Search

Immigration enforcement has been especially brazen under the Trump administration. As part of a larger “mass deportation agenda,” and in retaliation against localities taking measures to protect immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have significantly increased their presence at courthouses. As a result, ICE arrests at courthouses, or “courthouse arrests,” have instilled fear in immigrant communities and chilled participation in the legal system. While these arrests have had far-reaching impacts, preventing survivors and witnesses from accessing the court to seek relief, the focus of this Note is on the particular impact on noncitizen defendants involved in criminal proceedings. Increasingly, ICE will arrest noncitizens in the courthouse who are attempting to appear for arraignments, warrants, or important hearings in their cases. Following an ICE arrest, these noncitizens are often detained or deported, preventing them from continuing in their criminal cases and likely resulting in additional criminal sanctions for missing required court dates. This Note explores the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and presents a constitutional challenge to courthouse arrests based on the notion that these arrests prevent noncitizen defendants from accessing the courts, and therefore, meaningfully accessing their right to a jury trial.

Asad L. Asad's book, "Engage and Evade: How Latino Immigrant Families Manage Surveillance in Everyday Life," provides an ethnographic account of how undocumented immigrants and their children navigate institutional surveillance. The author conducted interviews with Latino immigrant families in Dallas County, Texas, and observed the Dallas Immigration Court between 2013 and 2018. Asad argues that immigrants manage surveillance through a combination of engagement and evasion, rather than solely avoiding it out of fear. The book explores the situational context of immigrants' legal status and social roles, highlighting the hardships and inequality they face. Asad suggests that immediate reforms are needed to address the inequalities based on legal status. The book is interdisciplinary and makes a significant contribution to the fields of migration and surveillance studies. [Extracted from the article]

Little is known about how exclusionary immigration laws affect ethnic identity and self-esteem among Latinx middle school students. Arizona's SB 1070, which required local officers to verify the legal status of detained individuals, garnered national attention for its impact on immigrant and Latinx communities. This study tested a longitudinal parallel multiple mediation model where perceptions of the effects of an exclusionary immigration law (Arizona's SB 1070) on self-esteem were mediated by dimensions of ethnic identity (ethnic centrality, ethnic private regard, ethnic public regard). Data were collected from a two-wave survey of 891 early adolescents ranging in age from 10 to 14 years (M = 12.09 years; SD = 0.99), a majority (71%) of whom were of Mexican descent. Analyses revealed an indirect effect of T1 perceptions of this law on T2 self-esteem (7 months later), holding T1 measures constant, with T2 ethnic centrality, private regard, and public regard acting as mediators. Perceived effects of this exclusionary law led to increased self-esteem through increased dimensions of ethnic identity. Results reveal how ethnic identity functions as a multidimensional construct in the process through which exclusionary immigration policy may impact the self-esteem of Latinx early adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Second Amendment has a “people” problem. In 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the scope of the Second Amendment, grounding it in an individualized right of self-protection. At the same time, Heller’s rhetoric limited “the people” of the Second Amendment to “law-abiding citizens.” In 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen doubled down on the Amendment’s self-defense rationales but, once again, framed the right as one possessed by “citizens.” In between and after the two Supreme Court cases, several lower federal courts, including eight federal courts of appeals, wrestled with the question whether the right to keep and bear arms is a citizen-only right. Although those courts proffered varying perspectives on the meaning of “the people,” they uniformly rejected challenges to the federal criminal ban on possession by unlawfully present persons and nonimmigrants. In addition to the federal criminal ban, the immigration code allows for deportation of all noncitizens, including permanent residents, for firearmsrelated violations. In combination, the Supreme Court’s rhetoric, lower federal courts’ decisions, and federal criminal and immigration statutes excise noncitizens from “the people” of the Second Amendment. This Article is the first to examine the relationship between “the people,” immigration status, and the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of both Heller and Bruen. My analysis argues that courts undertheorize the systemic effects of constricting “the people” to citizens or, more recently, countenance historical inquiries that yield incoherent results. Intratextual comparison of “the people” of the Second Amendment with “the people” of the First and Fourth Amendments fares no better. That appraisal also commands broader inclusiveness for the Second