-united-states-global-detention-project-working-paper-no-20 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/obstacles-to-reforming-family-detention-in-the-united-states-global-detention-project-working-paper-no-20 Shelf Number: 144826 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Perez Casanova, Gaspar M. Title: The Lost Path: Regulating Transit Illegal Immigration on Mexico's Southern Border Summary: This thesis focuses on the efforts that the Mexican government has made for the regulation of illegal immigration in transit through the country. This study explores the origins and trends of Central American migration, the complexity of Mexico’s southern border, and the reasons for the failure of plans and programs implemented by three different administrations to regulate and protect migration flows. It finds that those plans and programs failed because Mexico did not perceive the control of Central American illegal immigration as an end; instead, it has been used to foster foreign policy objectives or to respond to second-order effects produced by the war against organized crime. Since 2000, Mexican administrations have faced different realities, both domestic and international, which have shaped their response for border management and the regulation of illegal immigration. Security and the reordering of regional migration flows have been the priorities, relegating transit migration to a second plane. Mexico has accomplished important advances to give certainty and protection to illegal immigrants, but an integral and effective framework to regulate migration is lacking. Processes of planning, implementation, and evaluation of migration policies are barely defined, and the implementation of plans and programs is ineffective due to institutional weaknesses. The regulation of transit migration in Mexico is an unresolved issue. Details: Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, 2014. 176p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed February 23, 2017 at: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/44643/14Dec_Perez_Casanova_Gaspar.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2014 Country: Mexico URL: http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/44643/14Dec_Perez_Casanova_Gaspar.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 141206 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration Immigration Enforcement

Author: Grange, Mariette Title: When Is Immigration Detention Lawful? The Monitoring Practices of UN Human Rights Mechanisms Summary: his Global Detention Project Working Paper details how the banalisation of immigration detention is contested by international human rights mechanisms. Since the creation of the United Nations, the global human rights regime has provided a framework for the protection of all people, including those living in foreign countries. This paper assesses how national sovereignty and access to territory is mitigated by the universal nature and applicability of human rights and refugee protection standards. The authors comprehensively describe the normative framework governing immigration detention established in core international treaties and discuss how human rights bodies apply this framework when reviewing states' policies and practices. Their assessment of the impact and implementation of fundamental norms reveals gaps in the international protection regime and highlights how states' responses to this regime have shaped contemporary immigration detention systems. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 21: Accessed February 24, 2017 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/when-is-immigration-detention-lawful-monitoring-practices-of-un-human-rights-mechanisms Year: 2017 Country: International URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/when-is-immigration-detention-lawful-monitoring-practices-of-un-human-rights-mechanisms Shelf Number: 141214 Keywords: Human Rights Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Detention Immigration Enforcement

Author: Caicedo, David A. Title: Alien, Illegal, Undocumented: Labeling, Context, and Worldview in the Immigration Debate and in the Lives of Undocumented Youth Summary: A key element of investigating attitudes towards unauthorized immigrants in the United States has been political orientation, yet few studies have examined the influence of such orientation on labels relevant to the immigration debate. The current dissertation project examined these attitudes among young adults using survey, focus group, and interview methodologies. Level of agreement on various statements regarding unauthorized immigrants was examined in Study I, definitions given for the labels 'illegal' and 'undocumented' were explored in Study II, and the lived experience of undocumented youth in two community colleges was investigated in Study III. It was hypothesized that: I) attitudes concerning unauthorized immigrants are a function of present social labels, regardless of political orientation; II) social label definitions reflect distinct cognitive processes; and III) the lived experiences of undocumented students reflect the respective social environments of an urban and suburban community college. Participants in Study I were 744 (463 urban/272 suburban) young adults, all who were recruited from "New York Community College" (NYCC, urban) and "New Jersey Community College" (NJCC, suburban); participants in Study II were 14 (8 NYCC, 6 NJCC) young adults; and participants in Study III were 7 (4 NYCC, 3 NJCC) young adults. Participants in Study I were asked to complete an attitude on unauthorized immigrants scale, followed by the General System Justification scale, and finally a self-reported social label exposure measure. Participants in Study II were asked to generate definitions for the labels 'illegal' and 'undocumented'. Participants in Study III were asked about their life experiences as undocumented young adults in either NY or NJ. Contrary to hypothesis I, statistical analysis demonstrated that the priming of social labels did not account for attitudes, but it was rather the participants’ college that reflected divergent attitudes. Moreover, urban college students reported seeing and hearing the term ‘undocumented’ more often from others, while suburban college students reported seeing and hearing the terms 'illegal' and 'alien' more. Values analysis in Study II demonstrated a pattern of dichotomous and legal-centered thinking with the 'illegal' definitions, while situational and circumstantial thinking was present with the 'undocumented' definitions. Values analysis in Study III reflected a pattern of shared and unshared beliefs and principles regarding themselves, others, and the future centered on "growing up undocumented" in NY and NJ. Specifically, regardless of location, students who reported being undocumented held values concerning perseverance and the need to hide their status but also to be understood by others; while depending on location, values either reflected the importance of improving one's family condition, or one’s own personal trajectory. Findings are discussed in the context of the U.S. immigration debate discourse. Implications for understanding how the presence of others and social labels influence sociopolitical attitudes, as well as how social environment directly impacts psychological development in undocumented youth, are considered. Details: New York: City University of New York, 2016. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 20, 2017 at: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1794&context=gc_etds Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1794&context=gc_etds Shelf Number: 144520 Keywords: Illegal Aliens Illegal Immigrants Immigration Migrants Undocumented Immigrants Undocumented Persons Undocumented Youth

Author: Herman, Sarah S. Title: State and Local "Sanctuary" Policies Limiting Participation in Immigration Enforcement Summary: The federal government is vested with the exclusive power to create rules governing which aliens may enter the United States and which aliens may be removed. However, the impact of alien migration "whether lawful or unlawful" is arguably felt most directly in the communities where aliens reside. State and local responses to unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions have varied considerably, particularly as to the role that state and local police should play in enforcing federal immigration law. While some states and municipalities actively participate in or cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, others have actively opposed federal immigration authorities' efforts to identify and remove certain unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions. Entities that have adopted such policies are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary" jurisdictions. There is no official, formal, or agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, and there has been debate as to whether the term applies to particular states and localities. Moreover, state and local jurisdictions might have varied reasons for opting not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, including for reasons not necessarily motivated by disagreement with federal policies, such as concern about potential civil liability or the costs associated with assisting federal efforts. Having said that, traditional sanctuary policies are often described as falling under one of three categories. First, so-called "don't enforce" policies generally bar the state or local police from assisting federal immigration authorities. Second, "don't ask" policies generally bar certain state or local officials from inquiring into a person’s immigration status. Third, "don't tell" policies typically restrict information sharing between state or local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. This report provides examples of various state and local laws and policies that fall into one of these sanctuary categories. The report also discusses federal measures designed to counteract sanctuary policies. For instance, Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) were enacted to curb state and local restrictions on information sharing with federal immigration authorities. Additionally, the report discusses legal issues relevant to sanctuary policies. In particular, the report examines the extent to which states, as sovereign entities, may decline to assist in federal immigration enforcement and the degree to which the federal government can stop state measures that undermine federal objectives in a manner that is consistent with the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, the federal government's power to regulate the immigration and status of aliens within the United States is substantial and exclusive. Under the doctrine of preemption "derived from the Supremacy Clause" Congress may invalidate or displace state laws pertaining to immigration. This action may be done expressly or impliedly, for instance, when federal regulation occupies an entire field or when state law interferes with a federal regulatory scheme. However, not every state or local law related to immigration is preempted by federal law, especially when the local law involves the police powers to promote public health, safety, and welfare reserved to the states via the Tenth Amendment. Further, the anti-commandeering principles derived from the Tenth Amendment prohibit the federal government from directing states and localities to implement a federal regulatory program, like immigration. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2017. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: R44795: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44795.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44795.pdf Shelf Number: 144696 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Sanctuary Jurisdictions Sanctuary Policies

Author: Rietig, Victoria Title: Stopping the Revolving Door: Reception and Reintegration Services for Central American Deportees Summary: In the past five years, hundreds of thousands of Central American migrants deported from Mexico and the United States -including tens of thousands of children - have arrived back in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. For many deportees, the conditions upon arrival are worse than those that compelled them to leave in the first place. They and their families may be in crippling debt after having paid smugglers, and many return to communities that are even less safe than when they left. Thus, a significant number are in danger of entering a revolving door of migration, deportation, and remigration. Efforts to break this cycle center on providing more and better opportunities for Central America's people, especially its youth - an effort that includes reception programs and reintegration services for deportees once they return. Governments of Central America acknowledge the need for comprehensive policies and programs to help their deported citizens anchor themselves again upon return. All three countries offer reception services to most deportees, but reintegration services are far more limited and serve only a few. This report offers a detailed profile of the organization, funding sources, capacity, and the numbers of deportees served in reception and reintegration programs in the Northern Triangle. While the relevance of reintegration programs is largely unquestioned, knowledge is limited about what services are already in place, and how existing programs can be leveraged effectively. The authors note that there is little in the way of program evaluation or monitoring. This report attempts to fill these knowledge gaps by describing the types of reception and reintegration services, and analyzing common challenges to building successful initiatives in the region. An appendix provides further details on the programs surveyed, including relevant actors, organizations, budgets, evaluations, numbers of beneficiaries, and challenges. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/stopping-revolving-door-reception-and-reintegration-services-central-american-deportees Year: 2015 Country: Central America URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/stopping-revolving-door-reception-and-reintegration-services-central-american-deportees Shelf Number: 144765 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Deportees Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigration Immigration Policy

Author: Correa-Cabrera, Guadalupe Title: Trafficking in Persons Along Mexico's Eastern Migration Routes: The Role of Transnational Criminal Organizations Summary: The aim of this research is to understand the role of transnational organized crime in human trafficking along Mexico's eastern migration routes, from Central America to Mexico's northeastern border. In this region, drug traffickers are smuggling and trafficking unauthorized migrants in order to diversify their revenue streams. This project analyzes the new role of Central American gangs and Mexican -origin drug trafficking organizations--now known as transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) - in the trafficking of persons from Central America to Mexico's northeastern border. Details: Washington, DC: Wilson Center, Latin American Program, 2017. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2017 at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/final.pdf Shelf Number: 144799 Keywords: Criminal Networks Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Organized Crime

Author: London Detainee Support Group Title: Detained Lives: The real cost of indefinite immigration detention Summary: Detained Lives reveals the ineffectiveness and the human impact of the UK's hidden practice of indefinite immigration detention without time limits. It presents the perspectives of people detained for more than a year on all aspects of detention. The research explores whether indefinite detention achieves its stated aims of deporting people, through analysis of London Detainee Support Group's case files. The evidence suggests that indefinite detention simply does not work: as a means of deporting people it is ineffective and grossly inefficient. The testimony of detainees shows the human cost to be vast: the opaque implementation of detention without time limits leads many people to despair. Details: London; LDSG, 2009. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 14, 2017 at: http://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Detained-Lives-report1.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Detained-Lives-report1.pdf Shelf Number: 144909 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement

Author: Collingwood Research Title: The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime, and Undocumented Immigration Summary: This paper assesses the claim that sanctuary cities - defined as cities that expressly forbid city officials or police departments from inquiring into immigration status - are associated with post-hoc increases in crime. We employ a causal inference matching strategy to compare similarly situated cities where key variables are the same across the cities except the sanctuary status of the city. We find no statistically discernible difference in violent crime rate, rape, or property crime across the cities. Our findings provide evidence that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates, despite narratives to the contrary. The potential benefits of sanctuary cities, such as better incorporation of the undocumented community and cooperation with police, thus have little cost for the cities in question in terms of crime. Details: Riverside, CA: Collingwood Research, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2017 at: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/shelter_nopols_blind_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/shelter_nopols_blind_final.pdf Shelf Number: 145231 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Policy Sanctuary Cities Undocumented Migrants

