Search results

This chapter examines the conundrum of juvenile immigration law and policy and argues that it is a present-day manifestation of “child-saving” in rhetoric, disposition, and human capital harm. In support of this thesis, the chapter reviews the pertinent human rights, law, and social science evidence, and it concludes that the maintenance of the nation’s existing immigration policy only makes sense within the context of the intentions of the 19th century child-saving movement. To substantiate this view, the political-economic drivers of contemporary US immigration policy (i.e., its child-saving dynamics) are explored. The chapter concludes by speculatively addressing the character (i.e., the form and quality) of modern-day juvenile immigration policy as child-saving informed by the philosophy and criticism of Psychological Jurisprudence (PJ).

Since 1986, when the immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, migration to the United States has grown steadily. This includes immigrants, nonimmigrants, undocumented immigrants, and border crossers. Immigration averaged nearly one million annually from 1990 to 2002, with family unification accounting for over 70 percent of the new immigrants. The number of nonimmigrants topped 30 million by 2002, most of whom were tourists. Estimates for undocumented aliens topped 400,000 by the turn of the 21st century, in spite of large increases in funding from the Immigration and Naturalization Service and substantial new positions along the Mexican-United States border. The exact number of border crossers is not known, but the federal government has noted that well over 200 million crossings (mostly along the Mexican border) are recorded each year. In response to tighter controls on migrants after 9/11 the numbers coming to the United States dropped in 2003. However, they increased again in 2004. It appears that the figures will increase in the future.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS, as its website explains,

reviews and assesses complaints from the public in areas such as: physical or other abuse; discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability; inappropriate conditions of confinement; infringements of free speech; violation of right to due process … and any other civil rights or civil liberties violation related to a Department program or activity.

My chapter tracks the centrality of deportability in shaping the civil liberties and rights that DHS is tasked with enforcing. Over the course of the twentieth century, people on US soil saw an expanding list of civil liberties and civil rights. Important scholarship concentrates on the role of the courts, state and federal governments, advocacy groups, social movements, and foreign policy driving these constitutional and cultural changes. For instance, the scholarship illustrates that coming out of World War I, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect something the Justices labeled “irresponsible speech.” The Supreme Court soon changed course, opening up an era ever since of more robust First Amendment rights. What has not been undertaken in the literature is an examination of the relationship of deportability to the sweep of civil liberties and civil rights. Starting in the second decade of the twentieth century, federal immigration policymakers began multiplying types of immigration statuses. A century later, among many others, there is the H2A status for temporary low-wage workers, the H2B for skilled labor, and permanent residents with green cards. The deportability of each status constrains access to certain liberties and rights. Thus, in 2016, when people from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS act, they are not enforcing a uniform body of rights and liberties that applies equally to citizens and immigrants, or even within the large category of immigrants. Instead, they do so within a complicated matrix of liberties and rights attenuated by deportability, which has been shaped by the history of the twentieth century.

United States immigration policy is one of the most dynamic and fiercely argued public policy issues today – often including questions of how many and from where. Poor economic conditions overseas, perceptions of a relative abundance of opportunity in the United States, flight from persecution and upheaval, and revolutions in communication and transportation are often cited as the major factors explaining historic and current waves of immigrants (legal and illegal) to U.S. shores (Batchelor, 2004; Borjas, 2004; Porter, 2006). U.S. immigration legislation is also a key factor in determining the numbers and composition of America's new residents. The focus of this chapter therefore consists of the costs associated with providing illegal immigrants with the benefit of free, public schooling within the context of globalization. More specifically, given the broader social, political, and economic parameters of the immigration debate and its meaning, the chapter discusses the legal and educational issues faced in the United States by those undocumented students who desire to attend public schooling, as well as the ways current state and federal laws both empower and discourage them.

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.

In the current era of intensified immigration enforcement and heightened risks of deportation even for long-term lawful permanent residents, citizenship has taken on a new meaning and greater importance. There is also growing evidence that citizenship denials in their various forms have become inextricably linked to immigration enforcement. Who is denied citizenship, why, and under what circumstances? This chapter begins to address these questions by developing a typology of citizenship denials and providing an empirical overview of each type of citizenship denial. Taken together, the typology of citizenship denials and the accompanying empirical overview illustrate the close connection between immigration enforcement and citizenship rights in the United States.

Federal immigration policy embodies national ideas about membership. Nevertheless, attitudes toward immigration within a nation are not invariable. Regional policies vary dramatically in their support or antagonism toward immigrants. In addition, immigration policy profoundly affects other areas of governmental authority. This chapter explores the relationship between state-level immigration policy and family reunification for Hispanic/Latino children in the United States. The quantitative analysis utilizes data from the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2008–2014) as well as data gathered from the Child Welfare Outcomes Report published by the Department of Health and Human Services. The results show that while Hispanic/Latino children are not overrepresented in the child welfare systems of the states with the most antagonistic legislation, they are returned to the custody of their parent(s) in smaller percentages compared to whites in the states with the most antagonistic bills compared with the states with the most supportive bills.

The immigration conundrum to craft policy that ensures border security and safeguards human rights is grave and complex. Individuals fleeing religious persecution made finding refuge part of our heritage since colonial times. This American tradition has enshrined our values to the world. This essay is limited to summarizing the asylum process and recent events through the summer of 2018 which affect it. Policy changes are ongoing. The asylum process is complicated by illegal immigration. The surge in migrants arriving at and/or crossing the border has led to controversial policies over the years. Unlike those who illegally cross the border and remain unknown to law enforcement, everyone who makes an affirmative asylum claim to a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer, or a defensive asylum claim in immigration court, has been thoroughly vetted through identity, criminality, and terrorism background checks. Granting refuge to those fleeing persecution reaffirms the values of a country that is, as Lincoln richly stated, the last best hope of Earth. Comprehensive immigration reform is needed on many immigration issues, two of which are to ensure border security and safeguard the asylum-seeking process.

Border security is a crucial part of the country’s broader homeland security efforts. It is a multifaceted and complex issue which attempts to accomplish two seemingly contradictory objectives – the prevention of people and goods from entering the country, while at the same time, facilitating lawful travel and trade. Although it is primarily a federal responsibility, securing the border crosses over multiple homeland security domains, as well jurisdictions. In recent years, numerous strategies and structures have been implemented to foster a whole-of-government approach to border security. This chapter presents border security in the larger context of homeland security. It examines the strategies and coordinating structures developed to create a secured border and an overview of the interaction of law enforcement agencies at the various jurisdictional levels. Although these structures create a robust network of mutually supportive agencies to effectuate border security, a major strategic challenge to securing the nation’s borders still persists.