Suchergebnisse

In this article we trace the expansion of interior immigration enforcement measures since the 1990s, focusing on the period after the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. We consider the rationale for the escalation of enforcement during this period, as well as the expansion of enforcement to include local and state law enforcement agencies. Detailing in particular the role of local jails, private corrections corporations, and the communities that are financially dependent on the prison industry, the article also examines who benefits economically and politically from these changes. Throughout, we consider how the expansion of immigration enforcement has affected U.S. citizen children and spouses of unauthorized immigrants. We question whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is fulfilling its mandate to de-emphasize enforcement against parents, guardians, and children given that the number of detentions and removals in these categories continues to increase. We discuss how this is imposing unnecessary costs and burdens on ICE's citizen stakeholders while benefiting private corrections corporations.

This article examines racialization and gendering processes at work in the proliferation of large-scale immigration raids and military-style roundups that affected disproportionately Latina/o immigrants during the height of the war on terror. These raids which took place in sensitive federal facilities, commercial employment sites, and residences resulted in widespread fear and rapid increases in the apprehension, detention, and deportations of immigrants. Utilizing an intersectional analysis the study dissects three distinct manifestations of race and gender in the raids, each of which highlights a different aspect of recent enforcement practices, while pointing to different applications of race and gender in immigration studies and Political Science: (1) the proliferation of Latina immigrants apprehended and placed in detention; (2) the passage of gendered legislation facilitating the raids; and (3) the invocation of race and gendered discourse within the federal government to justify and defend the raids. Ultimately, employing an intersectional approach provides a more thorough accounting of the multiple constraints at work in immigration politics that is significant to both our understanding of the past and efforts to construct reforms for the future.

The ethics of immigration has largely remained on the abstract level, prescribing ideal principles for non-ideal circumstances. One striking example of this tendency is found in the ethics of immigration enforcement. Many authors contend that even though immigration restrictions are legitimate in principle, enforcement renders them illegitimate in practice. In this article I argue, in response to this claim, that if one supports immigration restrictions, one should also support immigration enforcement, even if it entails the use of physical force. Not enforcing immigration restrictions is unjust to law-abiding migrants, undermines the rule of law, and amounts to virtually open borders. In order to illustrate the case, I will draw upon the enforcement of tax law. My argument is that if states are allowed to go to great lengths in the enforcement of tax law, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to go to comparable lengths in the enforcement of immigration law. This analogy will provide us with the moral baseline with which to judge the permissibility of immigration enforcement. The proposal takes the rights of migrants seriously, only the right to immigrate is not one. The article also anticipates some potential objections and responds to them.

Relatively little scholarly work explores US interior immigration enforcement through a surveillance lens. This article asks how US immigration authorities have designed and deployed surveillance systems to facilitate enforcement practices, specifically regarding the construction of immigrant subjects and interior apprehension and deportation. Drawing upon a qualitative analysis of 291 Department of Homeland Security documents authored between 1995 and 2017, this paper examines the evolution of a primary immigration enforcement information system currently called the Enforcement Integrated Database. The analysis reveals that over the course of 33 years, the US Government has transformed Enforcement Integrated Database from a case management system into a mass surveillance system. Specifically, I argue that immigration authorities have deployed secondary information collection in the Enforcement Integrated Database to expand (1) the volume of people under surveillance, called ensnarement targets and (2) the opportunities to categorize people as criminal or dangerous, called ensnarement opportunities. As a result, Department of Homeland Security amplifies punitive enforcement against broader populations of noncitizens and potentially, citizens as well.

"The NBER Bulletin on Aging and Health provides summaries of publications like this. You can sign up to receive the NBER Bulletin on Aging and Health by email. Economists have puzzled over why eligible individuals fail to enroll in social safety net programs. "Chilling effects" arising from an icy policy climate are a popular explanation for low program take-up rates among immigrants, but such effects are inherently hard to measure. This paper investigates a concrete determinant of chilling, Federal immigration enforcement, and finds robust evidence that heightened enforcement reduces Medicaid participation among children of non-citizens. This is the case even when children are themselves citizens and face no eligibility barriers to Medicaid enrollment. Immigrants from countries with more undocumented U.S. residents, those living in cities with a high fraction of other immigrants, and those with healthy children are most sensitive to enforcement efforts. Up to seventy-five percent of the relative decline in non-citizen Medicaid participation around the time of welfare reform, which has been attributed to the chilling effects of the reform itself, is explained by a contemporaneous spike in immigration enforcement activity. The results imply that safety net participation is influenced not only by program design, but also by a broader set of seemingly unrelated policy choices"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site

Protect, Serve, and Deport exposes the on-the-ground workings of local immigration enforcement in Nashville, Tennessee. Between 2007 and 2012, Nashville's local jail participated in an immigration enforcement program called 287(g), which turned jail employees into immigration officers who identified over ten thousand removable immigrants for deportation. The vast majority of those identified for removal were not serious criminals but Latino residents arrested by local police for minor violations. Protect, Serve, and Deport explains how local politics, state laws, institutional policies, and police practices work together to deliver immigrants into an expanding federal deportation system, conveying powerful messages about race, citizenship, and belonging.

Over seven million U.S. children live with at least one noncitizen parent – and 80 percent of these children are US-born citizens. Close to 5 million US-citizen children live with an unauthorized immigrant parent, potentially subject to deportation. Research has shown that the deportation of a parent has serious deleterious effects on families—emotional distress, behavioral issues, and economic hardship for children—and that even the threat of deportation can hurt a family's well-being by causing fear that restricts mobility, access to jobs, and use of public and private supports in times of need. The election of President Trump, with his plans to increase efforts to identify and deport unauthorized immigrants, has signaled a harsher policy environment for immigrant families than in recent years. In State Immigration Enforcement Policies: How They Impact Low-Income Households , researchers at NCCP, Urban Institute, and Migration Policy Institute looked at how the changing immigration policy environment is likely to affect immigrant families. Specifically, the report examines whether immigrant families living in states that ramped up enforcement of federal policy saw any changes in their material hardship, or how often fear of deportation affected their ability to pay for essentials (such as rent, utilities, or food). The report highlights important connections between immigration policy enforcement and well-being in immigrant households.