Author: Stepick, Alex Title: False Promises: The Failure of Secure Communities in Miami-Dade County Summary: This report addresses the impact on Miami-Dade County of the Secure Communities program, currently one of the primary federal immigration enforcement programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). DHS claims that the program prioritizes the removal of convicted criminal aliens who pose a danger to national security or public safety, repeat violators who game the immigration system, those who fail to appear at immigration hearings, and fugitives who have already been ordered removed by an immigration judge. Contrary to these policy goals, we found that 61% of individuals ordered for removal from Miami-Dade County are either low level offenders or not guilty of the crime for which they were arrested. By ICE's standards only 18% of the individuals ordered for removal represent high priority public safety risks, and that number drops to a mere 6% when we apply local standards suggested by Miami-Dade County's Public Defender. Interviews with detainees also reveal that often residents are stopped by police for no apparent reason and subjected to detention and deportation. Secure Communities in Miami-Dade County also has a disproportionately negative impact on Mexicans and Central Americans who constitute a relatively low percentage of the local population but a high percentage of those whom Secure Communities detained and removed. For this report, the Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy (RISEP) of the Center for Labor Research and Studies at Florida International University analyzed twelve months of arrest records, and the detentions and subsequent dispositions of all 1,790 individuals held in Miami-Dade County Corrections' jails for the Secure Communities program. RISEP complemented this analysis with interviews of individual Miami-Dade County residents who were directly affected by Secure Communities and interviews with local government officials in the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County. We also conducted a thorough analysis of DHS and ICE documents that guide Secure Communities. Our analysis of these documents demonstrates that the program is based on internally ambiguous priorities and directives that result in contradictory guidelines. Accordingly, Secure Communities has become a program that in essence removes virtually all undocumented migrants who are identified through Secure Communities, in spite of DHS Secretary Napolitano calling for ICE to use prosecutorial discretion. The program's guidelines bear the signs of a centrally devised policy created without consideration for the complex criminal justice landscapes of the thousands of jurisdictions where the program is implemented. The implications and effects of enforcing Secure Communities are far reaching. It disrupts and tears apart honest and hardworking families and makes Miami-Dade less secure for everyone as it discourages immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement. ICE's detention and deportation of immigrants for minor crimes, ordinary misdemeanors, and non-offense incidents reduces trust of law enforcement. This is especially dangerous in Miami-Dade County where the majority of the population is immigrants and approximately three-fourths are either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants. Miami's Mayor and Police Chief both expressed their belief that the reduced trust that Secure Communities produces will make protecting all communities more difficult - the opposite of what DHS and ICE claim is their goal. When community trust in law enforcement decreases, residents are less likely to report crimes and cooperate with police in the investigation of crimes. When serious crimes do occur, the reduced trust engendered by ICE's Secure Communities program makes it more difficult for local law enforcement to do its job, undermining the security of all county residents. We strongly recommend that Miami-Dade leaders form a broad-based task force to review the impact of Secure Communities. We urge Miami-Dade County residents, elected officials, law enforcement leadership, and representatives of the criminal justice system to carefully and conscientiously evaluate and determine which aspects of this federal program are in the best interests of Miami-Dade County and adjust their cooperation accordingly. The task force should be charged with carefully defining those aspects of Secure Communities that, in fact, help protect public safety and the parts of the program that contradict local law and enforcement policy. This evaluation should include a meticulous cost analysis. Without this knowledge, Secure Communities has the potential for creating long-term damage and problems that will persist long after reform of the country's current federal immigration law. We suggest that Miami-Dade County and its municipalities follow the lead of numerous other state and local governments and not honor ICE detainer requests unless an immigrant has been convicted of a serious crime. Details: Miami, FL; Research Institute on Social & Economic Policy, Center for Labor Research & Studies. Florida International University' Miami: Americans for Immigrant Justice, 2013. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=soc_fac Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=soc_fac Shelf Number: 145258 Keywords: Community Policing Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement Sanctuary Cities Undocumented Migrants

Author: Schultheis, Ryan Title: A Revolving Door No More? A Statistical Profile of Mexican Adults Repatriated from the United States Summary: Repeat migration is slowing significantly for Mexican adults removed from the United States. An official survey of Mexican adults removed or voluntarily returned by the U.S. government found an 80 percent drop in the number intending to seek re-entry, from 471,000 in 2005 to 95,000 in 2015. Overall, the share of Mexican returnees saying they intended to return to the United States fell from 95 percent in 2005 to 49 percent in 2015. This stark shift in the decision-making of Mexican returnees represents an important aspect of the changing dynamics of U.S.-Mexico migration - one worth considering as U.S. policymakers contemplate appropriating vast new sums for additional border enforcement. This report provides a statistical profile of Mexican adults repatriated from the United States between 2005 and 2015. Using representative data collected in the Mexican Northern Border Survey (EMIF Norte) and repatriation data from the Mexican Interior Ministry, it explores the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of deportees, their immigration histories, and information on their future migration plans and minor children left behind in the United States. While a number of factors likely contribute to the decision of repatriated adults to forgo repeat illegal migration and instead remain in Mexico, this trend has profound implications for governments and communities on both sides of the border. For Mexico, it highlights the importance of building out reception services to ensure the successful social and economic reintegration of repatriated Mexican adults who can contribute to future economic growth in Mexico. Such programs, as well as economic conditions in both Mexico and the United States, will determine whether the revolving door of migration continues to slow. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/revolving-door-no-more-statistical-profile-mexican-adults-repatriated-united-states Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/revolving-door-no-more-statistical-profile-mexican-adults-repatriated-united-states Shelf Number: 145308 Keywords: Border Enforcement Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Capps, Randy Title: Advances in U.S.- Mexico Border Enforcement: A Review of the Consequence Delivery System Summary: Questions about how to best secure the U.S.-Mexico border are central to U.S. immigration policy and debates around reforming U.S. immigration laws. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, the U.S. Border Patrol began implementing what it terms the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), its first systematic attempt to employ metrics of effectiveness and efficiency to the different forms of removal and other enforcement consequences that migrants face after being apprehended at the Southwest border. This report presents findings from a year-long study that included analysis of previously unpublished CDS data provided to MPI by the Border Patrol as well as fieldwork in the Tucscon and Rio Grande Valley sectors, discussing which consequence measures may be most effective in deterring illegal migration. As the Border Patrol has shifted towards greater use of formal removal and away from voluntary return, its use of consequences and allocation of resources-including expedited removal, lateral repatriation, and criminal prosecution via Streamline - have been measured and guided by CDS. Overall, the share of migrants apprehended more than once in the same fiscal year fell from 29 percent in FY 2007 to 14 pecent in FY 2014. Ultimately, while CDS has become an important tool that informs Border Patrol priorities, the authors find that some of its underlying assumptions about effectiveness and deterrence may be less applicable to the U.S.-Mexico border today than in the past. The shift from majority Mexican arrivals to new and diverse migrant groups, particularly women and children fleeing violence in Central America, has both limited the consequences the Border Patrol can impose and revealed limitations in data collection. Tackling these challenges will be essential to future enforcement strategy and policy-making. Details: Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2017. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/advances-us-mexico-border-enforcement-review-consequence-delivery-system Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/advances-us-mexico-border-enforcement-review-consequence-delivery-system Shelf Number: 145309 Keywords: Border Enforcement Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigration Policy

Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Systemic Indifference: Dangerous and Substandard Medical Care in US Immigration Detention Summary: On April 6, 2015, Raul Ernesto Morales-Ramos, a 44-year-old citizen of El Salvador, died at Palmdale Regional Medical Center in Palmdale, California, of organ failure, with signs of widespread cancer. He had entered immigration custody four years earlier in March 2011. He was first detained at Theo Lacy Facility, operated by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and then at Adelanto Detention Facility, operated by the private company Geo Group, both of which had contracts with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") to hold non-citizens for immigration purposes. An ICE investigation into the death of Morales-Ramos found that the medical care he received at both facilities failed to meet applicable standards of care in numerous ways. Two independent medical experts, analyzing ICE's investigation for Human Rights Watch, agreed that he likely suffered from symptoms of cancer starting in 2013, but that the symptoms essentially went unaddressed for two years, until a month before he died. Details: New York: HRW, 2017. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2017 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/usimmigration0517_web_0.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/usimmigration0517_web_0.pdf Shelf Number: 145479 Keywords: Health Care Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Medical Care

Author: Fair Punishment Project Title: The Promise of Sanctuary Cities and the Need for Criminal Justice Reforms in an Era of Mass Deportation Summary: While many officials champion their status as "sanctuary cities" and have taken meaningful steps to protect immigrant communities, sweeping criminal laws in these places leave many immigrants trapped within an arm's reach of deportation. President Trump intends to use local criminal justice systems to deport as many non-citizens as resources will allow. Local officials - mayors, city council members, county commissioners, prosecutors, and the police - now have a critical opportunity to thwart his plans and acknowledge the inextricable link between the deportation pipeline and the criminal justice system, and to finally reform their criminal justice systems. It is already smart policy to stop sending people to jail en masse; localities' punitive policies disproportionately send people of color, including immigrants, to languish in jail or prison. But to make good on their laudable sanctuary goals, local officials must heed the advice of criminal justice reformers, immigration advocates, and their communities, and institute sweeping change. This report is a collaboration between the Fair Punishment Project and the Immigrant Defense Project, with the support of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Together, we hope that our breadth of experience can help advance the conversation that has already started about the intersection between criminal justice and President Trump's immigration policies. In this report, we first explain the various ways that non-citizens are trapped in the deportation web, starting with arrest. We then offer concrete reform proposals that officials at every level of city and county government can implement. Details: Cambridge, MA: Fair Punishment Project, 2017. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/fpp-sanctuary-cities-report-final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/fpp-sanctuary-cities-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145543 Keywords: Criminal Justice Reform Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigrants Immigration Sanctuary Cities Undocumented Migrants

Author: European Network of Statelessness Title: Protecting Stateless Persons from Arbitrary Detention: Agenda for Change Summary: The increasing use of immigration detention and the growing criminalisation of irregular migration are concerning global and European trends, which result in more people being detained for reasons that are unlawful or arbitrary. These trends are particularly concerning for stateless people or those who may be at risk of statelessness, as they are often trapped in systems that criminalise their irregular migration status and subject them to ongoing detention without offering them any real prospects for adjusting their status or availing themselves of a nationality. While immigration detention is a significant area of general concern to stateless people, the unique barriers to removal faced by stateless people and those at risk of statelessness, put them at particular risk of unlawful or arbitrary detention in the context of removal procedures. As the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held in Kim v Russia, a stateless person is highly vulnerable to being "simply left to languish for months and years...without any authority taking an active interest in [their] fate and well-being". Although there are other important circumstances in which stateless persons may be detained, which merit further attention (for example under criminal law, national security, or in asylum procedures), the research findings emerging from this project shone a light on the specific vulnerabilities faced by stateless people in removal procedures. This is therefore the focus of this agenda for change. It is hoped that reform in this area can act as a catalyst for change more widely, leading to effective mechanisms for the prevention of arbitrary immigration detention and contributing to a shift towards alternatives to detention across the region. Stateless people will only be protected from arbitrary detention if authorities recognise and act upon the specific rights of the stateless in international law on the one hand, and the fundamental right to liberty and security of the person, on the other. The research found that states are largely failing to acknowledge the vulnerabilities associated with statelessness, to put in place effective procedures to identify statelessness and to protect stateless people, leading to a failure to prevent their arbitrary detention. Recognising these rights and vulnerabilities, and taking steps to identify statelessness, will help to guard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Europe urgently needs to foster change on the issue of immigration detention. Regional advocacy is shifting towards recognising the harm inflicted by immigration detention and a consensus is emerging among civil society actors as well as UNHCR, the Council of Europe, and national governments, that there is a need to expand and improve alternatives to detention. The output from this project serves as a further indictment of the failings of Europe's detention regimes. Drawing on evidence from two years of research into statelessness and immigration detention in the region, and the law, policy, and practice in six diverse countries (Bulgaria, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK and Ukraine), this report now presents an agenda for change at national and regional levels. Promoting both the protection of individuals' human rights and the development of fairer and more efficient systems, this report is intended as a tool for civil society to advocate for change and for policy makers to effect sustainable reform. Part I reflects on the current reality in Europe, highlighting the most fundamental challenges that emerged from the research and which need to be addressed. Part II looks ahead and further explores the change that needs to happen in key areas to achieve the goal of ending the arbitrary detention of stateless persons or those at risk of statelessness in Europe. Part III summarises the key recommendations and sets out an advocacy agenda. At the end of the report there is a short glossary of key terms and a list of key resources including links to each of the country reports and the Regional Toolkit for Practitioners, where more detailed analysis of the relevant legal and policy frameworks can be found, as well as other useful external resources on detention and statelessness. If achieved, the reforms set out here will not only bring law, policy, and practice in Europe more in line with international human rights standards, but it will also bring the wider benefits of fairer and more efficient systems to governments and communities across the region. Details: London: European Network on Statelessness, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 15, 2017 at: http://www.statelessness.eu/sites/www.statelessness.eu/files/attachments/resources/ENS_LockeInLimbo_Detention_Agenda_online.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Europe URL: http://www.statelessness.eu/sites/www.statelessness.eu/files/attachments/resources/ENS_LockeInLimbo_Detention_Agenda_online.pdf Shelf Number: 146184 Keywords: Arbitrary Detention Asylum Seekers Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants

Author: Decker, Scott H. Title: Immigration and Local Policing: Results from a survey of Law Enforcement Executives in Arizona Summary: In the past several decades, the number of immigrants in the United States who lack legal documentation has grown to unprecedented levels - approximately twelve million, according to recent estimates (Passel 2006) - and so has controversy surrounding their settlement in American communities. Many immigrants are choosing new destinations. Cities, suburbs, and rural communities in parts of the country that have not traditionally hosted large numbers of immigrants are now more on par with traditional gateway cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago (Zuniga and Hernandez-Leon 2005). As evidence of this dramatic shift, the Mexican immigrant population (both legal and undocumented) in "new gateway" states grew dramatically between 1990 and 2000: 200-400 percent in New York, Pennsylvania,Washington, and Wisconsin; 645 percent in Utah; 800 percent in Georgia; 1000 percent in Arkansas and Minnesota; and over 1800 percent in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama (Zuniga and Hernandez-Leon 2005, p. xiv). With immigrant settlement patterns shifting, undocumented immigration has become even more of a hot-button political issue. An increasing number of state and local governments are asking police to take a more active role in identifying and arresting immigrants for civil immigration violations. Two federal statutes adopted in 1996 created opportunities for this partnership between federal immigration agents and local police. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) gives local police the authority to arrest previously deported non-citizen felons, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) authorizes training of local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws. Details: Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, 2008. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2017 at: https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Appendix-G_0.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Appendix-G_0.pdf Shelf Number: 130022 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement

