Search Results (10)

This article argues that criminal law has overtaken immigration law to such an extent that the notion of “crimmigration” is no longer shocking. In Canada, where the population has long been supportive of immigration and where national politics have been remarkably consensual in matters of immigration, crimmigration now forms the basis of a new form of bipartisan consensus. By looking back on the Justin Trudeau Liberal government, we see that most of the Harper-era crimmigration measures were left in place, and the advance of crimmigration continued unabated. If we are to make any progress in recovering space for values other than crimmigration in our immigration law and politics, we need to both think more creatively about the future and recover our sense of outrage. Full article

The concept of crimmigration connotes the currently prevailing approach between the different fields of penal, administrative and migration laws. It seems that, progressively, there is an amalgamation of penal law practices with those of civil and administrative law processes in a way creating confusion as to the boundaries of each law discipline and rational. In addition, the protection of public health from COVID-19 interrelates with the above three fields of law while at the same time the measures undertaken for the confrontation of the pandemic are further strengthening the social controls already imposed towards the migrant-refugee populations. Based on the Greek experience, we are particularly interested in mixed migration flows’ status of a ‘prolonged reception’. We have decided to examine the cases of the ‘asylum-seeker’ population and the ‘undocumented’ population who, to a large extent, constitute a large unseen category for the national vaccine program implemented to combat the COVID-19 hygiene crisis. The basic idea supported by our present study is that the health field is used as an additive component to crimmigration as it helps the establishment of a concrete screening intensifying the already imposed migration controls. In addition, the official social controls imposed to combat the COVD-19 health crisis contribute to crimmigration through the intensification of the dangerization of mixed migration flows. Currently, the health field, affected by COVID-19, contributes to the intensification of the crimmigration regime and at the same time to a dangerous cul-de-sac. Full article

This article explores the political and media discourse in The Netherlands around COVID-19 and migration. In so doing, it asks to what extent the dynamics of ‘governing COVID-19 through migration’ are visible in this discourse. By asking this question, the article builds upon the theoretical frameworks of ‘governing through crime’ and ‘governing through migration control’. Both theoretical frameworks place a strong emphasis on the role of discourse in framing certain social phenomena as a threat, concern or risk. By carrying out a discourse analysis on Dutch political and media debates around COVID-19 and migration in the period 1 January 2020–1 November 2021, the article illustrates that despite the linking of migration and crime not only being very visible but also seemingly normalized in this discourse, the links made between COVID-19 and migration were much more nuanced. Furthermore, although COVID-19 and migration were discussed together, the discourse does not show any evidence of governing COVID-19 through migration by using the pandemic to push for very restrictive migration laws targeting only ‘vagabonds’ while still allowing the mobility of ‘tourists’). Full article

Past research shows that crises reveal the sensitive spots of established ideologies and practices, thereby providing opportunities for social change. We investigated immigration control amid the pandemic crisis, focusing on potential openings for both challengers and proponents of immigration detention. We asked: How have these groups responded to the pandemic crisis? Have they called for transformative change? We analyzed an original data set of primary content derived from immigrant advocates and stakeholders of the immigration detention industry. We found as the pandemic ravaged the world, it did not appear to result in significant cracks in the industry, as evidenced by the consistency of narratives dating back to pre-pandemic times. The American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) criticisms of inhumane conditions in immigration detention resembled those from its pre-pandemic advocacy. Private prison companies, including CoreCivic and GEO Group, emphasized their roles as ordinary businesses rather than detention managers during the pandemic, just as they had before the crisis. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), however, manufactured an alternative storyline, emphasizing “COVID fraud” as the real threat to the “Homeland.” Although it did not call for radical change, it radically shifted its rhetoric in response to the pandemic. We discuss how these organizations’ indifference towards structural racism contributes to racial apathy and how the obliviousness and irresponsibility of industry stakeholders resembles white ignorance. Full article

