Search

Notwithstanding punitive implications, immigration detention as an administrative deprivation of liberty represents a characteristic police measure, targeting deportable noncitizens with limited rights and protections. Drawing on an analysis of the detention system in Finland, I discuss different functions of immigration detention, focusing on police powers in the governance of mobile populations. In Finland, immigration detention is separated from the criminal justice system and delegated to the police, who possess broad powers to impose coercive measures for the enforcement of immigration decisions and social control in the absence of effective judicial supervision. Despite being affiliated with the removal of rejected asylum seekers, immigration detention also is intertwined with crime prevention and control of irregular migration. In addition to deprivation of liberty in the first place, police measures support removal procedures that continue during detention, as well as other administrative strategies to control deportable people and deter unauthorized residency, involving varying degrees of coercion. Though connected with criminal justice and manifestations of penal power in border criminology discussions, immigration detention can arguably be better understood as a coercive police measure, which can be employed alongside other administrative means for immigration enforcement outside of the criminal justice system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines cinematic portrayals of immigrant integration in Naples, Italy particularly through documentaries. It emphasizes the complexity of the integration process, exploring emotional dimensions and challenges faced by immigrants in a dynamic societal landscape. It highlights the role of select films in capturing diverse narratives, shedding light on the struggles and cultural clashes experienced by migrants.

Positioned at the island interface of Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines, the east Malaysian state of Sabah bears witness to some of the largest clandestine cross‐border flows across the globe. This article examines what a Royal Commission of Inquiry on Illegal Immigrants in Sabah has called "an insidious problem which has turned out to be an all‐consuming nightmare." It highlights the situated (meta)semiotic work involved in determining and enforcing the state's seemingly indeterminate and unenforceable borders between citizens and suspected non‐citizens, while also showing how inquiries into migrant illegality are ultimately inquiries into "excess." It demonstrates how experiences of and orientations to excess take expressive shape in migrants and Malaysians' fashions of speaking and forms of life. It concludes by considering how these transnational dynamics across a sprawling archipelagic region lend a provincializing angle of vision on American(ist) anthropology's own hemispheric parochialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their prominent role in the Return Directive and the constitution of the common European border regime, entry bans and their role in the governance of unwanted mobility remain largely unexamined in migration research. Entry bans accompany removal decisions for non-compliant or criminalised non-citizens, applying by default in the whole Schengen area, excluding EU citizens and legally residing third-country nationals, who receive national bans. In this article, drawing from my research on the immigration detention system in Finland, I discuss how entry bans sanction and irregularise movement mainly inside Europe, complicate non-citizens' regularisation, and affect their mobility strategies. Despite also being intertwined with crime control in Finland, national entry bans seem largely ineffective in preventing unwanted mobility inside the Schengen area: many Estonian citizens, in particular, are detained and removed from Finland several times a year. Notwithstanding the Europe-wide effect intended in the Return Directive, national entry bans issued alongside Schengen bans reintroduce borders inside Europe. Furthermore, by prolonging the duration of removal orders for years, entry bans establish individual borders that may be faced in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY: In this story, I trace how the compulsion to work has shaped the lives of Elias and Biruk, two men who left their home country, Ethiopia, and now live in the US. Despite working hard at multiple jobs, work was not something they celebrated. Working hard was the embodiment of their precarity, simply the main currency in their lives of mobility. Were Biruk and Elias refugees? Undocumented migrants? Alien residents? What they told me about their lives over the phone did not help me understand their status in the US. Face to face, I had a chance to ask them a straightforward question, but Biruk and Elias did not reply by saying: "I am this, not that." Their status would be stable and definable only when they got a paper recognizing they had a right to be in the US. Before that all‐important scrap of paper, they were in a state of constant becoming. All they could do in the meantime was work and work. Because "if you do not work, what the hell are you in the USA for?" Elias said. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature in policing has mostly overlooked the antecedents of prejudice, especially those who choose a police career. Such a choice is important given the results of prejudice that might cause police misconduct toward regular migrants, irregular migrants, and refugees. This study aims to examine the factors that explain prejudice among police cadets toward other ethnic groups. This study's data come from a survey of 725 police cadets in three police vocational schools in Turkey. We employed structural equation modeling to examine the antecedents of prejudice toward foreigners within the framework of intergroup threat theory. More specifically, in this study, we included factors such as anomie, authoritarianism, and nationalism and participants' symbolic and realistic threat perceptions in shaping prejudice toward foreigners. The findings suggest that police cadets' realistic threat perception was the most salient antecedent of prejudice toward foreigners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to the COVID‐19 Pandemic, the Gulf region was home to ~29 million foreign residents, an estimated 20–40% of whom were residing there in an irregular status. Most of them had skilfully devised strategies to survive in this irregular situation, with friends and relatives acting as essential support networks. The COVID‐19 Pandemic suddenly disrupted this well‐established social order. This article outlines the lived experiences of 26 irregular migrants residing in Kuwait when the Pandemic occurred. Twelve of our interviewees were planning to leave in response to the amnesty declared on 1 April, while 14 were planning to stay or were uncertain. Network support continued to provide an essential element in enabling their survival. Intermediaries such as kafeels (sponsors) were often unavailable or unwilling to provide assistance. The health and welfare of irregular migrants require special policy attention since they now face an enhanced risk of being apprehended and deported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The launch in 2013 of a new migration policy marks a major paradigm shift: Morocco henceforth conceives of itself as a country of immigration, no longer only a country of transit. This shift in policy orientation is especially significant because it breaks with the security-based logic of migration management that had prevailed until then. This article examines the emergence and the implementation of these policies from the bottom up. Through the analysis of regularisation operations benefitting some 50,000 illegal migrants, I identify a set of flexibilities, arrangements and extra-regulatory practices adopted by the authorities to reconcile divergent actors' concerns. This analysis is based on unique fieldwork carried out in 2017 in one of the largest foreigners' offices created in prefectures for processing regularisation (legalisation) operations. In addition to observation, I conducted 47 interviews with employees of the Moroccan Ministries of Interior, Foreign Affairs and Migration Affairs. I also conducted interviews with several representatives of NGOs involved in the regularisation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Welfare provision for noncitizens has been at the center of political debates. Understanding how Californian noncitizens and undocumented immigrants access health care would provide useful information to guide health policies. Method: The neighborhood-level Census data were used to learn the factors related to insurance coverage. LA County is identified as a case study to understand the status quo of health care access for noncitizen immigrants. Data from the Center for Migration Studies was used to derive the unmet demand of My Health LA, a county program that aims to cover the uninsured. Result: Two main factors that predict the extent of local insurance coverage, especially for noncitizens, are the percentage of Latino foreign-born and their chance of naturalization. The paper also finds that in 2014, approximately 61% of undocumented immigrants and 49% of noncitizens were uninsured in LA county, compared with less than 20% for citizens. Conclusion: Improving health care access among the undocumented would effectively reduce overall uninsured rates. This study advocates expanding county indigent programs to achieve higher health care coverage of the undocumented. Using lower-bound estimates, if My Health LA were to cover the entire potential patient pool, the cap must be increased by approximately 60%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article attempts to contribute to the growing scholarly conversation at the nexus of immigration, citizenship, and civics education. This paper seeks to shed light on what is taught about undocumented immigrants by starting with civics class, where concepts such as the rights of citizens and immigrants are traditionally taught. Specifically, the paper analyzes civics textbooks, a cornerstone of the formal civics curriculum. Utilizing a theoretical framework of Critical Human Rights Education, this content analysis investigates how civics textbooks adopted in one midwestern state portray undocumented immigrants. Key findings suggest that civics textbooks assume all students are citizens, that it is easy to become a citizen, and that undocumented immigrants are problems. Further, by assuming that all students are citizens, and enjoy rights such as voting, civics textbooks render undocumented students invisible. The article concludes with implications and recommendations for teachers and teacher education programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nearly 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet bloc, there are still people who have never in their lives held any passport other than that of the Soviet Union. They are de jure stateless. However, their statelessness can also be legally productive if strategically challenged. This legal productivity arises from the