Author: Dorling, Kamena Title: Growing Up In a Hostile Environment: The rights of undocumented migrant children in the UK Summary: Public concern about immigration is currently at the highest level seen for a number of years. In May 2013, one poll found that 57% of those surveyed ranked 'immigration' among the top three most important issues currently facing Britain, a rise of 11% compared to when the question was asked 12 months previously. In another poll, conducted in December 2012, 80% showed support for the current policy to reduce net migration and 67% perceived immigration as 'having been a bad thing' for Britain. Even allowing for the uncertainties inherent in measuring public opinion, the evidence available clearly shows high levels of opposition to immigration in the UK, with the widely held belief that there are too many migrants in the UK, that fewer migrants should be let in, and that legal restrictions on immigration should be tighter. A number of concerns stem from the perception that migrants claim benefits or use public services without having contributed in return, and are adding pressure on schools and hospitals. Past and current government policy has reacted to this public concern in a number of ways, and a large amount of legislation has been passed in the area of immigration and asylum law over the past two decades. The current government is committed to reducing net migration to 'tens of thousands', having introduced stricter border controls and tighter criteria for permitting non-European Economic Area (EEA) migrants to enter and remain in the UK. In particular, current policy is focussed on 'illegal immigration', where individuals enter or are living in the UK unlawfully (this group are referred to in this report as 'undocumented migrants'). Details: Colchester, UK: Children's Legal Centre, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2017 at: http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Hostile_Environment_Full_Report_Final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Hostile_Environment_Full_Report_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 131674 Keywords: Children of Migrants Illegal Immigrants Immigration Migrants Undocumented Migrant Children Undocumented Migrants

Author: Great Britain. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Title: Detainees under escort: Inspection of escort and removals to Jamaica Summary: Removal flights to Jamaica restarted recently. Many of the improvements we observed in removal operations were evident in this operation. The process of collecting detainees from the immigration removal centres (IRCs) was reasonably well organised, and IRC staff generally played their part in preparing detainees for removal, especially at Brook House, although arrangements at Yarl's Wood were less appropriate. Escorting staff promptly established an understanding with most detainees through a friendly and polite approach and informal conversation. They went out of their way on occasion, for example, to arrange for a detainee's luggage to be brought to the airport. However, an expectation of higher risks had built up around this removal route. This was explained by the fact that four men had protested against their removal at their IRC and one detainee had violently resisted removal on the preceding Jamaica flight. However, these incidents influenced staff behaviour to a disproportionate extent. From the initial operational briefing onwards, staff were reminded of the risk of disruptive behaviour generally, rather than in respect of particular individuals. As a result, seven people were put in waist restraint belts, not because of violence or a need for physical restraint, but because of their 'demeanour' or 'attitude', in the words of staff. In the case of two men who were concealing fragments of a razor blade in their mouths, this was a proportionate response. In the case of a 57-year-old woman who was first forced into compliance by use of a rigid handcuff applied purely to inflict pain, then fitted with a waist restraint belt, the proportionality of the treatment was much less clear. These and other examples in this report illustrate that there was a need to establish and embed a calm, consistent and proportionate approach to risk management through staff training and active supervision of the process. For a detainee (and staff with him) to spend nearly eight and a half hours on a coach before transfer to the aircraft was as demanding as it was inexplicable. Many others spent not much less time travelling. The process required streamlining; staff could rest on the return journey, but detainees went straight into a new chapter of their lives. Small deprivations were added to the experience when detainees spent the 11-hour flight without receiving hot drinks and with only a small plastic spoon with which to eat meals. Some written information was available to detainees about sources of assistance that would be available when they arrived in Jamaica; and staff, including immigration officials, were as reassuring as possible. However, while the receiving officials were welcoming and some who disembarked at Kingston seemed confident about their future, a number were anxious and some said they knew no one there. The flaws in this operation were not all attributable to specific risk factors such as concealment of sharp blades. Although it passed off reasonably calmly overall, talking up risks undermined to some degree even experienced staff's confidence in their interpersonal and other skills. It should be possible to achieve a more measured and consistent approach in future. Details: London: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/07/2017-Jamaica-escort-final-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Jamaica URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/07/2017-Jamaica-escort-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 147007 Keywords: Detainees Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Isacson, Adam Title: Mexico's Southern Border: Security, Central American Migration, and U.S. Policy Summary: It has been nearly three years since the Mexican government announced its Southern Border Program, which dramatically increased security operations and apprehensions of northbound migrants. This report-based on field research in the area surrounding Tenosique, Tabasco along Mexico's border with Guatemala-examines migration flows, enforcement, and insecurity in southern Mexico. - THERE HAS BEEN A SHARP INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS AND ASYLUM SEEKERS WHO INTEND TO STAY IN MEXICO, RATHER THAN TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES. Many are seeking asylum or other forms of immigration status. Between 2014 and 2016, there was a 311 percent increase in asylum requests in Mexico. In the first three months of 2017, Mexico had received more asylum applications than all of 2015. The UN Refugee Agency estimates that Mexico will receive up to 20,000 asylum requests in 2017. - DECREASED MIGRATION FLOWS THROUGH MEXICO AND AT THE U.S. SOUTHWEST BORDER DURING THE MONTHS FOLLOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. News of the Trump administration's hard line appears to have caused a wave of Central American migration before January 20, and a sharp drop afterward. However, until there are improvements in the violence and adverse conditions from which Central Americans are fleeing, people will continue to migrate en masse. By May 2017, apprehension levels at the U.S-Mexico border had begun to tiptoe back up, with a 31 percent increase in total apprehensions compared to April, and a 50 percent increase in apprehensions of unaccompanied minors. - ALTHOUGH MEXICO REGISTERED LOWER APPREHENSION LEVELS IN THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS OF 2017 COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEARS, MIGRATION ENFORCEMENT UNDER MEXICO'S SOUTHERN BORDER PROGRAM REMAINS HIGH. Total migrant apprehensions increased by a staggering 85 percent during the Southern Border Program's first two years of operation (July 2014 to June 2016) compared to pre-Program levels. Limited government resources, migrants' and smugglers' ability to adjust to new security patterns, corruption among authorities, and an overall drop in migration from Central America since President Trump took office have all likely contributed to the leveling off of apprehensions seen in Mexico in recent months. - CRIMES AND ABUSES AGAINST MIGRANTS TRAVELING THROUGH MEXICO CONTINUE TO OCCUR AT ALARMING RATES, AND SHELTERS HAVE NOTED A MORE INTENSE DEGREE OF VIOLENCE IN THE CASES THEY DOCUMENT. While Mexico's major organized criminal groups do not operate heavily in the Tenosique corridor, smaller criminal bands and Central American gang affiliates routinely rob, kidnap, and sexually assault migrants along this portion of the migration route. Migrant rights organizations in southern Mexico documented an increase in cases of migration and police authorities' abuse of migrants as a result of the Southern Border Program, including recent accounts of migration agents, who are supposed to be unarmed, using pellet guns and electrical shock devices. - THERE HAVE BEEN FEWER U.S. ASSISTANCE DELIVERIES TO MEXICO FOR THE SOUTHERN BORDER PROGRAM THAN ORIGINALLY EXPECTED, BUT BIOMETRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS CONTINUE APACE. The U.S. State and Defense Departments are currently implementing a US$88 million dollar program to increase Mexican immigration authorities' capacity to collect biometric data and share information about who is crossing through Mexico with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The U.S. State and Defense Departments are also funding a US$75 million project to improve secure communications between Mexican agencies in the country's southern border zone. This program has erected 12 communications towers so far, all of them on Mexican naval posts. - THE MIGRATION ROUTE INTO MEXICO THROUGH TENOSIQUE, TABASCO HAS SEEN A SHARP INCREASE IN CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FLEEING VIOLENCE IN THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE REGION. Between 2014 and 2016, the number of children (both accompanied and unaccompanied) apprehended in the state of Tabasco increased by 60 percent. The majority of migrants traveling through this area of the border are from Honduras. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2017 at: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/980081/download Year: 2017 Country: Central America URL: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/980081/download Shelf Number: 147169 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Border Security Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Migrants Unaccompanied Minors

Author: Sviatschi, Maria Micaela Title: Essays on Human Capital, Labor and Development Economics Summary: This dissertation contains four essays on human capital, labor and development economics. The first two chapters study how exposure to particular labor markets during childhood determines the formation of industry-specific human capital generating longterm consequences in terms of adult criminal behavior, labor outcomes and state legitimacy. The third chapter explores how criminal capital developed during childhood can be exported to other locations generating spillover effects on human capital accumulation. Finally, the last chapter studies how improving access to justice for women affects children's outcomes. Chapter 1, "Making a Narco: Childhood Exposure to Illegal Labor Markets and Criminal Life Paths", shows that exposing children to illegal labor markets makes them more likely to be criminals as adults. I exploit the timing of a large anti-drug policy in Colombia that shifted cocaine production to locations in Peru that were well-suited to growing coca. In these areas, children harvest coca leaves and transport processed cocaine. Using variation across locations, years, and cohorts, combined with administrative data on the universe of individuals in prison in Peru, affected children are 30% more likely to be incarcerated for violent and drug-related crimes as adults. The biggest impacts on adult criminality are seen among children who experienced high coca prices in their early teens, the age when child labor responds the most. No effect is found for individuals that grow up working in places where the coca produced goes primarily to the legal sector, implying that it is the accumulation of human capital specific to the illegal industry that fosters criminal careers. As children involved in the illegal industry learn how to navigate outside the rule of law, they also lose trust in government institutions. However, consistent with a model of parental incentives for human capital investments in children, the rollout of a conditional cash transfer program that encourages schooling mitigates the ef- fects of exposure to illegal industries. Finally, I show how the program can be targeted by taking into account the geographic distribution of coca suitability and spatial spillovers. Overall, this paper takes a first step towards understanding how criminals are formed by unpacking the way in which crime-specific human capital is developed at the expense of formal human capital in "bad locations." While my first chapter focuses on low-skilled labor and criminal capital, my second chapter studies the expansion of high-skilled labor markets. In Chapter 2, "Long-term Effects of Temporary Labor Demand: Free Trade Zones, Female Education and Marriage Market Outcomes in the Dominican Republic", I exploit the sudden and massive growth of female factory jobs in free trade zones (FTZs) in the Dominican Republic in the 1990s, and subsequent decline in the 2000s, to provide the first evidence that even relatively brief episodes of preferential trade treatments for export industries may have permanent effects on human capital levels and female empowerment. Focusing on a sample of provinces that established FTZs and exploiting variation in the opening of zones and age of women at the time of opening, I show that the FTZs' openings led to a large and very robust increase in girls' education. The effect persists after a decline in FTZs' jobs in the 2000s following the end of a trade agreement with the U.S. and an increase in competition from Asia. The reason appears to be that the increase in some girls' education changed marriage markets: girls whose education increased due to the FTZs' openings married later, had better matches with more stable marriages, gave birth later, and had children who were more likely to survive infancy. In sum, the evidence in this paper indicates that labor markets can improve female outcomes in developing countries through general equilibrium effects in the education and marriage markets. Another question I address in my dissertation is whether criminal capital developed during childhood can be exported to other locations. In the first chapter, I find that individuals take skills related to the illegal drug industry with them when they move to other districts, even when they move to districts without significant illegal industries. Chapter 3, "Exporting Criminal Capital: The Effect of U.S. Deportations on Gang Expansion and Human Capital in Central America", provides new evidence on how an increase in criminal capital due to deportations from the US affects human capital investments in El Salvador. In 1996, the U.S. Illegal Immigration Responsibility Act drastically increased the number of criminal deportations. In particular, the leaders of large gangs in Los Angeles were sent back to their countries. In addition to having a direct effect, the arrival of individuals bringing criminal skills and connections may have generated important spillover effects. We exploit this policy to look at the impact that deportation policies and the subsequent arrival of criminal capital to El Salvador had on several educational and economic outcomes. Using the 1996 policy and geographical variation in the exact location and delimitation of different gang groups, we find that criminal deportations led to large increase in crime and decrease in human capital accumulation for children living in these areas. Overall, this project helps to understand one of the reasons why El Salvador is among the world's most violent peacetime countries. Understanding these effects is crucial for public policy to successfully incorporate deported criminals back into society. While my work in the Dominican Republic and the previous literature has shown that increasing the returns to education for women incentivizes schooling, there is little evidence on how domestic violence affects human capital development and whether improving access to institutions for women can address these issues. During my field work in rural areas of Peru, I found that institutions do not usually address the problems facing women or ethnic and religious minorities. For example, the police do very little to stop domestic violence. Moreover, in many cases, women do not even trust these institutions enough to report these issues. Chapter 4, "Inter-Generational Impacts of Improving Access to Justice for Women: Evidence from Peru", exploits the introduction of women's justice centers (WJCs) in Peru to provide causal estimates on the effects of improving access to justice for women and children. Our empirical approach uses variation over time in the distance from schools and households to the nearest WJC together with province- by-year fixed effects. After the opening of WJC, we find that primary school enrollment increases at schools that are within a 1km radius of a WJC and the effect decreases with distance. In addition, we also find that primary school second graders have better test scores in reading and mathematics. Moreover, we find that children in primary school living in household's located near a WJC are more likely to attend school, to pass a grade and they are also less likely to drop out of school. We also provide some evidence that these improvements might be driven by an increase in the bargaining power of women inside the household and decrease in domestic violence. In sum, the evidence in this paper shows that providing access to justice for women can be a powerful tool to reduce domestic violence and increase education of children, suggesting a positive inter-generational benefit. Details: New York: Columbia University, 2017. 243p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 20, 2017 at: https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:nk98sf7m24 Year: 2017 Country: South America URL: https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:nk98sf7m24 Shelf Number: 147415 Keywords: Child Labor Cocaine Drug Policy Economics of Crime Gangs Illegal Drugs Illegal Immigrants Illegal Industries Labor Markets Violence Against Women