Amendment’s rightsholders than current jurisprudence permits. This Article concludes that a more coherent theory of Second Amendment rightsholders would necessarily include most noncitizens, at least when the right is grounded in self-defense from interpersonal violence. This conclusion casts doubt on current federal law that categorically criminalizes possession by certain groups of noncitizens, as well as deportation rules that banish all noncitizens for firearms violations. More capacious interpretations of the Second Amendment’s “the people,” in turn, help ensure noncitizens’ inclusion under other core constitutional protections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Government lawyers frequently argue, and courts have frequently held, that noncitizens in removal proceedings do not have the same rights as defendants in criminal proceedings. A common argument made to support this position is that removal proceedings are civil matters. Accordingly, a noncitizen facing deportation has fewer due process protections than a criminal defendant, and deportation proceedings similarly provide fewer protections than criminal proceedings. In many ways, however, the rules governing immigration proceedings differ markedly from those governing civil actions in court. Immigration proceedings suffer from arcane and hypertechnical procedures that impede immigrants from having their claims reviewed on the merits. Notably, similar problems plagued the civil justice system back in the early twentieth century. The response was to create the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which emphasized a preference for deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities. The modern Federal Rules have substantially simplified pleading requirements and emphasized flexibility in order to foster the goals of fairness, efficiency, and decisions on the merits. This Article argues that the process that spawned the Federal Rules can offer valuable lessons for reforming immigration proceedings. The Article identifies several examples where immigration rules differ from the Federal Rules in ways that inhibit decisions on the merits. It then proposes a fundamental reexamination of immigration rules with an eye toward promoting decisions based on substance rather than procedure, as well as a structure for ongoing reform. Given the high stakes in removal proceedings, if society continues to treat immigration proceedings as civil matters, the least it can do is incorporate those aspects of the Federal Rules that best promote access to justice for noncitizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal supremacy over immigration enforcement is a primary tenet of U.S. immigration law. Despite this, states are now routinely, and often successfully, blocking executive immigration policy in federal court. One such case is United States v. Texas, in which the states argue that the Biden administration's enforcement priority guidelines inflict significant injury on the states while also violating statutory mandates and the Administrative Procedure Act. This Note analyzes United States v. Texas and concludes that the states' arguments constitute an act of reverse-commandeering that usurps executive enforcement and policymaking power. The result is a state-held de facto veto, wielded through the courts, over federal immigration policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, American legal scholars have discovered exceptionalism everywhere: family law exceptionalism, tax law exceptionalism, bankruptcy exceptionalism, immigration exceptionalism, criminal law exceptionalism, and more. For several of these fields, the charge is that the field is not operating in accordance with some background conception of “normal” law—legal authority is allocated to the wrong institutions, or institutions are using the wrong methodologies to make legal decisions. In other instances, the challenge is to legal taxonomy itself, a claim that a given legal field is defined by a constructed and contestable category or classification. A survey of these various lines of exceptionalist argument helps illuminate two important dimensions of contemporary legal thought: skepticism toward (or outright abandonment of) classic accounts of the rule of law, and new efforts to understand law as one of the structures that preserves and reinforces inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Youth with precarious legal status (PLS) in several provinces are entitled to access primary and secondary education regardless of their immigration status. However, once they graduate from high school their opportunities for post-secondary education are highly constrained. This article sets out an argument for expanding post-secondary educational opportunities for PLS students, drawing on the example of the only existing program in Canada targeting such students: York University's "Access for Students with Precarious Immigration Status Program." The article considers possible legal impediments to the establishment of such programs, including offences under Canadian immigration legislation, and argues that charges against post-secondary institutions or their employees are unlikely. Moreover, the article contends that if such charges were pursued, courts would likely find that the relevant legislative provisions are unconstitutional due to overbreadth and because they penalize humanitarian assistance, which was not the intention