mobilization of human rights protections embedded in de jure statelessness by local legal actors in a given, national immigration context, and extending them to secure the rights of de facto stateless: undocumented migrants and asylum seekers. I illustrate this using a case study of the recent litigation for the rights of Mr Mskhiladze – a stateless person born in the Georgian USSR – before the Russian Constitutional Court (2017) and the European Court of Human Rights (2018). Conceptually, my paper testifies to a productive relationship between a de jure and de facto statelessness in the post-Soviet context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five experiments (N = 2,251) and a meta-analysis examine how group labels shape Americans' levels of prejudice, behavioral intentions, and policy preferences toward immigrants living in the US without authorization. These studies extend research documenting how the perceived negativity of group labels (e.g., those describing gay people) affects people's downstream attitudes. To this end, Study 1 examines the perceived negativity of the five most commonly used labels to describe unauthorized immigrants. Study 2 found that relatively negative (vs. neutral) labels (e.g., illegal aliens vs. noncitizens) engendered more prejudice, punitive behavioral intentions, and greater support for punitive policies. Study 3 replicates these effects and examines the role of familiarity. People who personally knew members of the group were more positive towards them overall, but were nevertheless susceptible to the labels' influence. Studies 4 and 5 provide additional replications and explore prejudice as a mediator of behavioral intentions and policy preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article proposes the term Departheid to capture the systemic oppression and spatial management of illegalized migrants in Western liberal states. As a concept, Departheid aims to move beyond the instrumentality of illegalizing migration in order to comprehend the tenacity with which oppressive measures are implemented even in the face of accumulating evidence for their futility in managing migration flows and the harm they cause to millions of people. The article highlights continuities between present oppressive migration regimes and past colonial configurations for controlling the mobility of what Hannah Arendt has called "subject races." By drawing on similarities with Apartheid as a governing ideology based on racialization, segregation, and deportation, I argue that Departheid, too, is animated by a sense of moral superiority that is rooted in a fantasy of White supremacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the classification of migration and the political implications of its vocabulary. It begins with an analysis of the challenge that the topic of migration poses to traditional methods of classification. These challenges are evident in the case study of the 2016 petition to change the subject heading of "Illegal aliens" at the Library of Congress, the Library's proposal to replace the term with "noncitizens" and "illegal immigration," and subsequent pressure from the House of Representatives to reinstate the original phrasing in order to match the terminology of federal laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American attitudes toward immigration shift with changes in the nation's economic and political climate. While waves of immigration to the United States are motivated by various factors, the extent to which immigrants are welcomed in the country does not consider these motivations. Rather, American perspectives of immigration vary by region and are informed by local economies and ideological majorities. Thus, while some localities work closely with federal immigration officials to facilitate federal regulatory schemes, other localities adopt policies that prohibit cooperation with federal immigration law, becoming "sanctuary cities" for undocumented immigrants. This Comment explores the constitutionality of a federal provision that attempts to subvert the ability of sanctuary cities to implement policies they believe promote trust and communication with local immigrant communities and which ultimately improve public safety. Analyzed within the framework of Tenth Amendment federalism and state sovereignty, this federal provision is an invalid infringement of states 'power to sustain sanctuary cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - This paper aims to examine the short-term effect of the Arizona Immigration Law of 2010 (SB 1070) on the noncitizen Hispanic state population. Design/methodology/approach - To get a consistent estimate of this effect, a synthetic control method has been used to calculate a suitable counterfactual. Findings - Results indicate that this bill produced a statistically significant short-term reduction in the proportion of noncitizen Hispanics in Arizona between 10 and 15 per cent. However, the evidence suggests that this effect vanishes after a few months. Originality/value - These findings are consistent with previous evidence of the high mobility of the undocumented population in the US, and contribute to the understanding of the effects of federal and statelevel immigration legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Noncitizens must comply with immigration laws just because citizens say so. The citizenry takes for granted its monopoly on immigration control, but the legitimacy of this arrangement has been called into question by cutting-edge political theorists. One prominent theorist argues, for example, that basic democratic principles require