Author: New York University School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic Title: Insecure Communities, Devastated Families: New Data on Immigrant Detention and Deportation Practices in New York City Summary: New York City is home to over three million foreign-born residents. Yet, immigrant New Yorkers have been forced to struggle with the harsh realities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") operations in their city for years-families broken apart by midnight raids, parents of U.S. citizen children sent to far-away detention facilities in Texas and Louisiana and held without bond, immigrants arrested after a "stop-and-frisk" encounter with the NYPD, only to find themselves thrown into a pipeline that sends thousands of New Yorkers from Rikers Island to ICE detention every year. However, even as advocates, the City Council, and other city stakeholders debate how to limit the damage that ICE policies inflict on New York and the city's large immigrant community, there has been little data on what exactly happens to immigrant New Yorkers who are apprehended by ICE, and the extent of the agency's enforcement operations in the city. In response to this urgent need for information, the community groups Families for Freedom and the Immigrant Defense Project filed a request for information with ICE under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). The agency initially did not comply with the request, instead stating that the organizations needed to pay over $1.3 million in fees to secure the necessary documents. The organizations filed a lawsuit in federal district court against ICE, and the case was settled in May of 2011. As a condition of the settlement, ICE provided data to the Vera Institute for Justice, for use in conjunction with immigration court data for a wide-ranging study on immigrant New Yorkers' access to counsel. That study was released in early 2012. ICE also provided a spreadsheet of data on every individual apprehended by the New York City Field Office from October 2005 through December 2010. Nineteen distinct data fields were included for each individual apprehended, and that never before released data is the subject of this report. The data provided by ICE, as a condition of the settlement of the lawsuit, is significant in two key ways. First, it allowed researchers at the Vera Institute to accurately assess the impact of detention and, in particular, ICE's transfer policy, on the issues that face immigrant New Yorkers in immigration court, such as access to legal counsel and the availability of relief from deportation. Second, the spreadsheet provided by ICE that is the basis of this report provides hard evidence of the effects of immigration detention and deportation on New York City communities. For example, there had previously been no way for local leaders and community members to assess how many individuals of a certain nationality were detained by ICE in New York or how many individuals in a given New York City zip code or neighborhood were detained. Likewise, there was no way for them to know how many parents of U.S. citizen children were swept into the system. Other issues, like the frequency of bond settings for New Yorkers and ICE transfers of New Yorkers to far-away detention facilities, remained equally murky. However, while the data is in many respects new, it only confirms what groups like Families for Freedom and the Immigrant Defense Project have known for years: that ICE enforcement in New York City is terrorizing the city's immigrant community. Details: New York: NYU School of Law, 2012. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2017 at: http://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NYC-FOIA-Report-2012-FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NYC-FOIA-Report-2012-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 148665 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Collingwood, Loren Title: Public Opposition to Sanctuary Cities in Texas: Criminal Threat or Latino Threat? Summary: Sanctuary city policies forbid local officials and law enforcement from inquiring into residents' immigration status. Opponents of sanctuary cities, such as President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, frequently claim that sanctuary policies lead to higher crime rates, despite evidence to the contrary (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2013; Wong, 2017). Given this crime narrative, we might expect public opinion about sanctuary cities to be driven primarily by concern of and contextual experience with crime. However, given that sanctuary cities are associated with undocumented immigration, and that undocumented immigration is inextricably linked to Latino - and specifically Mexican - immigration, public opinion on sanctuary cities may instead be driven by experiences with racial and cultural threat embodied by rapid Latino growth. We analyze two polls from Texas, a state where the sanctuary debate is highly salient - not only because of its long border with Mexico, but because its governor has fought against such cities, signing highly controversial legislation. We find that opinion on sanctuary cities is unrelated to respondents' county crime rates but is strongly related to county Latino growth and Latino population size. We find some evidence that sanctuary city opinion is related to individual concerns about both immigration and crime. Overall, beyond partisan and ideological staples, we conclude that opinion on sanctuary cities is driven primarily by racial threat and not by actual crime exposure. Details: Riverside, CA: Collingwood Research, 2017. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2017 at: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/collingwood_gonzalez_final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/collingwood_gonzalez_final.pdf Shelf Number: 148666 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Sanctuary Cities Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Grimes, Mark Title: Reasons and Resolve to Cross the Line: A Post-Apprehension Survey of Unauthorized Immigrants along the U.S.-Mexico Border Summary: To better understand the histories and motivations of immigrants who attempt to cross the U.S.-Mexico border without authorization, researchers with the National Center for Border Security and Immigration (BORDERS) interviewed 1,000 detainees in the U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector during the summer of 2012. Survey approach - The research team used a 38-question sur vey (Appendix A) administered by bilingual inter viewers to learn about the detainees' characteristics, their current and previous border crossing attempts, and their reasons for crossing. Overarching questions - To address the primar y goal of the study, all sur vey questions were related to two principal questions: (1) Do you think you will attempt to cross again in the next seven days? (2) Do you think you will return to the U.S. someday? Interview safeguards and assurances - To encourage truthful responses, the interviewers assured the individuals that their responses would remain anonymous, that the inter viewers did not work for the Border Patrol, that individual sur vey results would not be shared with the Border Patrol, that the individuals' answers would not influence legal or administrative outcomes, and that the individuals could skip any question or could conclude the interview at any point. Cross-check of data veracity - To cross-check the veracity of the data, responses to two questions-date of birth and number of previous apprehensions-were compared with fingerprint verified data from the Border Patrol. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - What are the motivations for crossing? This study found that work and the existence of family in the United States are the primary motivations for individuals who attempt to enter the country without authorization. Which persons will attempt to reenter? According to this study, in general, detainees who are more likely to attempt to re-cross the border are those that: - have relatives or friends in the United States, - have a job in the United States, - have relatively more education than other detainees, - live in the United States (or consider the United States home), - are relatively familiar with crossing options and dangers, and/or - have made relatively more attempts at crossing. What are the effects of the consequences of apprehension? For individuals with motivations listed above, the consequences of apprehension do not seem to be a major deterrent. Details: Tucson: University of Arizona, National Center for Border Security and Immigration, 2013. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2018 at: http://www.borders.arizona.edu/cms/sites/default/files/Post-Aprehension-Survey-REPORT%20may31-2013_0.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.borders.arizona.edu/cms/sites/default/files/Post-Aprehension-Survey-REPORT%20may31-2013_0.pdf Shelf Number: 148983 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrants

Author: Lasch, Christopher N. Title: Understanding "Sanctuary Cities" Summary: In the wake of Trump's election, a growing number of local jurisdictions around the country have sought to disentangle their criminal justice system from federal immigration enforcement initiatives. These localities have embraced a series of reforms that protect immigrants from deportation when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. In response, President Trump and his administration have labeled these jurisdictions "sanctuary cities" and promised to "end" them by cutting off federal funding. This Article is a collaborative project authored by law professors specializing in the intersection between immigration and criminal law. In it, we set forth the central features of the Trump administration's mass deportation plans and his recently-announced campaign to "crack down" on "sanctuary cities." We then outline the diverse ways in which localities have sought to protect their residents from deportation by refusing to participate in the Trump immigration agenda. Such initiatives include limiting compliance with immigration detainers, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing immigration agents from accessing local jails. Finally, we analyze the legal and policy justifications for sanctuary that local jurisdictions have advanced with increasing intensity since Trump's election. These insights have important implications for how sanctuary cities are understood and preserved in the age of Trump. As a complement to this Article, we have created a public online library of sanctuary policies that includes all the policies cited here and many more we considered in our research. Details: Forthcoming in 58 BOSTON COLLEGE LAW REVIEW (2018). 62p. Source: Internet Resource: UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-33 New England Law|Boston Research Paper No. 18-02: Accessed February 6, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3045527 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3045527 Shelf Number: 149009 Keywords: Asylum Crimigration Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Sanctuary Cities Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Lott, John R., Jr. Title: Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona Summary: Using newly released detailed data on all prisoners who entered the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. This data do not rely on self-reporting by criminals. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens. Yet, there are several reasons that these numbers are likely to underestimate the share of crime committed by undocumented immigrants. There are dramatic differences between in the criminal histories of convicts who are U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants. Young convicts are especially likely to be undocumented immigrants. While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over 2 percent of the Arizona population, they make up almost 8% of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes. If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries. Details: Crime Prevention Research Center, 2018. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992 Shelf Number: 149028 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants and Crime Immigration Migrants Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Provera, Mark Title: The Criminalisation of Irregular Migration in the European Union Summary: This paper offers an academic examination of the legal regimes surrounding the criminalisation of irregular migrants in the EU and of acts of solidarity with irregular migrants, such as assisting irregular migrants to enter or remain in the EU, and other behaviour that is motivated by humanitarian instincts. The research analyses EU law and its relationship with national provisions regarding the criminalisation of irregular migration and of acts of solidarity vis-a-vis irregular migrants. A comparative analysis was made of the laws of the UK, France and Italy, supplemented by an analysis of the laws of Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. By considering the role of public trust in fostering compliance with the law, the paper explores the impact of criminalisation measures on institutions' authority to compel individuals to comply with the law (institutional legitimacy). The study finds that certain indicators question institutional legitimacy and reveals the varied nature and extent of penalties imposed by different member states. The paper concludes that there is an important role for public trust in immigration law compliance, not just in measures directed towards irregular migrants but also towards those acting in solidarity with irregular migrants. Details: Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2015. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, no. 80: Accessed March 15, 2018 at: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Irregular%20Migration.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Irregular%20Migration.pdf Shelf Number: 149478 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrants

Author: Human Rights Watch Title: In the Freezer: Abusive Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells Summary: Migrant women and children detained along the US border with Mexico usually spend one to three nights, and sometimes longer, in frigid holding cells, sleeping on floors or concrete benches before immigration authorities transfer them to other detention facilities. These holding cells are so notorious for their uncomfortably low temperatures that migrants and border agents alike refer to them as hieleras ("freezers"). Women and children are usually not allowed to shower and often have no access to soap, meaning that they are not able to wash their hands with soap before and after eating or feeding infants, after using the toilet, and after changing diapers. Families are often separated while in immigration holding cells, a practice that harms women and children's mental well-being and may complicate their efforts to seek asylum. All immigration detainees have the right to be treated with dignity and humanity, and children, unaccompanied or with family members, are entitled to additional safeguards. Conditions in immigration holding cells do not meet these standards, and the shortcomings identified in this report in many respects match those that US courts have found to violate immigration authorities' obligations. To address these serious concerns, immigration holding cells should be used for very short periods of confinement only. Detention overnight in holding cells should be employed only when it is unavoidable, and never for children. Those who are held overnight should receive sleeping mats, blankets, hygiene materials, and access to showers. Temperatures in holding cells should be set at reasonable and comfortable levels. US immigration authorities should also avoid splitting up families. Instead, authorities should identify and implement alternatives to detention that keep families together. Details: New York; HRW, 2018. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/uscrd0218_web.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/uscrd0218_web.pdf Shelf Number: 149484 Keywords: Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Policy Migrants Violence Against Women, Children

Author: O'Brien, Matthew Title: The Fiscal Burden of Illegal immigration on United States Taxpayers (2017) Summary: A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government's inefective eforts to secure our borders, present signifcant national security and public safety threats to the United States. Tey also have a severely negative impact on the nation's taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. Political and judicial efforts to accord illegal aliens the same government benefits available to U.S. citizens (e.g., the Supreme Court's holding in Plyler v. Doe guaranteeing illegal alien children a free public education, at taxpayer expense) have increasingly stressed federal, state and local budgets - to the detriment of Americans, particularly the poor, elderly, and disabled. Te impact on public school systems1 and criminal justice institutions has been particularly harsh. And the situation has been greatly exacerbated by government refusal to implement measures aimed at deterring, detecting and prosecuting illegal aliens who commit fraud to obtain benefits and/or to avoid deportation following a criminal conviction. Tis study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets. It does not address the question of whether unchecked mass migration is a net boon to the United States. Most studies that extol the many benefits that allegedly accrue from illegal immigration suffer from a number of key problems: - Unreasonable assumptions about who is an illegal alien. Most relevant data sets don't clearly distinguish who is an illegal alien and who isn't. Studies that wish to portray illegal immigration in a favorable light frequently rely on narrow definition of "illegal alien" to skew data in their favor. - Failure to examine whether the same, or even more significant, benefits would be achieved by flling vacant jobs, at market wages, with American employees. - Refusal to acknowledge that there are many activities which create profit but remain illegal because of their negative effects on society as a whole. Te exploitation of illegal alien labor to increase the profits of unscrupulous employers falls squarely into this category. - A deceptive and inappropriate focus on the amount of taxes remitted by illegal aliens, rather than the taxes actually paid by illegal aliens. Te American system of taxation returns a signifcant portion of monies paid by people earning low incomes. As a result, most illegal aliens receive a refund of all tax payments along with additional net income from the federal government, in the form of tax credits. - Erroneous claims that illegal aliens subsidize federal benefit programs through un-refunded tax payments remitted by illegal aliens who are unable collect a return. Most illegal aliens are able to file a tax return using an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN). In addition, neither the states or the federal government have any data indicating how much of the pool of unclaimed tax refunds is attributable to illegal aliens versus deceased taxpayers, foreign investors, etc. Even in the absence of any complex studies, basic mathematics make it self-evident that illegal aliens are a drain on the U.S. economy. For example, in its report Te Sinking Lifeboat: Uncontrolled Immigration and the U.S. Health Care System in 2009, FAIR found that, in some hospitals, as many as two-thirds of total operating costs are attributable to uncompensated care for illegal aliens.3 If those costs are being borne by American taxpayers, rather than the illegal aliens who received medical treatment, then those illegal aliens are consuming more services than they pay for, and the costs of providing those services are never recouped. Tat makes them a net drain on the economy. A careful examination of the federal budget shows an annual outlay of approximately $46 billion for expenses related to illegal immigration. A review of state budgets indicates even greater local costs, estimated at $89 billion annually. This means that the overall costs attributable to illegal aliens totals an annual bill of $135 billion. Tat equates to over $8,000 per illegal alien and dependent, per year. Some illegal aliens do pay certain taxes. However, employers usually hire illegal aliens to obtain cheap labor at wages well below the market rate for a given area. Many of those employers pay illegal aliens "under-the-table" and do not deduct payroll taxes. Due to their lack of immigration status, illegal aliens are unlikely to report their income to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Therefore, state and local governments, as well as the federal government, are not collecting enough taxes from illegal aliens to cover the costs of the services they consume. We estimate that illegal aliens actually pay just under $19 billion in combined state, local, and federal taxes. Tat means that the United States recoups only about 14 percent of the amount expended annually on illegal aliens. If the same jobs held by illegal aliens were fled by legal workers, at the prevailing market wage, it may safely be presumed that federal, state and local governments would receive higher tax payments. FAIR firmly believes that the costs of illegal immigration (and massive legal immigration) significantly outweigh any perceived benefit. Accordingly, this study focuses only on calculating the overall costs of illegal immigration. Details: Washington, DC: Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2017. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 23, 2018 at: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 149551 Keywords: Cost Analysis Costs of Criminal Justice Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Immigration

