Search results

Since 1986, there has not been another federal immigration reform policy that has legalized the status of the undocumented migrants living and working inside the United States. Instead, there has been only criminalization and punitive measures. From the administrations of Bill Clinton to Donald Trump, and now that of Joe Biden, there has been a bipartisan continuity of the “enforcement-only approach,” which has corresponded with capital's increased reliance and preference for non-citizen labor. The abandonment of inclusive citizenship and rights-based immigration reform in favor of restrictive measures allows for capitalists to increase capital accumulation through greater exploitation of migrant workers. Working backwards from this process shows how this method of labor procurement and exploitation extends from the roots of imperialist expansionism abroad: the imposition of free-trade agreements and economic displacement, regional militarization, and the regulation and criminalization of cross-border migration. Because of these factors, it has become apparent that prospects for citizenship and rights-based reform will not likely be advanced electorally within the current configuration of party politics in the United States, and has therefore shifted to different forms of class struggle in workplaces and communities across the country.

Neoliberal globalization processes have created the conditions for the differential incorporation of men and women around the globe (Castles & Miller, 2009; Toro-Morn & Alicea, 2004). Indeed, this has been called the age of global migrations. People are on the move sometimes by their own choice, but most frequently pushed by forces beyond their control. Modern nation-states occupy a curious place in this process as it has traditionally managed and restricted the conditions and terms of entrance. This has prevented groups from entering under legitimate conditions creating migration flows of undocumented peoples. The treatment of refugees by modern nation-states in the global North has been problematic at best, neglectful and criminal at worst. In keeping with the goals of this volume, this chapter examines the rhetoric of one modern nation-state – the United States – in implementing border controls and immigration policies. Nation-states have always sought to control borders and regulate flow of people, but the current era offers some moments that demonstrate the contradictions embedded in the neoliberal regimes for modern, nation-states. In this paper, the authors are attentive to current immigration policies to expose the inconsistencies and tensions. The nation-state with its desire to enforce borders and social controls creates a humanitarian crisis unseen in modern history. The authors propose that modern nation-states in the era of global migrations cannot escape the contradictions engendered by neoliberal globalization.

Purpose – Examined here are some of the tenets of social capital in the context of the migrants’ crossing the U.S.–Mexico border without official authorization. Using this context helps identify how social capital development is weakened by the structural and gendered dimensions of migration, contributing to the rise in undocumented border crosser deaths since 1993.

Approach – A selection of published works provide an overview of social capital, and in particular, how the framework has been used to further our understanding of the process of migration and immigrant settlement in new destinations. The principles of social capital are then examined in light of women's border crossing experiences and used to argue that migrants from emerging migrant-sending states in southern and central Mexico have had less time to accumulate resource-enhancing migration-related social capital. The narratives of repatriated women collected during research on the border in 2006–2007 are used to illustrate how controlling environments undermine the acquisition of social capital at a critical time.

Findings – The selection of narratives of women who were repatriated after attempting to cross into the United States without authorization illustrate the perilous interplay of hardening border enforcement and multiplying illicit border smuggling organizations. The outcome is the downward leveling of social capital on the border that potentially poses greater life-threatening risks for migrants.

Originality/value – This study provides a theoretical understanding that can be used to explain rising levels of violence along the U.S.–Mexico border that increasingly engulf migrants fleeing poverty in Mexico.

Purpose – This is an examination of how border policies become intertwined with patriotic expressions that result in an atmosphere conducive to border vigilantism. We analyze how vigilantes target sources of immigrant employment, demonstrate at public buildings in attempting to put pressure on public officials, and speak and rally at educational institutions in order to disseminate their message.

Methodology – We use content analysis, broadly defined.

Findings – Brutalization theory helps understand how a militarized border policy shapes an environment in which violence becomes an acceptable and appropriate response to undocumented migration.

Value – This chapter provides insights on both recent vigilante activities along the border and also within the interior of the nation.

Immigration enforcement along the Southwest border between United States and Mexico has long channeled migrants into perilous desert corridors, where many thousands have died, out of general public view. In response to this humanitarian crisis, activists from organizations such as No More Deaths (NMD) trek deep into the treacherous desert, hoping to save lives, honor the remains of those who did not survive, and influence public opinion about border enforcement policies. NMD’s activism is not merely utilitarian but also deeply expressive; ultimately, they hope to convey the message that all lives – including those of unauthorized migrants – are worth saving. The Trump Administration has escalated repressive tactics intended to silence these forms of border-policy dissent. Some federal land managers now blacklist NMD, preemptively denying requests for access permits. Meanwhile, the US Attorney’s office has aggressively prosecuted members for humanitarian activities. This chapter explains the expressive components of humanitarian activism in this context and of the government’s attempt to suppress it, suggesting the need for constitutional scrutiny and legal change.

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how routine violence seeps into the interstices of social life. Routine violence is part of a continuum of violence that extends from intimate violence to large-scale wars. It is gendered/racialized/classed and it is often invisible because it is normalized in everyday life.

Using cases from India we illustrate facets of routine violence and then use the frame to discuss some examples from the United States.

We discuss the social implications of routine violence including the significant harm on large sections of people in today’s world.

We meld theoretical discussions about violence associated with states with scholarship on violence against women; we use Indian activists’ concepts of routine violence and examine routine violence in the United States.

As political interfaces, national borders are subject to extensive surveillance and policing within the interstate system. But what happens when the state's gatekeepers emerge from within the social body? How do such instances impact scholarly understandings of governance and surveillance? This chapter investigates these questions empirically, analyzing the Minuteman Project, a grassroots vigilante movement dedicated to directly policing the nation's borders. Situating the movement within the existing literature on “governmentality” and “community policing”, I analyze its history, ideology, practices and interactions with authorities, arguing that, despite their status as non-state actors, its members appropriate, enforce and extend many of the principles of governance and statecraft; whether, surveillance, policing, security or territoriality. Like community policing, the Minutemen highlight the pervasive and decentralized nature of government, social control and surveillance. In occupying and monitoring the border, the group serves as the state's “eyes and ears” without impinging upon its juridical or coercive capacities. However, in contrast to community policing, the Minutemen are not an instance of the state or police engaging or reaching down into the public, but represent a distinct segment of the public reaching up and aligning itself with the “arms” of the state.

This chapter explores how the dynamics of cross-border conflicts relate to the characteristics of the states involved. The underlying idea is that cross-border conflicts will develop in different ways and involve different sets of actors depending on the relative strengths and other characteristics of the states separated by the border. This proposition is investigated through a comparison of the conflict dynamics across three of Ethiopia's borders. These borders differ in terms of the relative strength of the two states they separate in each case, as well as on the kind of state presence found in the borderlands. Thus, the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia can be said to have a strong state presence on both sides; between Somalia and Ethiopia the state is considerably stronger on the Ethiopian side; while the border between Ethiopia and Sudan has a weak state presence on both sides. The conflict dynamics across the border with Eritrea have tended to be of a ‘classic’ bipolar and interstate kind, while the border with Sudan has seen a much more complex and ‘anarchic’ conflict pattern, involving a complex array of both non-state and state actors. The Somalia border falls somewhere in between, with a complex set of actors and conflicts, yet subject to an overall structuring along one dimension. These differences are argued to be congruent with the relative strength of state presence in these borderlands. The main value of the chapter may lie in its approach to the theme of African borders, and in the relativistic way in which it conceptualizes state strength.