that noncitizens living outside the United States have a say in the formation of immigration law since they must obey it. This Article provides a legal response to these political theory developments, assimilating them, along with the facts on the ground, into an account of "illegal" migration as First Amendment speech. If noncitizens' voices are unjustly excluded from the immigration law conversation, then "illegal" migration is speech of necessity--there is no other way for noncitizens to be heard. Protest speech occurs every time a migrant crosses a border without permission and every time a noncitizen chooses to overstay a visa: these defiant actions declare the illegitimacy of immigration law. In turn, the individual speech acts of millions of "illegal" migrants help to foment an immigrants' rights consciousness and enable groups of migrants to engage in core, protected forms of dissent, like marching in the streets shouting "NOT ONE MORE DEPORTATION" and tweeting #Not1More. By speaking in these disruptive and unorthodox ways, the undocumented force the citizenry to grapple with the serious constriction of noncitizens' lives that immigration laws cause. If these millions of protesters had respected our immigration laws by staying at home, pining for--but failing to seize--a better life in the United States, citizens could not know concretely how immigration laws limit noncitizens' lives, nor learn whether our legal and political system is resilient enough to accommodate millions of people the citizenry did not ask for. Thus, "illegal" migration makes the immigration law conversation more consistent with American free-speech values than it would otherwise be. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the vivencias en la vida cotidiana (everyday lived experiences) of undocumented youth activists in the USA at the intersection where dislocated "bare lives" encounter the hegemonic sovereign power of the nation-state (Agamben 1998). As nearly 2.1 million undocumented immigrant youth in the United States face the precarious reality of "learning to be illegal" (Gonzales 2011) and the threat of "deportability" (De Genova and Peutz 2010), a growing movement of undocumented youth fight for the dignity and liberation of their community while the light of their activism illuminates the majority who remain in the shadows. Based on three years of ethnographic research and action within the undocumented youth activist movement, this article utilizes a dialogical framework through collaborative and participatory based research methods to examine the theological dimensions of "illegal" and "bare" lives on the margins lived between the borders of citizenship and human dignity, between nation-states and the kingdom of God. The research and writing are grounded in a methodological and theological praxis with the marginalized, embodied most poignantly in the co-authors collaborative work and friendship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using administrative, individual level, longitudinal data from the state of Georgia, this article finds that rising shares of undocumented workers results in higher earnings for documented workers, but by a small amount. A one percentage point increase in the share of undocumented workers in a documented worker's county/industry results in an average wage boost of 0.44%. Within the firm, a one percentage point increase in the percent of undocumented workers employed by the firm boosts wages by 0.09% (0.11, 0.12, and 0.04 in low, medium, and high skill firms, respectively). Potential explanations for a positive wage impact are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proponents of issuing driver licenses to undocumented immigrants argue that the number of uninsured motorists and car accidents would decrease, thus improving public safety and lowering costs associated with car insurance. This study gives an overview of competing cost reduction and public safety arguments and examines the issues surrounding undocumented immigrants and driver licenses. It empirically assesses the effect on the average cost of auto insurance of restricting undocumented access to legal driving documents. We use a fixed effects model for panel data to test the effects on real average insurance expenditures of restricting undocumented immigrants' access to driver licenses, while controlling for other relevant factors suggested in the literature. Our main finding is that on net such restrictions raise the average annual cost of auto insurance by an estimated $17.22 ($2009) across states that have enacted such restrictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual loyalty issues confront health and welfare professionals in immigration detention centres in Australia. There are four apparent ways they deal with the ethical tensions. One group provides services as required by their employing body with little questioning of moral dilemmas. A second group is more overtly aware of the conflicts and works in a mildly subversive manner to provide the best possible care available within a harsh environment. A third group retreats by relinquishing employment in the detention setting. A fourth group is activist in intent and actions. Derived from research and ethnography conducted in Australia, the article explores the moral dilemmas confronting those who are duty-bound by professional codes of ethics while also bound by loyalty to their employers and silenced by confidentiality statements. It provides particular focus on psychiatry, nursing and social work. We conclude by speculating whether a politics of compassion and acts of solidarity can