Author: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Title: Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Summary: Cooperation between federal, state, and local governments is the cornerstone of effective immigration enforcement. State and local law enforcement officers are often the last line of defense against criminal aliens, and are far more likely to encounter illegal aliens during routine job activities than are federal agents. As such, the ability of state and local law enforcement and other government officials to freely cooperate and communicate with federal immigration authorities is not just important - but essential - to the enforcement of our immigration laws. Nonetheless, law enforcement agencies, local governments, and even states across the country are proactively enacting policies and practices to restrict or all together prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Commonly referred to as "sanctuary policies," such ordinances, directives, and practices undermine enforcement of U.S. immigration law by impeding state and local officials, including law enforcement officers, from asking individuals about their immigration status, reporting them to the federal government, or otherwise cooperating with or assisting federal immigration officials. While many of these policies and practices are written, they may be unwritten as well, sometimes making them difficult to discover or verify. Most of the sanctuary policies and practices instituted since FAIR first issued its list of sanctuary jurisdictions in 2013 fall into the "anti-detainer" category. These generally refer to directives that inhibit or restrict the ability of state and local law enforcement to hold criminal aliens for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Some anti-detainer policies even go so far as to prohibit state and local law enforcement from simply notifying ICE that they are about to release a criminal alien back onto the streets or from otherwise assisting federal authorities. Sadly, most anti-detainer policies are put in place by the law enforcement agencies themselves, bullied by the illegal alien lobby into believing they must follow the open borders agenda or risk being sued. While some of the sanctuary policies noted in this report were enacted decades ago - such as the ones in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco - the vast majority have been instituted since President Obama took office in 2009. Of the 300 jurisdictions cited in this report: 239 jurisdictions have sanctuary policies or practices instituted by law enforcement agencies; 23 jurisdictions have sanctuary resolutions; 15 jurisdictions have sanctuary laws or ordinances, including statewide laws in California, Connecticut, and Oregon; 5 jurisdictions have sanctuary executive orders; and 18 jurisdictions either have multiple forms of sanctuary policies or practices in place, or have a policy or practice that simply fit no other classification. Some of these policies or practices were very easy to discover and label. Others required a bit more digging to locate. As such, FAIR used a wide-variety of sources when compiling this list of jurisdictions and evidence. This included primary sources such as the actual resolutions, ordinances, and policy directives, as well as secondary sources such as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Declined Detainer Outcome Report obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies, various academic or congressional reports, and even media coverage. FAIR has found that jurisdictions often justify their sanctuary policies by claiming that illegal aliens will be more likely to report crimes to law enforcement without fear of deportation. However, FAIR knows of no evidence demonstrating that sanctuary policies lead to increased crime reporting among illegal immigrant communities, and law enforcement officers already have the discretion to grant immunity to witnesses and victims of crime. Sanctuary jurisdictions also often lament that immigration is a "federal issue" and therefore they do not have a responsibility to cooperate with federal officials. This argument is belied by the fact that illegal immigration costs state and local governments roughly $84 billion annually - a significant majority of the estimated $113 billion annual price tag of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers. As such, the cost of illegal immigration in terms of government services, education, healthcare, crime, and impact on the labor market are far greater than any benefit that may accrue from a perceived increase in cooperation between illegal alien communities and law enforcement. Our comprehensive (but by no means exhaustive) list of sanctuary jurisdictions appears below. It includes jurisdictions with laws, resolutions, policies, or practices that obstruct cooperation with federal immigration authorities or assistance with federal immigration detainers. FAIR ceased conducting research activities for this report in November 2016; changes have already been made to the policies and practices in some jurisdictions, while additional sanctuary policies and practices have been instituted in others and will be added in the next edition. Indeed, dozens of city and county officials have doubled-down on their jurisdiction's sanctuary policy in the days and weeks following the 2016 election. Details: Washington, DC: FAIR, 2017. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Sanctuary_Policies_Across_America_Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Sanctuary_Policies_Across_America_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149573 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Immigration Reform Sanctuary Cities Undocumented Citizens

Author: Peck, Sarah Herman Title: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity Summary: Congress's power to create rules governing the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) has long been viewed as plenary. In the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, Congress has specified grounds for the exclusion or removal of aliens, including on account of criminal activity. Some criminal offenses, when committed by an alien who is present in the United States, may render that alien subject to removal from the country. And certain criminal offenses may preclude an alien outside the United States from being either admitted into the country or permitted to reenter following an initial departure. Further, criminal conduct may disqualify an alien from certain forms of relief from removal or prevent the alien from becoming a U.S. citizen. In some cases, the INA directly identifies particular offenses that carry immigration consequences; in other cases, federal immigration law provides that a general category of crimes, such as "crimes involving moral turpitude" or an offense defined by the INA as an "aggravated felony," may render an alien ineligible for certain benefits and privileges under immigration law. The INA distinguishes between the treatment of aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the United States and those who are either seeking admission into the country or are physically present in the country without having been lawfully admitted. Aliens who have been lawfully admitted into the country may be removed if they engage in conduct that renders them deportable, whereas aliens who have not been legally admitted into the United States-including both aliens seeking initial entry into the United States as well as those who are physically present in the country but were never lawfully admitted-may be excluded or removed from the country if they have engaged in conduct rendering them inadmissible. Although the INA designates certain criminal activities and categories of criminal activities as grounds for inadmissibility or deportation, the respective grounds are not identical. Moreover, a conviction for a designated crime is not always required for an alien to be disqualified on criminal grounds from admission into the United States. But for nearly all criminal grounds for deportation, a "conviction" (as defined by the INA) for the underlying offense is necessary. Additionally, although certain criminal conduct may disqualify an alien from various immigration-related benefits or forms of relief, the scope of disqualifying conduct varies depending on the particular benefit or form of relief at issue. This report identifies the major criminal grounds that may bar an alien from being admitted into the United States or render an alien within the country removable. The report also discusses additional immigration consequences of criminal activity, including those that make an alien ineligible for certain relief from removal, including cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, withholding of removal, and asylum. The report also addresses the criminal grounds that render an alien ineligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, as well as those grounds barring LPRs from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. The report also discusses the scope of several general criminal categories referenced by the INA, including "crimes involving moral turpitude," "aggravated felonies," and "crimes of violence. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: R45151: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45151.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45151.pdf Shelf Number: 149839 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigrants and Crime Immigration Immigration Policy

Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre Harmondsworth Site Summary: Harmondsworth immigration removal centre (IRC) is Europe's largest detention facility, holding up to 676 male detainees, close to Heathrow Airport. The centre is run for the Home Office by Care and Custody, a division of the Mitie Group. Since 2014, Harmondsworth has been under the same management as the neighbouring Colnbrook IRC, and the two centres are collectively known as the Heathrow IRC. However, they remain discrete sites and, in light of their size and complexity, we are continuing to inspect them separately. In addition to our normal methodology, we employed an enhanced methodology at this inspection which included hundreds of interviews and surveys. The main objectives were to give detainees and staff an opportunity to tell inspectors, in confidence, about any incidents or concerns relating to the safe and decent treatment of detainees; to identify cultural or structural issues affecting outcomes; and to identify areas of positive and progressive work. The last inspection of Harmondsworth in 2015 highlighted concerns in relation to safety, respect and provision of activities. This report describes a centre that had made some improvements, but not of the scale or speed that were required. In some areas, there had been a deterioration. The centre's task in caring for detainees was not made any easier by the profile of those who were held. There was a very high level of mental health need and nearly a third of the population was considered by the Home Office to be vulnerable under its at risk in detention policy. The continuing lack of a time limit on detention meant that some men had been held for excessively long periods: 23 men had been detained for over a year and one man had been held for over 4.5 years, which was unacceptable. Processes for safeguarding detainees were not good enough. Detention Centre Rule 35 reports, which are intended to give some protection to the most vulnerable detainees, lacked rigour. Worryingly, in nearly all of the cases we examined, the Home Office accepted evidence that detainees had been tortured, but maintained detention regardless. Insufficient attention was given to post-traumatic stress and other mental health problems. There were delays in referring potential trafficking victims to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and our staff interviews confirmed widespread ignorance of the NRM. The first night unit had been relocated since our last visit and now provided a much calmer environment for newly arrived detainees. However, reception and first night processes were superficial and left many detainees feeling anxious and ill-informed. Violence was not high but violence management processes were weak and a high number of detainees felt unsafe. Detainees told us this was because of the uncertainty associated with their cases, but also because a large number of their fellow detainees seemed mentally unwell, frustrated or angry. Many detainees on the newer and more prison-like units found being locked into their cells at night upsetting and stressful, and drug use was becoming an increasing problem. Self-harm was low compared with other centres and detainees at risk of self-harm were often positive about staff efforts to support them, although those who spoke little English were less well served. The governance of use of force was generally good and we noted that managers had identified an illegitimate use of force by a member of staff on CCTV cameras and dismissed the person concerned. Neither detainees nor staff told us of a pernicious or violent subculture, but some aspects of security would have been disproportionate in a prison and were not acceptable in an IRC. For example, detainees taken to the separation unit were routinely handcuffed and then strip-searched, regardless of individual risk. Harmondsworth is the centre where, in 2013, we identified the disgraceful treatment of an ill and elderly man who was kept in handcuffs as he died in hospital. A more proportionate approach to handcuffing was subsequently put in place by the Home Office and followed by the centre contractor. It is with concern, therefore, that at this inspection we found detainees once again being routinely handcuffed when attending outside appointments without evidence of risk. Only 58% of detainees in our survey said that most staff treated them with respect, well below the average figure for IRCs. Staffing levels were low and neither staff nor detainees felt that there were enough officers to effectively support detainees. Around a third of staff told us themselves that they did not have sufficient training to do their jobs well. Few had an adequate understanding of whistleblowing procedures. Physical conditions had improved since our last inspection, but the environment remained below acceptable standards in much of the centre. Many areas were dirty and bedrooms, showers and toilets were poorly ventilated. It was particularly unacceptable that two years after we raised bed bugs as a serious concern, they remained endemic in the centre and continued to affect detainees' physical and mental well-being. Detainees were often critical of health services, but we found generally adequate health care provision. A significant exception was the inability of health services to meet the very high level of mental health need. Communication with detainees by health care staff was also weak but starting to improve. An important aspect of well-being is activity, but only 29% of detainees in our survey said they could fill their time while in the centre and many described a sense of purposelessness and boredom. Few detainees were able to work, and the education provision was underused and did not meet the needs of detainees. There were a number of positive areas of work. For example, the on-site immigration team made considerable efforts to engage with detainees, faith provision was good and complaints were managed well. The dedicated and well-organised welfare services were impressive and there was positive engagement with third sector groups. The charity Hibiscus Initiatives provided support to many detainees before release or removal and the local visitors' group was active and well supported. However, our overall finding was that the centre had failed to progress significantly since our last visit in 2015. For the third consecutive inspection, we found considerable failings in the areas of safety and respect. Detainees, many identified as vulnerable, were not being adequately safeguarded. Some were held for unacceptably long periods. Mental health needs were often not met. Detainees were subject to some disproportionate security restrictions and living conditions were below decent standards. It is time for the Home Office and contractors to think again about how to ensure that more substantial progress is made by the time that we return. Details: London: HMIP, 2018. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2018 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Harmondsworth-Web-2017.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Harmondsworth-Web-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 149878 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Prison Conditions

Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Immigration Detention: Opportunities Exist to Improve Cost Estimates Summary: Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2017, ICE operated on a budget of nearly $3 billion to manage the U.S. immigration detention system, which houses foreign nationals whose immigration cases are pending or who have been ordered removed from the country. In recent years, ICE has consistently had to reprogram and transfer millions of dollars into, out of, and within its account used to fund its detention system. The explanatory statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2017, includes a provision for GAO to review ICE's methodologies for determining detention resource requirements. This report examines (1) how ICE formulates its budget request for detention resources, (2) how ICE develops bed rates and determines ADP for use in its budget process, and (3) to what extent ICE's methods for estimating detention costs follow best practices. GAO analyzed ICE's budget documents, including CBJs, for fiscal years 2014 to 2018, examined ICE's models for projecting ADP and bed rates, and evaluated ICE's cost estimating process against best practices. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that the Director of ICE: (1) document and implement its review process to ensure accuracy in its budget documents; (2) assess ICE's adult bed rate methodology; (3) update ICE's adult bed rate methodology; (4) document the methodology and rationale behind the ADP projection used in budget requests; and (5) take steps to ensure that ICE's detention cost estimate more fully addresses best practices. DHS concurred with the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2018. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-343: Accessed April 24, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691330.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691330.pdf Shelf Number: 149880 Keywords: Cost Analysis Costs of Corrections Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention

