Search results

It has been argued that the UK has the reputation of operating a complex set of immigration laws to the extent that the constantly changing laws and regulations lead much to confusion and lack of accountability. It has further been argued that the ever-increasing and shifting pattern of deportation laws (some of which are retroactive) violates the basic principles of human rights norms. This paper aims to raise the query as to whether legislation associated with deportation is constantly enacted and revised to achieve deportation without regard to the remit of the doctrine of legitimate expectation encapsulated under the principle of legal certainty.

This research applies the doctrinal research methodology in addition to somewhat reliance on anecdotal evidence. Doctrinal research is library-based and reliance will be placed on primary and secondary materials such as legislations, case laws, soft laws on the one hand and textbooks, journals, articles, legal encyclopaedia, databases and many valuable websites on the other hand.

While it is accepted that the State enjoys the discretion or prerogative to deport migrants that violate the State’s immigration laws, the author posits that the issue of constant changes breed uncertainty, which in turn breeds unpredictability leading to unaccountability. Drawing on the UK’s state practice, the author will submit that contrivance of deportability and/or removability is adumbrated by the legal production of migrant irregularity exemplified by inconsistent and uncertain laws that vary like the “Chancellor’s foot”. In addition, the research found that crimmigration heightened the velocity of deportation by expanding deportability grounds by way of triggering broader, harsher and more frequent criminal consequences leading to conviction, thereby creating a suitable avenue for deportation and reducing the scope for challenging deportation decisions.

The research is an original piece of work that contributes to scholarship and knowledge in the area of migration as it concerns international human rights law given that wider matters within the boundaries of immigration and nationality laws do have effect on individual possession of rights to be in the UK, by way of lawful presence or as a matter of discretion.

As the US criminal justice system and immigration system increasingly interconnect, even immigration policy that is facially race-neutral may involve biased practices. The purpose of this paper is to examine how institutional racism in criminal legal processes creates particular barriers for many individuals of Latin American and/or African descent facing deportation proceedings in US immigration courts, particularly in assertions regarding gang affiliation.

This research is based on ethnographic observation. The work utilized a grounded theory approach. The observation took place at public master calendar hearings at a Midwestern immigration court between 2013 and 2015, yielding over 400 pages of fieldnotes that were coded and analyzed for patterns.

Non-citizens in the USA, including lawful permanent residents, are subject to deportation if labeled “criminal.” Racial profiling and criminalization of communities of color create heightened risk of deportation. Assumptions that common tattoos or urban fashion indicate criminality, reliance on Facebook posts to “prove” gang membership, and the use of arrest records as evidence of criminality even if charges were dropped all put immigrants of Latin American and/or African descent at heightened risk.

The ethnographic method used has strong validity but weaker reliability and generalizability.

This paper can help analysts, policymakers and advocates consider how to adapt systems to increase equity.

This research provides direct examples and ethnographic evidence of how race and cultural bias in criminal legal processes and immigration policies can affect people in deportation proceedings.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the implications of EU citizens’ exposure to UK immigration practices currently operating on non-EU migrants in the wake of the Brexit referendum.

This paper draws on recent literature analysing the impact of immigration as a factor in voter decision making during the Brexit referendum. It challenges Hollifield’s (1992) concept of the “liberal paradox” through an analysis of private security firms’ roles in contributing towards the expansion of immigration control markets. The paper concludes with a review of migrant experiences within prisons, detention facilities and dispersed housing for asylum seekers.

The findings suggest that the abandonment of EU citizens’ freedom of movement into the UK will result in their exposure to a privatised immigration control regime that contributes to the commodification of immigrants at the expense of human welfare.

This paper provides a conceptual link between the role of immigration in the Brexit referendum and the implications of expanding the population of persons subject to immigration control to include EU immigrants. It draws on current debates about privatised social control markets to illuminate the social impact of valorising migrant bodies.

Liberal democratic states have involved the use of private companies for purposes of detention and the debate is whether such involvement is only for immigration control or whether they are primarily for macro-economic benefits. This paper aims to present the argument that a State wishing to detain migrants must do so within the purview of immigration control and in conformity to international human rights standards rather than other latent reasons such as macro-economic benefits. The exponential growths of immigration detention over the years, this paper argues, smack of latent reasons with unarguably macro-economic benefits accruing to these States.

The methodology is doctrinal research focusing on immigration detention and privatization. Doctrinal research is library-based and reliance will be placed on primary and secondary materials such as legislations, case laws, soft laws on the one hand and textbooks, journals, articles, legal encyclopedia, databases and many valuable websites on the other hand.

Findings have been made of similarities in State practice between the UK, the USA and Australia and conclude that the trend is worrying given that privatization of the detention estate lends credence to the fact that growing international prison industry influences prison and detention policies.

These have portent implications for the violations of the rights of detainees and weaken the protection of rights under international human rights law.

The originality of this paper lies in its ability to unravel the legitimacy of immigration detention in the face of privatization and macro-economic benefits accruing to States, thereby querying the availability of the rights of migrants within the remit of State practice.

The Financial Action Task Force defines money laundering as “processing of these criminal proceeds to disguise their illegal origin”. This is the major portion of financial crime that has ties across borders and like all financial crimes which are well planned and camouflaged, this crime is difficult to detect and deter. Over the years, on one side, globalization has provided development opportunities, it has also become one reason for the pervasiveness of money laundering. This has led to a disturbance in the global financial system and social unrest as proceeds from money laundering are being used in terrorism. The purpose of this study is to explore the non linear effect of globalization on financial crime in the form of money laundering.

An investigation based on 119 developing countries from the time period of 1985 till 2015 is conducted in this study. The panel quantile regression model was used to estimate antecedents of money laundering.

The study confirmed that globalization follows an inverted U-shaped relationship with money laundering. Furthermore, indicators such as investment portfolio and socioeconomic conditions have a significant effect on money laundering.

The panel quantile regression model was used to estimate antecedents of money laundering.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the association between Mexicans’ support for the criminalization of immigration and level of police contact, fear of deportation and the perceived personal impact of immigration enforcement.

This analysis uses data from the 2008 National Survey of Latinos, a representative random sample of 1,153 self-identified Latino/as residing in the USA. The authors sought to identify the prevalence of Latino support for local police actively identifying undocumented immigrants and to examine the relationship between acculturation, confidence in the police and/or fear that immigrants increase neighborhood crime and support for the criminalization of immigration. The authors use logistic regression analysis and post-estimation techniques to explore the relationship between support for the criminalization of immigration and acculturation, discrimination, perceptions of crime and confidence in the police.

The authors found that Latino policy attitudes are not monolithic but differ by nativity and citizenship status and vary according to their level of confidence in fair and proper police enforcement of the law. Within levels of confidence, the authors found that the perception that immigrants increase local crime rates was a significant predictor of policy attitudes. Contrary to the authors’ expectations, neither previous contact with the criminal justice system nor being stopped and asked about immigration status predicted support for criminalizing immigration. Nor did level of support vary according to proficiency in English and perceptions of discriminatory treatment.

This study has implications for understanding how citizenship statuses influence public opinion on issues that are presumed to be reflective of a unified political voice.

This study has implications for understanding the role of social stigma and political socialization and their relationship to Mexican citizens and non-citizens policy preferences.

No study to date has explored associations between Latinos’ policy attitudes on the criminalization of immigration and acculturation, fear of crime and confidence in the police.