Unauthorized Migrants and the (Il)Logic of “Crime Control”: A Human Rights Perspective on US Federal and Local State Immigration Policies

Abstract

Immigration control, widely regarded the sovereign right of nation states, has often been pursued at the expense of civil and human rights. More than a century ago, nativists legitimated a punitive approach to immigration control that treated migrants’ rights as secondary by branding millions of newcomers to the United States as a “dangerous class”. In many ways, recent policies similarly criminalize immigrants and deploy crime control strategies in response. This article reviews the most significant of these policies at the federal and local state level, including: border security measures, detention and deportation, the 287(g) program, anti‐immigrant city ordinances, and the Arizona law (SB1070). Each initiative has been framed as necessary to protect American citizens from serious crime. We focus on four ways in which these policies violate human rights: first, border security measures that result in migrant deaths violate the right to life; second, detention and deportation violate the right to liberty; third, detention and deportation punish unlawful residents as though they were guilty of criminal rather than civil violations of the law, imposing penalties that are arbitrary and disproportionately harsh; and fourth, local state policies to counter illegal immigration encourage racial profiling, a practice that violates the right to freedom from discrimination.

Police Arrests in a Time of Uncertainty

“…Although policy-makers passed more restrictive legislation in the mid-1990s (Massey, Durand, & Malone, 2003;Gunkel & Wahl, 2012), the terrorist attacks in 2001 led to stronger restrictions as immigration became linked to national security interests. Although policy-makers passed more restrictive legislation in the mid-1990s (Massey, Durand, & Malone, 2003;Gunkel & Wahl, 2012), the terrorist attacks in 2001 led to stronger restrictions as immigration became linked to national security interests.…”

Displacement and Resettlement: Understanding the Role of Climate Change in Contemporary Migration

“…The inclusion of these migrants is metered by the degree to which they are seen as contributing to the national economy (Deckard and Browne 2015). This reality has become so anchored in the hegemonic common sense that a criminality has been constructed around migrant bodies, which are physically present while economically surplus (Gunkel and González Wahl 2012). To the degree to which migrants are seen as costing money in terms of social benefits or use of public goods, they are viewed as members of an out-group.…”

After Postnational Citizenship: Constructing the Boundaries of Inclusion in Neoliberal Contexts

“…Migrant laborers by no means make up the totality of immigrants in wealthy nations, nor are their experiences shared with global elites, skilled migrants, and their descendants. Unlike migrant laborers whose status is increasingly criminalized in Western Europe and North America (De Giorgi 2010, Gunkel and Wahl 2012, Engbersen and Van der Leun 2001, Barker 2012, the managerial elites of multinational corporations move internationally for job opportunities either within or between firms, with little concern for bureaucracy (Beaverstock 2005). Rather than face discriminatory policies and infringements on rights, members of the global elite are welcomed as 'nation-states seeking wealth-bearing and talented foreigners adjust immigration laws to favor elite migrant subjects [emphasis added]' (Ong 2006: 501).…”

“…The inclusion of these migrants is metered by the degree to which they are seen as contributing to the national economy (Deckard and Browne ). This reality has become so ensconced that a criminality has been constructed around migrant bodies suspected of being surplus – the imagined legal‐illegal status dichotomy (Gunkel and Wahl, ). To the degree to which migrants are seen as costing money in terms of social benefits or use of public goods, they are viewed as members of an out‐group.…”