Author: Isacson, Adam Title: Lessons from San Diego's Border Wall: The limits to using walls for migration, drug trafficking challenges Summary: The prototypes for President Trump's proposed border wall are currently sitting just outside San Diego, California, an area that serves as a perfect example of how limited walls, fences, and barriers can be when dealing with migration and drug trafficking challenges. As designated by Customs and Border Protection, the San Diego sector covers 60 miles of the westernmost U.S.-Mexico border, and 46 of them are already fenced off. Here, fence-building has revealed a new set of border challenges that a wall can't fix. The San Diego sector shows that: - Fences or walls can reduce migration in urban areas, but make no difference in rural areas. In densely populated border areas, border-crossers can quickly mix in to the population. But nearly all densely populated sections of the U.S.-Mexico border have long since been walled off. In rural areas, where crossers must travel miles of terrain, having to climb a wall first is not much of a deterrent. A wall would be a waste of scarce budget resources. - People who seek protected status aren't deterred by walls. Some asylum-seekers even climbed existing fence at the prototype site while construction was occurring. In San Diego, they include growing numbers of Central American children and families. Last year in the sector, arrivals included thousands of Haitians who journeyed from Brazil, many of whom now live in Tijuana. The presence or absence of a fence made no difference in their decision to seek out U.S. authorities to petition for protection. - Fences are irrelevant to drug flows. Of all nine border sectors, San Diego leads in seizures of heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and probably fentanyl. Authorities find the vast majority of these drugs at legal border crossings-not in the spaces between where walls would be built. Interdicting more drugs at the border would require generous investment in modern, well-staffed ports of entry-but instead, the Trump administration is asking Congress to pay for a wall. - The border doesn't need a wall. It needs better-equipped ports of entry, investigative capacity, technology, and far more ability to deal with humanitarian flows. In its current form, the 2018 Homeland Security Appropriations bill is pursuing a wrong and wasteful approach. The experience of San Diego makes that clear. Details: Washington, DC: WOLA, 2017. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: https://www.wola.org/analysis/wola-report-lessons-san-diegos-border-wall/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.wola.org/analysis/wola-report-lessons-san-diegos-border-wall/ Shelf Number: 149951 Keywords: Border Security Drug Trafficking Homeland Security Illegal Immigrants Immigration Enforcement

Author: Europol Title: Two Years of EMSC: Activity Report Jan. 2017 - Jan. 2018 Summary: Ruthless and violent criminals are increasingly providing smuggling services to irregular migrants to evade border controls, migration regulations and visa requirements. Most irregular migrants resort to the assistance of profit-seeking smugglers. With improved border controls, migrants are deterred from attempting to illegally cross borders by themselves and are diverted into the hands of smugglers who put migrants' lives at serious risk and therefore pose a security challenge to the internal security of the European Union (EU). A pan-European response to efficiently disrupt migrant smuggling activities is still needed and the European Migrant Smuggling Centre (ESMC) is leading it by strongly supporting EU Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs). Migrant smuggling continues to represent a highly-profitable business in which criminal syndicates enjoy low risk of detection and punishment. The business model of criminals involved in migrant smuggling is continuously evolving and responding to the dynamics and the needs of the migratory flows impacting the EU. Migrant smugglers are becoming more and more organised, establishing sophisticated professional networks, operating transnationally from source towards destination countries. According to the vast amount of data and information reported to the EMSC in recent months, targeting migrant smuggling therefore persists as one of the most relevant priorities. These factors highlight the need to continue developing comprehensive and coordinated responses across and between affected continents to efficiently combat migrant smuggling. Adaptable, innovative and agile support to EU Member States in the fight against this serious crime is required in order to face new challenges and that is where the EMSC is investing its efforts and allocating resources. The results of this report are the outcome of the cooperation between Europol, EU and non-EU law enforcement partners. Details: The Hague: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation 2018. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2018 at: https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-documents/two-years-of-emsc Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-documents/two-years-of-emsc Shelf Number: 150248 Keywords: Human Smuggling Illegal Immigrants Illegal Immigration Migrant Smuggling Organized Crime

Author: New York Immigration Coalition Title: Swept Up in the Sweep: The Impact of Gang Allegations on Immigrant New Yorkers Summary: T he United States is no stranger to the use of expansive profiling and discriminatory policing when facing real or perceived threats to national security. Whether it was the casting of Japanese Americans as traitors during World War II, civil rights leaders as radical threats to the country during the civil rights movement, Americans Muslims as national security threats after September 11th, or young black and brown men as criminals through stop-andfrisk policing-the use of fear and stereotypes to justify discriminatory tactics has repeatedly come at the expense of individuals' constitutional and civil rights. The end result? The dehumanizing of people of color, destabilizing of community structures, chilling of constitutionally protected speech and activity, and ultimately the mass incarceration and deportation of entire communities. The Trump administration has consistently sought to cast immigrants as threats to the economic and national security of the United States. And thus, MS-13, a gang born in the United States and grown in Central America, has become a favorite foil for President Donald Trump, as well as for Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. The Trump administration has taken a specific narrative course to elevate the status of MS-13 to a household name, responsible for invading armies of Central American migrants who are using supposed loopholes in immigration law to sow terror in the quiet American suburbs of Long Island. The problem is that the threat of MS-13 is purposely exaggerated to manipulate support for unfettered immigration enforcement in the name of gang-policing, without addressing the effectiveness of such policies or their devastating consequences-the large-scale detention and deportation of Latinx individuals. All empirical evidence shows that MS-13 on Long Island lacks basic organization and coordination. And while MS-13 is undoubtedly violent, the gang is not, by far, responsible for the majority of crimes committed on Long Island or, more broadly, in New York. The Trump administration has created and exploited public fear of MS-13 to further the Administration's own anti-immigrant agenda. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) "Operation Matador" (Matador) launched in 2017 as part of "Operation Community Shield" specifically seeks to "target violent gang members and their associates." The most troubling aspect of Matador is that it leads to increased local law enforcement collaboration with ICE. This collaboration exponentially increases the devastating impacts of discriminatory policing by compounding it with immigration enforcement. Allegations of MS-13 affiliation or membership are routinely made by immigration officers, often without credible evidence or the possibility for an individual to challenge the designation. Schools, local police departments, and federal law enforcement agencies all communicate in secrecy and trap Central American migrants in a growing and obscure web of enforcement. By broadly casting immigrant Latin youth as gang members to be targeted for incarceration and deportation, even the outward pretense of basic rights and due process is pushed to the side. Gang policing, like unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policies, has disproportionately impacted black and brown men. Notoriously flawed and unregulated, gang databases have minimal inclusion criteria. Simply living in a building or even a neighborhood where there are gang members, wearing certain colors or articles of clothing, or speaking to people law enforcement believe to be gang members can lead to inclusion in a gang database. Often individuals do not know they have been listed in such a database, and no mechanism exists to challenge inclusion. Similar vague criteria, such as the apparel an individual wears or a drawing made in a notebook, are used to label Latinx youth and young men as gang affiliated and then to subsequently justify their arrest, detention and deportation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not need to make any showing of gang affiliation to initiate removal proceedings-being undocumented alone is a sufficient basis. Law enforcement agencies have every incentive to target suspected gang affiliates for deportation when they do not have evidence to make a criminal arrest. Further, since immigration proceedings are not subject to the same evidentiary standards as are required in the criminal context, immigration enforcement takes advantage of these lax standards and introduces allegations of gang involvement with little or no evidence. For those swept up by these overbroad allegations, the effect could be the denial of immigration benefits for which they are otherwise eligible, the denial of immigration bond, and ultimately deportation. To better understand how the Trump administration has used the pretext of gang enforcement to further its anti-immigrant policies, the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) and the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law's Immigrant and Non-Citizen Rights Clinic (INRC) embarked on a survey (LE Interactions Survey) of legal service providers, community-based organizations, and community members in the New York City metro area, including Long Island, detailing how various immigration agencies have gone beyond the publicized gang sweeps and are in fact using gang allegations broadly in the immigration removal and adjudications process. Details: New York: The Coalition, 2018. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2018 at: http://www.thenyic.org/userfiles/file/SweptUp_Report_Final.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.thenyic.org/userfiles/file/SweptUp_Report_Final.pdf Shelf Number: 150337 Keywords: Gangs Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Undocumented Immigrants

Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Title: Global Study on Smuggling of Migrants 2018 Summary: At least 2.5 million migrants were smuggled in 2016, according to the first Global Study on Smuggling of Migrants released by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) today. Migrant smuggling occurred in all regions of the world and generated an income for smugglers of up to US$7 billion, equivalent to what the United States or the European Union countries spent on global humanitarian aid in 2016. The study describes 30 major smuggling routes worldwide and finds that demand for smuggling services is particularly high among refugees who, for lack of other means, may need to use smugglers to reach a safe destination fleeing their origin countries. Data suggests that many smuggling flows include unaccompanied or separated children, who might be particularly vulnerable to deception and abuse by smugglers and others. In 2016, nearly 34,000 unaccompanied and separated children arrived in Europe (in Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Spain). "This transnational crime preys on the most vulnerable of the vulnerable," said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, UNODC Director of Policy Analysis and Public Affairs. "It's a global crime that requires global action, including improved regional and international cooperation and national criminal justice responses." According to the International Organization for Migration, there are thousands of deaths due to migrant smuggling activities each year. Many smuggled migrants die from drowning, whereas others perish due to accidents or extreme terrain and weather conditions. According to records, the Mediterranean appears to be the deadliest route, with around 50 per cent of the total number of deaths. Systematic killings of migrants have also been reported along most smuggling routes. But smuggled migrants are also vulnerable to a range of other forms of crime such as violence, rape, theft, kidnapping, extortion and trafficking in persons. The study also looks at the gender composition of smuggled migrants and finds that this is often influenced by the circumstances driving their mobility, but most of them are relatively young men. On some routes, notably in parts of South-East Asia, however, women comprise large shares of smuggled migrants. Smuggling may involve complex schemes, such as organizing fake marriages or fictitious employment, counterfeiting travel documents or corrupting senior officials. For this, many smuggling networks engage in systematic corruption at most levels. The study also explores the links between smugglers and migrants, and finds that as a general pattern, smaller-scale smugglers are either ethnically linked to the territories where they operate, or they share ethnic or linguistic ties with the migrants they smuggle. What is more, some of the migrants who were successfully smuggled become smugglers themselves. Smugglers advertise their business where migrants can be easily reached, the study says. This includes neighbourhoods that are home to diaspora communities, refugee camps or various social networks online. To make a decision, migrants then rely on the opinion of their communities, relatives and friends, and more recently, of social media. Conclusions and policy implications A holistic approach to counter smuggling of migrants needs to take into account not only the geography of the crime, but also its different contributing factors. Making regular migration opportunities more accessible in origin countries and refugee camps, including the expansion of migration and asylum bureaux in origin areas, would reduce opportunities for smugglers. Tackling smuggling networks in their entirety requires improved regional and international cooperation and national criminal justice responses. Raising awareness in communities of origin, and particularly in refugee camps, about the dangers involved in smuggling may also help reduce the demand for smuggling services. Data collection, analysis and research on smuggling of migrants remain at their infancy. To build a solid international body of knowledge to support policy making in the area of smuggling of migrant, there is a need to improve data collection systems at the national, regional and international levels. Details: Vienna: UNODC, 2018. 170p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2018 at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glosom/GLOSOM_2018_web_small.pdf Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/glosom/GLOSOM_2018_web_small.pdf Shelf Number: 150589 Keywords: Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Migrants