of the drafters of the provisions. The article also argues that in the unlikely scenario that post-secondary institutions were found to be in breach of Canadian immigration law for admitting PLS students, this is one of the limited sets of circumstances where pushing back against the law--and even breaking the law if necessary--would be warranted. Overall, the article argues that it is time for faculty, students, and administrators at Canadian colleges and universities to join the fight to create pathways for post-secondary education for PLS students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While largely unknown, the Indiana Supreme Court's 2017 opinion Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co. deserves to be canonized for closely examining – and, ultimately, rejecting – the incursion of federal immigration law and policy into state tort law. For over two decades, state and federal courts have relied on the United States Supreme Court's 2002 ruling in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, to deny future lost wages awards to successful tort claimants who lack documentation. Escamilla reveals the faulty logic underlying this caselaw and provides a clear and straightforward framework for future courts to employ when faced with this issue. Ultimately, Escamilla demonstrates why plaintiffs' undocumented status, alone, is insufficient to allow tortfeasors to escape paying tort victims what often amounts to substantial damages. In doing so, Escamilla fortifies the compensation and deterrence functions of tort law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the role of external actors is essential to understanding the United Kingdom's (UK) securitization agenda in the field of asylum. Whilst the internal dynamics of securitization in migration and asylum and its links to the Brexit referendum have been extensively analysed, the externalization of asylum and its connection to the so-called 'hostile environment' policy have received less attention. This article addresses this gap, and focuses on how the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the UK–Rwanda Memorandum of Understanding for the relocation of asylum seekers advance the externalization of asylum post-Brexit. It examines how these reforms reinforce the securitization that characterizes the UK's asylum and migration policy and evaluates how they exclude asylum seekers from access to basic human rights, in violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes cases on international refugee law. In RRFM v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal granted an applicant's protection visa request. In DFO 19 v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed appeals concerning an Iranian's eligibility for protection visas. In Haghshenas v. Canada, the court denied review of a work permit application.

Background: Over the past decade, the United States (US) has seen a spike in migration across the US-Mexico border with an increase in hospital admissions of migrants and asylum-seekers under the custody of immigration law enforcement (ILE). This study aimed to determine how the presence of ILE officials affects patient care and provider experience in a teaching hospital setting. Methods: This cross-sectional online survey solicited quantitative and qualitative feedback from medical students, residents, and attending physicians (n = 1364) at a teaching hospital system with two campuses in Arizona. The survey included participant demographics and addressed participants' experience caring for patients in ILE custody, including the perception of respect, violations of patients' privacy and autonomy, and the comfort level with understanding hospital policies and patient rights. Thematic analyses were also performed based on respondent comments. Results: 332 individuals (24%) responded to the survey. Quantitative analyses revealed that 14% of participants described disrespectful behaviors of ILE officials, mainly toward detained patients. Qualitative thematic analyses of respondent comments revealed details on such disrespectful encounters including ILE officers violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and using intimidation tactics with patients. Nearly half of the respondents did not have knowledge of policies about ILE detainees' medical care, detainees' privacy rights, or ILE's authority in patient care. Conclusions: This study points out the complexities, challenges, and ethical considerations of caring for patients in ILE custody in the hospital setting and the need to educate healthcare professionals on both patient and provider rights. It describes the lived experiences and difficulties that providers on the border face in trying to achieve equity in the care they provide to detained migrant patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across European Union (EU) labour markets, immigrant and native populations exhibit disparate labour market outcomes, signifying widespread labour market hierarchies. Despite the considerable investment in migration and integration policies, it remains unclear whether these contribute to or alleviate labour market hierarchies between natives and immigrants. Using a longitudinal model based on individual-level EU LFS and country-level DEMIG POLICY and POLMIG databases, we explore variation in changes of immigration and integration policies across Western EU member states to study how they are linked to