Immigration Detention is a patchwork of public and private correctional facilities overseen by ICE, a federal enforcement agency. In June 2021, ICE detained 16,460 adults in 121 facilities in 38 states, frequently alongside pretrial and sentenced inmates and U.S. Marshals Service prisoners, under varying conditions ICE established with five different sets of detention standards, all of them based on corrections case law and in effect today. Detainees have not fared well in ICE’s custody, especially during the pandemic. In CY2020, ICE processed 137,749 detainees, tested only 80,200 for COVID-19 (58%), and recorded 8622 positive cases (11%) at over 100 facilities. Most testing positive for COVID-19—7687 (89%)—contracted the virus in ICE custody, including eight detainees who died. An additional 14,728 detainees (18%) had one or more conditions placing them at high risk for severe illness due to COVID-19 of which ICE only released 5801 (39%). This paper utilizes ICE data and documents on government websites to evaluate ICE’s approach to detention management and explore its impact on conditions of detention and how it impeded its readiness and response to the pandemic. It concludes with recommendations that ICE decrease reliance on detention and decriminalize its policies and practices. Full article

This article examines processes of migration and border control, illustrating the ways by which everyday housing and welfare services function as mechanisms of exclusion in both direct and indirect ways. Using the thesis of crimmigration, the article demonstrates how border controls have become deeply implicated in systems claiming to offer welfare support—and how a global public health emergency has intensified exclusionary processes and normalised restrictive practices. The article compares border controls in two localities—under the UK government’s coercive ‘hostile environment’ policies (based on technologies of surveillance) and a more indirect ‘programme of discouragement’ in The Netherlands (based on technologies of attrition). The study demonstrates the role of contemporary welfare states in entrenching inequality and social exclusion (from within), arguing that the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have facilitated the differential everyday treatment of migrants, revealing a hierarchy of human worth through strategies of surveillance and attrition. Full article

While global travel largely stopped and borders closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, states continued to deport individuals who had been sentenced for committing criminal offences. In Australia and New Zealand, questions over whether and how deportation of migrants during a global pandemic should occur were raised: weighing up arguments of legality, public health, and security. This left many migrants uncertain, isolated in immigration detention waiting for an unknown departure date. The decision was made to continue the deportation process for many, and in some cases breaches of public health restrictions were the basis for deportation. Once deported, mandatory quarantine on arrival under COVID-19 restrictions highlights and exacerbates the challenges that returning offenders normally face. These include extended detention periods; surveillance through detention and monitoring; and securitised discourse by the media and public creating ongoing stigma. This snapshot enables us to understand how states prioritised the removal of ‘the crimmigrant other’, a securitised threat, while facing the material threat of COVID-19. Full article

This article examines the legal and ethical rationale for the deportation of ‘foreign criminals’ who have established their homes in the United Kingdom. It argues that provisions relating to automatic deportation constitute a second punishment that can be more accurately described as banishment. The human rights of those defined as ‘foreign criminals’ have been reduced to privileges that are easily withdrawn with reference to the ill-defined public interest. The ability to challenge deportation is then compromised by a non-suspensive appeal process that deliberately undermines the right to an effective remedy whilst further damaging private and family life. With reference to social membership and domicile theories of belonging, it is suggested that those who have made their lives in the UK and established their place and domicile here should be regarded as unconditional members of civil society. As such, they are entitled to equality of treatment in the criminal justice system and should be immune from punitive ‘crimmigration’ measures. Full article

Immigration mandatory detention is a particularly harsh example of the structural violence embedded in immigration enforcement. It deprives liberty without bond for immigrants with prior crimes, and assigns many individuals to the harsh conditions associated with unnecessary and even wrongful detention. Mandatory detention has been justified on the grounds that mandatory detainees are a danger to public safety. This article puts to the test this presumption of dangerousness among mandatory detainees, and finds, to the contrary, that immigrants with prior charges or convictions are no more dangerous than any other category of individuals in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Using the risk classification assessment (RCA) tool, which the author is the first to obtain through the Freedom of Information Act, the article contributes to the growing criticism of mandatory detention, providing evidence that many of those in mandatory detention should probably have never been detained. Full article