Author: Nowrasteh, Alex Title: Criminal Immigrants in Texas: Illegal Immigrant Conviction and Arrest Rates for Homicide, Sexual Assault, Larceny, and Other Crimes Summary: President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deport most illegal immigrants who encounter law enforcement, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions is attempting to withhold federal funds from local police departments that do not cooperate with DHS in that effort. Underlying both actions is the belief that illegal immigrants are a significant source of crime. This brief uses Texas Department of Public Safety data to measure the conviction and arrest rates of illegal immigrants by crime. In Texas in 2015, the criminal conviction and arrest rates for immigrants were well below those of native-born Americans. Moreover, the conviction and arrest rates for illegal immigrants were lower than those for native-born Americans. This result holds for most crimes. BACKGROUND The vast majority of research finds that immigrants do not increase local crime rates and that they are less likely to cause crime and less likely to be incarcerated than their native-born peers. There is less research on illegal immigrant criminality, but what research there is shows that illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates nationwide and in the state of Texas relative to native-born Americans, although they have the same rates of re-arrest in Los Angeles County. Consistent with those findings, immigration enforcement programs targeting illegal immigrant criminals have no effect on local crime rates, which indicates that they are about as crime prone as other residents. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2018. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Immigration Research and Policy Brief, no. 4: Accessed June 26, 2018 at: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-4-update.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-4-update.pdf Shelf Number: 150698 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrants and Crime Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Knotter, Jaap Title: Slangenkoppen en tijgerjagers: illegaliteit en criminaliteit onder chinezen in Nederland Summary: China is on the move and we see that reflected in the migration flow from Chinese to the Netherlands in general and to the heavy and organized crime in particular. New groups of Chinese have has settled in the Netherlands in recent years, often after a difficult period tour and with the 'help' of people smugglers. Besides the approximately 65,000 legal Chinese remain many thousands of illegal Chinese in the Netherlands. In the heavy and organized crime a battle is going on between 'established' and 'new' Chinese. With this research we aim to fill in gaps in the knowledge and information position from the Dutch police. By reorganization within the Corps National Police Services (KLPD) disappeared the Information and Analysis department Smuggling of human beings (IAM), part of the then National service Criminal Investigation Information (dNRI). IAM KLPD originated from the then existing Southeast Asia team (ZOA) of the Rotterdam Rijnmond Regional Police, that for years was the source of information and the information node of the Dutch police on crime committed by Asian offender groups, especially Chinese criminal organizations. By canceling this team of experts, the Dutch lost police have a lot of knowledge and expertise, while many police forces still face it continued to be with Chinese (organized) crime. We first use this report broadly, with the aim of giving a glimpse into the doing and letting of Chinese in the Netherlands. In addition, we spend specific attention to illegal Chinese in the Netherlands. Then we zoom in crime and we examine to what extent it is related to illegality. Then we focus on heavy and organized crime. With especially in this last theme we also use police files. Our The most important approach, however, is that of the field researcher, who based it of observations, informal conversations and interviews, as far as possible, to provide insight into the lifestyle and thinking of Chinese people The Netherlands. Details: Uitgever: Boom Lemma Uitgevers, 2009. 220p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2018 at: http://www.bonger.nl/PDF/Overigen/kleinslangenkoppen-en-tijgerjagers.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Netherlands URL: http://www.bonger.nl/PDF/Overigen/kleinslangenkoppen-en-tijgerjagers.pdf Shelf Number: 150929 Keywords: Human Smuggling Human Trafficking Illegal Immigrants Organized Crime

Author: Ligor, Douglas C. Title: Neither Deportation nor Amnesty An Alternative for the Immigration Debate Building a Bridge Across the Deportation-Amnesty Divide Summary: This Perspective examines the current debate surrounding the issue of individuals present in the United States without lawful immigration status. Approximately 11 million individuals living in the United States lack the immigration documentation to legally reside in the country and accept employment. This Perspective relies on the proposition that the primary obstacle to an immigration modus vivendi is an unnecessary, damaging adherence by two contending sides to all-or-nothing solutions (either full deportation or amnesty). The "rule-of-law" side insists on the deportation of anyone unlawfully present in the United States. The "humanitarian" side insists that most individuals unlawfully present should be eligible to remain permanently under some form of amnesty. This Perspective proposes that minor changes in existing immigration law, specifically in the statute known as "Cancellation of Removal," offer a compromise solution for millions of individuals. This option would avert the necessity for either side to abandon their principles, or to cross the Rubicon-like barrier that full-scale comprehensive legislation currently represents. In doing so, it is possible that both the "rule of law" and "humanitarian" sides might forge a pragmatic political, legal, and policy compromise that could serve both positions and provide a potential solution to address this extremely difficult societal question. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND< 2018. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 9, 2018 at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE279.html Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE279.html Shelf Number: 151096 Keywords: Amnesty Deportation Homeland Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Policy Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Title: Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigrant Detention Centers Summary: Project South and the Penn State Law Center for Immigrants' Rights Clinic (on its behalf) have released a report titled "Imprisoned Justice: Inside Two Georgia Immigration Detention Centers." The report is focused on the Stewart Detention Center and the Irwin County Detention Center and is based on interviews with scores of detained immigrants as well as immigration attorneys, tours of both facilities, and review of contracts and other relevant documents. The investigation was completed over the course of one year. Stewart and Irwin had previously been identified in national reports as among the worst in the country. "As the accounts in the report demonstrate, little has changed at Stewart and Irwin. Life at these facilities for detained immigrants is still a living nightmare," said Azadeh Shahshahani. "It is high time for Stewart and Irwin to be shut down." As detailed in the report, the conditions in these detention facilities are deplorable and include: threats of force-feeding for participation in hunger strikes, sexual abuse, lack of clean drinking water, lack of adequate access to legal materials or attorneys, and labor for just $1 per day. Additionally, detained immigrants report they are served rotten and spoiled food with occasional foreign particles inside. Further, detained immigrants at both facilities lack adequate medical care and mental health services are minimal. Some detained immigrants also complained of not receiving dietary accommodations for religious beliefs and practices or health concerns. The use of solitary is also rampant. Several detained immigrants reported being put in segregation for expressing suicidal thoughts or as retaliation for complaining about detention conditions. As described by one detained immigrant at Stewart who suffers from mental health issues: "Segregation is like hell. It is total isolation." Details: Atlanta: Project South, 2017. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 15, 2018 at: https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Imprisoned_Justice_Report-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Imprisoned_Justice_Report-1.pdf Shelf Number: 151137 Keywords: Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrants Solitary Confinement Undocumented Immigrants

Author: Bier, David J. Title: U.S. Citizens Targeted by ICE: U.S. Citizens Targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Texas Summary: Texas law SB 4 imposes jail time on local police who fail to detain anyone whom federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests. Data from Travis County, Texas, show that ICE targets large numbers of U.S. citizens. From October 2005 to August 2017, 814 targets of ICE detainers in Travis County-3.3 percent of all requests-claimed U.S. citizenship and presented officers with a Social Security number (SSN). ICE subsequently canceled or declined to execute about a quarter of those detainer requests. Based on statements from ICE officials, the best explanation for not executing these detainers is that ICE targeted at least 228 U.S. citizens in the county before canceling or declining to execute those detainers. SB 4 will likely increase the detention of U.S. citizens for supposed violations of immigration law by preventing local police from releasing them. Applying the rate of wrongful detainers in Travis County to all detainers in the state of Texas from 2006 to 2017 implies that ICE wrongfully placed detainers on at least 3,506 U.S. citizens statewide. Other evidence shows that ICE regularly releases U.S. citizens after it executes a detainer, meaning that the true number of U.S. citizens initially targeted is likely even higher than that estimate. The fact that ICE often discovers its own mistakes only mitigates the harm inflicted on U.S. citizens wrongfully detained under the suspicion that they are illegal immigrants-and does not protect these jurisdictions from lawsuits under SB 4. Local law enforcement in Texas needs the flexibility to sort through these citizenship claims without the threat of jail time imposed by SB 4. Details: Washington, CA: CATO Institute, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2018 at: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-8.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-8.pdf Shelf Number: 151327 Keywords: Customs Enforcement Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Global Detention Project Title: Immigration Detention in Libya: "A Human Rights Crisis" Summary: Libya is notoriously perilous for refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants, who often suffer a litany of abuses, including at the country's numerous detention facilities. Conditions at these facilities, many of which are under the control of militias, are deplorable. There are frequent shortages of water and food; over-crowding is endemic; detainees can experience physical mistreatment and torture; forced labour and slavery are rife; and there is a stark absence of oversight and regulation. Nevertheless, Italy and the European Union continue to strike controversial migration control deals with various actors in Libya aimed at reducing flows across the Mediterranean. These arrangements include equipping Libyan farces to "rescue" intercepted migrants and refugees at sea, investing in detention centres, and paying militias to control migration. KEY CONCERNS Refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants are regularly exposed to indefinite detention in centres run by the Interior Ministry's Department for Combating Illegal Immigration or local militias; Detention conditions across the country are a matter of "grave concern," according to the UN, as detainees are forced to live in severely overcrowded facilities with little food, water, or medical care, and suffer physical abuse, forced labour, slavery, and torture; The automatic placement of asylum seekers and migrants intercepted at sea in detention centres places them at risk of human rights abuses, which could be attenuated by expanding the use of shelters and other non-custodial measures that have been proposed by international experts; There do not appear to be any legal provisions regulating administrative forms of immigration detention and there is an urgent need for the country to develop a sound legal framework for its migration polices that is in line with international human rights standards; There is severely inadequate data collection by national authorities concerning the locations and numbers of people apprehended by both official agencies and non-state actors; Women and children are not recognised as requiring special attention and thus they remain particularly vulnerable to abuse and ill-treatment, including rape and human trafficking; Italy and the European Union continue to broker deals with various Libyan forces to control migration despite their involvement in severe human rights abuses and other criminal activities. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project, 2018. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/africa/libya Year: 2018 Country: Libya URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/immigration-detention-in-libya-a-human-rights-crisis Shelf Number: 151434 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Immigration Detention Immigration Enforcement Refugees

Author: Global Detention Project Title: Harm Reduction in Immigration Detention: A Comparative Study of Detention Centres in France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland Summary: It seems to be an inexorable quality of immigration detention that it causes the individual to experience pain or injury. From a human rights perspective, is it possible to talk about "best practices"? This Global Detention Project Special Report systematically compares conditions and operations at detention centres in five European countries-Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland-to identify practices that may be used to develop "harm reducing" strategies in detention. Commissioned by the Norwegian Red Cross as part of its efforts to promote reforms of Norway's detention practices, the report addresses several key questions: In what ways has the Norwegian system met or exceeded internationally recognised standards? In what ways has it fallen short, especially when compared to detention practices of peer countries? And what are the key reform priorities going forward that may help reduce the harmful impact of detention? In Norway's Trandum Detention Centre, multiple reports have highlighted an overzealously punitive and restrictive detention regime where detainees consider themselves to be "treated as criminals" even though they are not serving criminal prison sentences. Despite repeated recommendations from relevant experts, including the country's Parliamentary Ombudsman, many important reforms have not been implemented. To complete the study, GDP researchers sought to assess Trandum in a comparative context that would highlight conditions and procedures in other European countries. The analysis of centres in Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland reveals that Trandum has embraced a carceral model for immigration detention to a much greater extent than centres elsewhere in Europe, falling short of standards provided in international law and promoted by national and regional human rights bodies. The report highlights several key areas for promoting reforms, both at Trandum and in other facilities across Europe, including: placing immigration detainees in the custody of social welfare institutions rather than public security agencies; reforming operating rules on everything from food preparation to electronic communications; and shedding detention centres of carceral elements, including the aspect of guards and staff members and the internal layout and regime of detention centres. Many of these suggestions have been highlighted by the Norwegian Red Cross in a statement urging the country's authorities to reform its immigration detention system. Details: Geneva, SWIT: GDP, 2018. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 2, 2018 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/harm-reduction-immigration-detention Year: 2018 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 153146 Keywords: Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Enforcement

Author: Mabudusha, Sekgologo Angel Title: The Policing of Undocumented Foreign Nationals in South Africa Summary: The increasing numbers of undocumented foreign nationals in South Africa not only has affected the provision of services provided by the local municipalities and the Department of Home Affairs but is also a huge challenge to the services provided by the South African police. The aim of this study was to explore the police experiences of dealing with undocumented foreign nationals in South Africa. A literature review was conducted to provide an overview of this problem nationally and internationally. Interviews, observations and document analysis were also considered to explore police experiences of dealing with undocumented foreign nationals. The findings of this study show that the South African police are "caught between a rock and a hard place" when dealing with undocumented foreign nationals within the constitutional framework of this country. They receive little support from the government and the relevant stakeholders on this matter, while on the other hand they are exposed to constant threats and lack of compliance from the undocumented foreign nationals and the criminal syndicates that facilitate illegal cross-border movements and the pressure from advocates of human rights principles and the media. These factors lead to increased frustrations among police officials and self-protective measures such as turning a blind eye to this problem. To deal with the problem the Inclusive and Interactive Refugee Management Model, which focuses on constant interaction among stakeholders, is recommended. Inclusive strategies are also recommended for dealing with undocumented foreign nationals. This model supports a Left Realism perspective, which advocates collective responsibility towards human concerns. Details: Pretoria: University of South Africa, 2014. 205p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed Dec. 12, 2018 at: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/13867/thesis_mabudusha_sa.pdf?sequence=1 Year: 2014 Country: South Africa URL: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/13867/thesis_mabudusha_sa.pdf?sequence=1 Shelf Number: 154009 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Refugees

Author: Kandel, William A. Title: The Trump Administration's "Zero Tolerance" Immigration Enforcement Policy Summary: For the last several years, Central American migrant families have arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border in relatively large numbers, many seeking asylum. While some request asylum at U.S. ports of entry, others do so after entering the United States "without inspection" (i.e., illegally) between U.S. ports of entry. On May 7, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented a zero tolerance policy toward illegal border crossing both to discourage illegal migration into the United States and to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims that Administration officials contend are often fraudulent. Under the zero tolerance policy, DOJ prosecutes all adult aliens apprehended crossing the border illegally, with no exception for asylum seekers or those with minor children. DOJ's policy represents a change in the level of enforcement for an existing statute rather than a change in statute or regulation. Prior Administrations prosecuted illegal border crossings relatively infrequently. Criminally prosecuting adults for illegal border crossing requires detaining them in federal criminal facilities where children are not permitted. While DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have broad statutory authority to detain adult aliens, children must be detained according to guidelines established in the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. A 2015 judicial ruling held that children remain in family immigration detention for no more than 20 days. If parents cannot be released with them, children are treated as unaccompanied alien children and transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) for care and custody. The widely publicized family separations are a consequence of the Trump Administration's 100 percent prosecution policy, not the result of any family separation policy. Since that policy was implemented, up to 3,000 children may have been separated from their parents. Following mostly critical public reaction, President Trump ordered DHS to maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal trial or immigration proceedings. DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) subsequently stopped referring most illegal border crossers to DOJ for criminal prosecution. A federal judge then mandated that all separated children be promptly reunited with their families. Another rejected DOJ's request to modify the FSA to extend the 20-day child detention guideline. DHS has since reverted to some prior immigration enforcement policies. Family unit apprehensions, which increased from just over 11,000 in FY2012 to 68,560 in the first nine months of FY2018, are occurring within relatively low historical levels of total alien apprehensions. The national origin of recently apprehended aliens and families has shifted from mostly Mexican to mostly Central American. Administration officials and immigration enforcement advocates argue that measures like the zero tolerance policy are necessary to discourage migrants from coming to the United States and submitting fraudulent asylum requests. They maintain that alien family separation resulting from the prosecution of illegal border crossers mirrors that occurring under the U.S. criminal justice system policy where adults with custody of minor children are charged with a crime and held in jail, effectively separating them from their children. Immigrant advocates contend that migrant families are fleeing legitimate threats from countries with exceptionally high rates of gang violence, and that family separations resulting from the zero tolerance policy are cruel and violate fundamental human rights - such as the ability to request asylum. They maintain that the zero tolerance policy was hastily implemented and lacked planning for family reunification following criminal prosecutions. Some observers question the Trump Administration's capacity to marshal sufficient resources to prosecute all illegal border crossers without additional resources. Others criticize the family separation policy in light of less expensive alternatives to detention. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018, 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 11, 2019: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=814001 Shelf Number: 154108 Keywords: Asylum Seekers Border Security Customs and Border Protection Family Separation Homeland Security Act of 2002 Illegal Immigrants Immigration Immigration Enforcement Migrants Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