forge a pathway through the ethical terrain. In doing so we draw upon human rights considerations as well as on the works of Joan Tronto and Elisabeth Porter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I provide an analysis of the emergence of 'problematic of alien sexuality.' I first locate discourses about 'alien sexuality,' and the so-called anchor baby in particular, within other national discourses surrounding maternity, the fetus, and citizenship. I analyze the ways that national political discourses surrounding 'anchor babies' and 'alien maternity' construct the 'problematic of alien sexuality,' thus constituting the 'alien' subject as always-already perverse. I suggest that this production of a sexually deviant and threatening 'alien' subject functions in the normative dichotomy that places the sexually pure citizen on the one hand, and the perverse anticitizen on the other, in what I call 'backwards uncitizening.' My analysis of this process shows that the perverse 'alien' subject, as constituted in significant part by nonjuridical normalizing mechanisms of biopower, resists the juridical discourse that is supposed to determine it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information regarding strategies followed by well-funded illegal alien activists in Southern California to attack Americans fighting for enforcement of current immigration laws. It mentions the aspects of noncitizens participation in the American polity. It discusses the issue of litigation by noncitizens especially in cases brought by the undocumented citizens or their advocates.

The author discusses illegal immigration and mass deportation of them in the U.S. and reflects on the issue in religious context. He reflects that people in this world are pilgrims moving towards true homeland and solidarity must be shown towards everyone. He says that analysis concluding that aliens violate positive law must be further analyzed and a distinction between positive law and natural law must be created.

This article is an analysis of the use of 'harboring' ordinances to restrict illegal aliens' access to housing. In particular, we analyze the promulgation of harboring statutes in the communities of Valley Park, Missouri and Escondido, California in the context of social justice. Our thesis is that the promulgation of harboring laws by local governments frustrates our country's ability to build a cohesive and consistent national policy towards the provision of shelter to illegal aliens. When local governments legislate in this area, we find that at least three major problems arise: (1) there is an increase in the number of disparate rules in this policy domain, thus frustrating the construction of a cohesive national policy scheme; (2) this leads to an increase in the opportunities for disparate interpretations of laws modeled after a federal law; and (3) there is the potential for the creation of unintended deleterious effects on the access to housing by illegal aliens. As such, we make a number of associated recommendations to address these problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from the Mexican Migration Project is used to contrast processes of Mexican migration to Canada and the United States. All migrants to Canada entered through the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and migration there is strongly predicted by marital status and number of dependents. Conversely, most migrants to the United States are undocumented and thus self-selected without regard to marital status or parenthood. Migrants to Canada enjoy superior labor market outcomes with higher wages and more compact work schedules that yield higher earnings and shorter periods away from families. Labor migration to Canada also tends to operate as a circular flow with considerable repeat migration whereas undocumented migrants to the United States tend to stay longer, since crossing the Mexico-U.S. border has become increasingly difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the linguistic categories of identity amongst refugees and explores why Iranians living in Melbourne, Australia, construct themselves outside the 'refugee' category and in the process unpack the meanings embedded in the identity 'refugee'. The Iranians in this study refuse to be categorised and fixed within a bureaucratically constructed refugee identity, which they believe, only seeks to 'sort' and 'order' displaced people. They do not see it as a meaningful category that gives expression to their experiences and stories of displacement, marginality and identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a spectrum-based analytical framework that probes the Bill of Rights of aliens by separating them into a spectrum of definable system of laws. It asserts that the disorder is a product of the exclusion of aliens from the gains of maturing concepts of equal protection with due process of law. It also contends that the Guantanamo cases have added to the process of reunification of the two separate allocation of rights within the limits of constitutional protection.

The article provides information on private international or conflict of laws as a private side of citizenship. It differentiates public citizenship and private citizenship and presents private international law as the private side of citizenship in the Roman tradition. It also illustrates English and Canadian private-international-law cases involving enemy aliens and illegal immigrants. Furthermore, it examines the divide between citizens and noncitizens, and the multiculturalism in the regulation of immigrants belonging to religious minorities.