Migration Control
General Theme Migration control policies often depend on perceptions of migrants rather than empirical data
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. ” “I can never apologize for the truth. I don’t mind apologizing for things. But I can’t apologize for the truth. I said tremendous crime is coming across . Everybody knows that’s true. And it’s happening all the time. So, why, when I mention, all of a sudden I’m a racist. I’m not a racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” “What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc. ”
“I'll work to ensure that every single refugee who seeks asylum in the United States has a fair chance to tell his or her story . This is the least we can offer people fleeing persecution and devastation .” “I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members either, Jorge. I want to, as I said, prioritize who would be deported: violent criminals, people planning terrorist attacks, anybody who threatens us. That’s a relatively small universe .” “People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. ” “We have to finally and once and for all fix our immigration system— this is a family issue . It’s an economic issue too, but it is at heart a family issue. (...) That’s why we can’t wait any longer, we can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship .”
Comparison of Proposed Policies ● Build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico ● No detailed specific plan for border border protection ● Deport the estimated 11 million ● Detain and deport undocumented undocumented immigrants immigrants posing "violent threat to ● Impose criminal penalties on public safety" immigrants who overstay ● Allow refugees and asylum seekers a fair chance to tell stories
● Triple number of Immigration and ● Supervised release instead of Customs Enforcement officers detention for families who don’t pose ● ICE to go on street gang raids with flight or public safety threats local police officers ● Close private immigration detention ● "No more catch-and-release" of centers immigrants caught illegally crossing ● Undocumented immigrants qualifying the border for DACA and DAPA able to obtain work permits.
Portraits of the Undocumented Immigrant: A Dialogue Stephen H. Legomsky Opposing views (as demonstrated by Trump and Clinton) on both the impact of illegal immigration and the best immigration policies → rooted in a fundamental disagreement over who is the undocumented immigrant. The way we conceptualize undocumented immigrants does and should influence both our perceptions of illegal immigration and our policy responses.
Typical Patterns in Arguments about Undocumented Immigrants Pattern 1: Impact ● Aggregation/Clustering ○ Of policies on undocumented immigrants as a group ○ Collective impact of undocumented immigrants on host society ● Individualization ○ Impact of policies on individuals and families ○ Of individual undocumented immigrants and families on host society Pattern 2: Appropriate Policy Responses Based on Identity ● Undocumented Immigrants = Lawbreakers ● Undocumented Immigrants = Residents
Achieving a Balanced, Comprehensive Discourse The debate surrounding undocumented immigrants would be more constructive and the resulting policies would be more balanced if we: ● Visualized undocumented immigrants as both: ○ Individuals ○ An overall population ● Considered the effects of a proposed policy on both: ○ Individual immigrants ○ The host society ● Identified undocumented immigrants as both: ○ Lawbreakers ○ Residents
Undocumented Immigrants as Lawbreakers By definition, all undocumented immigrants = “lawbreakers” ● Majority of undocumented immigrants entered U.S. without inspection → have committed misdemeanor → “lawbreakers” ● Undocumented immigrants who overstayed lawful visas → have not committed criminal act, but violated immigration laws and are subject to removal → “lawbreakers” How much emphasis should be placed on the fact that undocumented immigrants have violated the law? ⇒ “All else being equal, the fact that the law tolerates and even values the same conduct when others engage in it speaks to the level of moral culpability and, therefore, makes immigration violations different in kind from most other violations of law.” ⇒ Undocumented immigrants should not be considered “lawbreakers” based on undocumented status
Undocumented Immigrants as Lawbreakers Undocumented immigrants = criminals? ● Perception: surveys show public associates undocumented immigrants with high crime rates ● Empirical evidence: data shows lower crime rates for immigrants, and, although there is insufficient data to provide proof, there are compelling reasons to believe that this is true for undocumented immigrants as well. ○ Low incarceration rates for young immigrant men that come from countries that send the majority of the undocumented population (Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala) ○ As the undocumented immigrant population has increased, the nation’s violent crime rate has decreased ○ Those who immigrate to find work are less inclined to draw attention to themselves by engaging in criminal activity ⇒ Most undocumented immigrants have not violated criminal statutes and should not be considered “lawbreakers”
Undocumented Immigrants as Residents Indicators of resident status: ● Duration of presence (both actual and intended) ● Work patterns/employment status ● Payment of taxes ● Purchase of home ● “Mixed status family” ⇒ Most undocumented immigrants should be considered “residents”
Impact ● Of undocumented immigrants on host society → unclear if net positive or net negative ● Of strict policies on individual undocumented immigrants → clearly harmful
Legomsky’s Conclusion ⇒ There’s a normative argument for generally lenient treatment of undocumented immigrants
Securitization of Asylum and Human Rights in Canada and the European Union Securitization = Process of social construction that pushes an area of regular politics, such as asylum, into an area of security ● Securitization of asylum is a speech act not based on reliable evidence ● Sealing borders is a “fantasy”: borders are “porous by nature in democratic States” ● States focussed too much on deterrence and not on individual’s fundamental rights and thus are making way for more dangerous modes of passage
1. Asylum as a security issue ● Historically: from enemy States to inside threats through irregular migration ● Political discourse led to securitization ● Blurred lines between “refugee” and “migrant” / post-9/11 policies ● Clear divide between fact and political rhetoric ⇒ Any issue can be securitized; it all depends on presentation
2. Concerted Efforts to Surveil and Deter Asylum Seekers ● Activities of immigration agents abroad and border surveillance ● Joint surveillance of shared borders ● Implementation of personal information databases and exchanges ⇒ aim of measures increasingly not to protect, but to prevent ⇒ many of these measures infringe upon asylum seekers’ human rights
3. Securitizing by Norms: “Safe Country” Criterion ● Stricter criteria for refugee status → safe third country principle (Dublin II) ● Often times leads to further human rights violations: e.g. individualized process, principle of non-discrimination and reduced procedural guarantees ● Safe country notion counterproductive and ineffective
4. Systematic Detention as Migration Management Tool ● Detention used as tool of deterrence ● Infringes on numerous human rights: right to liberty and security, due process rights, principle of proportionality ● In any case: not even effective
Questions/Food for Thought ● Can or should migration be controlled? ● How should we balance the interests of migrants with citizens of sovereign states? ● How do risks of terrorism impact the weighing of the interests of migrants and the larger society? Should the needs of asylum seekers still hold the same amount of weight even in light of terrorist threats? ● How often are immigration policies based on subjective and/or inaccurate perceptions of migrants? Can such policy-making be avoided? ● Can theories presented stand test of time? Especially in wake of recent terrorist attack of people seemingly acting under “protective veil” of refugee status.
Recommend
More recommend