Author: Immigrant Defense Project Title: The Courthouse Trap: How ICE Operations Impacted New York's Courts in 2018 Summary: In 2018, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) substantially expanded arrest and surveillance operations in New York's courts, continuing a disturbing trend that began with the inauguration of President Donald Trump. ICE operations increased not only in absolute number but grew in brutality and geographic scope. Agents, disguised in plainclothes, used intrusive surveillance and violent force to execute arrests. They also reached into many new areas of the state, conducting arrests in several upstate counties that were previously untouched. And ICE agents pursued New Yorkers in a broader range of courts-conducting operations in civil and criminal courts and in courts designed to be rehabilitative instead of punitive. All of these changes underline ICE's increasing reliance on the state's court system as a place to trap and detain immigrant New Yorkers. Details: New York: The Author, 2019. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2019 at: https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/TheCourthouseTrap.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/TheCourthouseTrap.pdf Shelf Number: 154534 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrant Enforcement Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Immigration Court

Author: Carafano, James Jay Title: An Agenda for American Immigration Reform Summary: To address immigration and border security in a manner that keeps America free, safe, and prosperous, Congress must take a step-by-step approach to the full range of issues: Reject amnesty and open borders; secure our southern border; end "catch and release;" combat transnational criminal networks, fraud, humanitarian abuses, and human trafficking; restore the integrity of immigration enforcement; and sustain productive regional engagement. Our flawed immigration system cannot be fixed without adoption and implementation of these initiatives. Legal immigration reform should include transitioning to a merit-based system, ending practices like birthright citizenship, and promoting patriotic assimilation. Moreover, legal immigration, border security, and enforcement reforms should stand alone and advance on their own merits, not bundled into a comprehensive package. Details: Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 2019. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Special Report No. 210: Accessed march 11, 2019 at: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/SR210_0.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/SR210_0.pdf Shelf Number: 154889 Keywords: Border Security Illegal Immigrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migrants

Author: Kerwin, Donald Title: Communities in Crisis: Interior Removals and Their Human Consequences Summary: In late 2017, the Kino Border Initiative (KBI), the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), and the Office of Justice and Ecology (OJE) of the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States initiated a study to examine the characteristics of deportees and the effects of deportation, and to place them in a broader policy context (Attachment A). The CRISIS Study (Catholic Removal Impact Survey in Society) included both quantitative and qualitative elements. During the first five months of 2018, KBI staff surveyed 133 deportees from the United States at its migrant shelter in Nogales, Sonora. Survey respondents were all Mexican nationals, all but one were men, and each had been living for a period of time in the United States. They had resided in 16 US states, the majority in Arizona, followed by Nevada, California, and Utah. The survey sought information on their US lives, the removal and detention process, and the impact of removal on them and their families (Attachment B). The study also included one interview with a deportee (via Skype) and 20 interviews with the family members of deportees and other persons affected by deportation in Catholic parishes in Florida, Michigan, and Minnesota. The parishes - which the report will not identify in order to ensure the interviewees' anonymity - were chosen based on their geographic, demographic, and sociopolitical diversity, their connections to the agencies conducting the study, and their ability to facilitate access to deportees, their families, and others impacted by deportation. The interviews explored: (1) the impact of removals on deportees, their families, and other community members; (2) the deportation process; and (3) the relationship between deportees and their families (Attachment C). They provided an intimate, often raw look at the human consequences of deportation. Details: Nogales, AZ, New York, NY, and Washington, DC: Kino Border Initiative (KBI), Center for Migration Studies (CMS), and Office of Justice and Ecology (OJE), 2018. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 18, 2019 at: http://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FINAL-Communities-in-Crisis-Report-ver-5.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://cmsny.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FINAL-Communities-in-Crisis-Report-ver-5.pdf Shelf Number: 155030 Keywords: Deportation Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Global Detention Project Title: Global Detention Project Annual Report 2018 Summary: As representatives from countries around the world prepared to meet in Marrakesh to adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in December 2018, a first-of-its-kind global agreement for humanely managing migration, negotiations became overshadowed by the news that a handful of states-including, notably, the United States, Australia, and a host of European countries-would refuse to sign it. The naysayers worried that the agreement would threaten their sovereignty and that its mention of the human rights of migrants would limit their ability to ramp up border security. "No to Marrakesh! - The UN's Sinister Blueprint for Globalist Migration Hell," clamoured the headline of one widely circulated oped in the United States. Although the compact was approved by the vast majority of states, the widespread fear-mongering spurred by the non-binding agreement reveals the hostility that migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees continue to face across the globe, even as many "crises" have faded. States continue to rely heavily on detention and deportation in their response to irregular migration, including using detention as a deterrent, despite a lack of evidence showing its effectiveness. From the de facto detention centres in Hungary's transit zones and Malaysia's grim migration "depots" where hundreds have died of preventable diseases in recent years, to Libya's nightmarish EU-financed migrant prisons and Mexico's burgeoning network of estaciones migratorias, countless thousands are locked behind bars and placed in extreme vulnerability every day across our planet solely because of their immigration status. Consider this: As of 21 December 2018, Saudi Arabia had arrested 1,996,069 people during the year as part of its "Homeland Without Illegals Campaign." Who knows about this? All too often, authorities fail to disclose information and statistics concerning their detention operations, and facilities are operated under deceptive forms and guises-they can be called "residential centres," "guesthouses," "hotspots," "shelters." This lack of transparency shields states from scrutiny and reforms. The need for detailed, systematic information about who is being deprived of their liberty, where they are locked up, and the conditions they face in detention are greater than ever. And the Global Detention Project's work holding governments to account and promoting effective, meaningful reforms remains pivotal. It was the recognition of these needs more than a decade ago that spurred the founding of the Global Detention Project at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. Motivated by the goal of measuring the worldwide spread of immigration detention, GDP researchers developed a first-of-its-kind methodology for documenting where people are deprived of their liberty for migration-related reasons. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Author, 2019. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GDP-AR-2018-Online-V2_compressed.pdf Year: 2019 Country: International URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GDP-AR-2018-Online-V2_compressed.pdf Shelf Number: 155558 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Migration Refugees

Author: Aliverti, Ana Title: Making home safe? The role of criminal law and punishment in British immigration controls Summary: This thesis is an enquiry into the regulation of immigration through criminal law and its institutions. It looks at the range of immigration offences in British legislation, and whether and how they are being used in practice. The criminalisation of immigration status has historically served functions of exclusion and control against those who defy the state's powers over its territory and population. In the last two decades, the prerogatives to exclude and punish have been enhanced by the expansion of the catalogue of immigration offences and the more systematic enforcement of these powers. The great reliance on the criminal law to regulate immigration is distinctive of a period in which crime and immigration have been increasingly politicised. As a consequence, more offences have been created and more individuals have been subject to the hybrid immigration and criminal justice system. While immigration offences largely remain under-enforced, some of them - particularly those penalising document fraud and identity stripping- are used against foreign nationals who cannot be removed from the country. In this thesis I explain what I consider to be the most pernicious consequences of this expansion of formal and substantive criminalisation of immigration breaches. The existence of a parallel system of sanctions allows enforcement agencies wide margins of discretion. Therefore, similar cases may be dealt with in very different ways. When the criminal route is chosen, the use of criminal law in the vast majority of cases reaching the criminal courts is unnecessary, disproportionate and extremely harmful. Both the decision to prosecute and the sanction eventually imposed are justified by preventive and regulatory purposes. The actual practice of criminalisation reveals that the criminal procedural safeguards are weakened and those accused of immigration crimes are likely to be convicted and imprisoned for these offences. I conclude that the formal and substantive criminalisation of immigration represents a departure from liberal criminal law principles and the purposes of criminal punishment. These conclusions cast doubts about the pragmatic, non-principled use of criminal law to regulate immigration flows, and call for the need to look at other, more humane alternatives in the treatment of 'unwelcome' migrants. Details: Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, 2011. 294p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 14, 2019 at: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:c3659f2f-679e-464e-a12a-282c85ebac94 Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:c3659f2f-679e-464e-a12a-282c85ebac94 Shelf Number: 156427 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Illegal Migrants Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Offences Immigration Policy Migrants

Author: Ryo, Emily Title: Detention as Deterrence Summary: Over the past few decades, the federal government has justified the use of immigration detention on the basis that it deters unauthorized migration. Simply put, the idea is that detention will send a message that harsh consequences await apprehended migrants, and that such a message will discourage individuals from undertaking the journey to seek entry into the United States. This Essay applies insights from research on deterrence effects of criminal law to explain why immigration detention is unlikely to produce the intended behavioral effects that some policymakers desire. Specifically, I explore three hurdles to achieving deterrence through immigration law: the legal knowledge hurdle, the rational choice hurdle, and the perceived net cost hurdle. I conclude by discussing key questions that detention-as-deterrence policy raises for future research and policy in this area. Details: Los Angeles: University of Southern California Gould School of Law, 2019. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: USC CLASS Research Paper No. CLASS19-15; USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 19-15: Accessed June 27, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3406461&dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_correlates:of:crime:ejournal_abstractlink Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3406461&dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_correlates:of:crime:ejournal_abstractlink Shelf Number: 156709 Keywords: Deterrence Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigration Detention Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy

Author: Cantor, Guillermo Title: Changing Patterns of Interior Immigration Enforcement in the United States, 2016-2018 Summary: The report, "Changing Patterns of Interior Immigration Enforcement in the United States, 2016�2018," reveals that U.S. citizens and immigrant women have become increasingly vulnerable to immigration enforcement actions under the administration. As the president vows to conduct mass immigration arrests and deportation, this report exposes the consequences of the administration's unfocused enforcement approach and raises important questions about who is being impacted by the wide net of increased enforcement. The report draws on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement records of 1,199,026 encounters, 381,370 arrests, and 650,944 removals that occurred between January 2016 and September 2018. The data was obtained by the Council through Freedom of Information Act litigation. The main findings of the report include the following: The number of U.S. citizens encountered by ICE jumped from 5,940 during the last year of the Obama administration to 27,540 during the first year of the Trump administration. Proportionally, ICE encountered and arrested more women during the first part of the Trump administration than it did at the end of the Obama administration. Over 85 percent of all removals under both administrations in the period examined involved individuals either with no criminal convictions or with only non-violent convictions. Compared to the last year of the Obama administration, the volume of both custodial arrests (those conducted in a setting such as a jail or prison) and at-large arrests (those conducted in the community) increased during the first year of the Trump administration. The largest percentage increases in the number of at-large arrests occurred in the ICE Areas of Responsibility in Philadelphia, Buffalo, and Phoenix. Under both administrations, over 70 percent of encounters and over 60 percent of arrests were conducted through the Criminal Alien Program. The Trump administration has cast the net of immigration enforcement wider than previous administrations in its search for individuals who may be deportable from the United States. To achieve this, it has broadened the notion of "enforcement priority," sought to eliminate humanitarian protections that had previously shielded hundreds of thousands of noncitizens from enforcement action, and expanded its enforcement activities within communities. "Our findings reveal that there are some structural components of the enforcement machine that transcend specific administrations" said Guillermo Cantor, director of research at the American Immigration Council and co-author of the report. "However, the elimination of enforcement priorities and expansion of the enforcement net under the Trump administration has increased the vulnerability of those who may 'look deportable,' women, and individuals in certain regions of the country." "Despite all the political rhetoric about deporting dangerous criminals, our data reveal that the majority of individuals removed under both the Obama and Trump administrations either had no criminal convictions or only non-violent convictions," said Emily Ryo, professor of law and sociology at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and co-author of the report. "This study makes clear that the Trump administration's dragnet approach to immigration enforcement is not only impacting the lives of many otherwise law-abiding immigrant families, but also tens of thousands of U.S. citizens. Families are living in fear, changing the ways in which they plan and live their lives in the United States. Many U.S. citizen kids now bear the brunt of immigration enforcement activities when their parents-including those with long-standing ties to their community-become targets for deportation," said Jorge Loweree, policy director at the American Immigration Council. Details: Washington, DC; American Immigration Council, 2019. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed July 2, 2019 at: Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 156821 Keywords: Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Deportation Immigrant Detention Immigration Immigration Enforcement Undocumented Immigrants