labour market hierarchies in terms of unemployment and employment quality gaps between immigrant and native populations. Our findings suggest that designing less restrictive immigration and integration policies could aid in reducing existing labour market disadvantages for immigrants, enabling them to realise their full potential and reduce the immigrant-native labour market hierarchies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal exclusions and cultural factors reproduce barriers to health care by enforcing boundaries between citizens and immigrants, leading to a range of health risks and disparities for Latinx immigrant and Indigenous communities. This study utilized a mixed-methods examination of news media and ethnographic interviews guided by a decolonial-inspired framework to demonstrate the linkages between policy discourse and health behaviors. Both newspaper articles and interviews with affected stakeholders show how immigrants and their families experience more significant health risks because of policy changes and proposals. Regardless of the political regime, media discourses that promote fear and threat sustain the overall effects of immigration policy enforcement strategies on health. Immigration policy is health policy, and these laws should be evaluated in terms of their impact on public health, in addition to other factors. Furthermore, the news media is a contextual factor for health promotion strategies and a target for health advocates working with immigrant and Indigenous communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2021, an estimated 3.95 million foreign nationals resided in South Africa, with no data available on numbers of displaced persons or undocumented migrants residing without legal or valid immigration status. Surveillance data on immigration detention are scant. We present a socio-legal account of the historical evolution of South African immigration detention regulation in post-apartheid timeframes, with a view to providing a legal realist assessment of the socio- and politico-legal dimensions pertinent to human rights assurances of immigration detainees in South Africa. The realist focus is on scrutinizing South Africa's progress in upholding the rights of immigration detainees and illustrating the contemporary complexities in ensuring due process in the (co)application of the Immigration Act (and Refugees Act) explicitly regarding immigration detention processes and practices. We present the applicable international and regional African human rights treaties, domestic regulations, and relevant jurisprudence to the rights of immigration detainees in South Africa. The generated realist narrative is cognizant of the contextual forces of migration into South Africa, securitization agendas, and violations of basic human rights and due process, and illustrates various gaps in the application of domestic laws, policies, and standards of care regarding immigration detention when evaluated against the rule of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses how, as a child in a mixed status family in North Carolina, I was essentially born into the field. I come from the community I study and I am both a scholar and analyst of that community, as well as a civic leader in it, by, for example, serving on a local Human Rights Commission and working with coalitions that sought to vote out of office sheriffs whose policies were causing deportations and family separations, and voting in better sheriffs. I rightly describe myself as taking a radically transformative intellectual approach and see no conflict with my role as a scholar. My scholarly, publicly engaged, and community leader work emerge from intertwined strands in my personal history, a history that led to my personal insights, scholarly analyses, and civic leadership and action on the issues of sheriffs and their role in promoting deportations and family separations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A reconsideration of the crucial historical role of slavery in the consolidation of the global regime of capital accumulation provides a vital source of Marxian critique for our postcolonial present. The Atlantic slave trade literally transformed African men and women into human commodities. The reduction of human beings into human commodities, or 'human capital' – indeed, into labour and nothing but labour – which was the very essence of modern slavery, served as a necessary prerequisite for the consolidation and perfecting of what Marx called 'labour in the abstract', and requires us to re-situate enslaved labour as the defining and constitutive limit for how we comprehend labour as such under capitalism. The production of labour in the abstract, or labour 'in general', depended nonetheless upon concrete productions of sociopolitical difference , particularly the branding of race. The term 'Black', which was devised to literally and figuratively brand the flesh of enslaved people, was also contrived to signify their particular sociopolitical condition of brutal degradation as the ultimate limit for the subjugation of labour. Blackness names that limit. Thus, Blackness is in fact necessary for apprehending labour as such under capitalism. Marx's scathing critique of wage labour is always haunted by the long shadow of slavery as its limit figure. If we comprehend labour to be the antithesis of capital, then to the extent that Blackness names the ultimate condition of labour's subordination and subjection to capital, we need to recognise the tendency for all labour under capital to be pressed toward a sociopolitical condition of Blackness (or approximating Blackness), where Blackness does not name any kind of essential identity but the racialised sociopolitical condition of that subordination/subjection. Consequently, the labour theory of value – which has always been in fact, more accurately, a value theory of labour – must be complemented with what we might posit to be a racial theory of labour. Such an ostensibly historical perspective on the foundational role of slavery in the genesis of capitalism is no mere scholastic exercise in the historiography of 'primitive accumulation', however, but rather must be re-purposed toward the ends of elaborating what has remained an as-yet underdeveloped Marxian theory of migrant labour. Extrapolating key insights from Marx's corpus for the formulation of a racial theory of labour, this essay is ultimately concerned with the ways that slavery supplies capitalism with a defining horizon for all labour, and thus how this insight might instructively serve to comprehend the racialised subordination of migrant labour within our global/postcolonial sociopolitical order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the exclusion of international college students from the name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation policy of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Topics discussed are tax and employment prohibition facing foreign athletes, U.S. immigration law and the trap for international athlete, limited opportunities for international athletes to participate in NIL deals while complying with immigration obligations, and areas for improvement in law and regulation.

Using the lens of immigration and asylum, this Article develops a new understanding of legal personhood on the basis of equal human dignity, as the interface between legal personhood, equality and human rights, in order to address the dual-faceted and opposing reality of immigrants and asylum claimants in relation to their equality as humans in the order of nature and their inequality within the social/political order of Europe, where they are subjected to a constant process of depersonification and reification. This reformulated approach to legal personhood not only seeks to remove the debasement and dehumanisation that has come to characterise European Union (EU) immigration and asylum law but also intends to address the limitations of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as a valid platform for translating the EU's own self-proclaimed commitment to human rights into justiciable normative claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Summary: Our understanding of how immigration enforcement impacts crime has been informed exclusively by data from police crime statistics. This study complements existing research by using longitudinal multilevel data from the National Crime Victimization Survey for 2005–2014 to simultaneously assess the impact of the three predominant immigration policies that have been implemented in local communities. The results indicate that the activation of Secure Communities and 287(g) task force agreements significantly increased violent victimization risk among Latinos, whereas they showed no evident impact on victimization risk among non‐Latino Whites and Blacks. The activation of 287(g) jail enforcement agreements and anti‐detainer policies had no significant impact on violent victimization risk during the period. Policy Implications: Contrary to their stated purpose of enhancing public safety, our results show that the Secure Communities program and 287(g) task force agreements did not reduce crime, but instead eroded security in U.S. communities by increasing the likelihood that Latinos experienced violent victimization. These results support the Federal government's ending of 287(g) task force agreements and its more recent move to end the Secure Communities program. Additionally, the results of our study add to the evidence challenging claims that anti‐detainer policies pose a threat to violence risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research Summary: This research asks whether jail‐based immigration enforcement leads to the profiling of Hispanics by municipal police. I leverage a natural experiment to examine the effects of 287(g) jail partnerships on traffic stops and arrests by municipal police in North Carolina in the late 2000s. I find that stops of Hispanic drivers fell in the wake of 287(g) agreements, and show that this fall was driven by changes in Hispanic road use. While I cannot unambiguously disentangle police and driver behavior, I find no evidence that municipal police officers increased pretextual stops and arrests of Hispanic drivers. Policy Implications: While there is existing evidence of racial profiling under 287(g) agreements by sheriff's deputies, this behavior does not appear to have extended to nonsignatory municipal police agencies. Despite this, the signing of 287(g) agreements appears to have prompted Hispanic outmigration and changes in driving behavior, adding to a growing body of evidence on the ripple effects of local‐federal immigration enforcement partnerships in Hispanic communities. This serves as a reminder that changes in demographic composition of the immigrant population may mediate the effects of immigration enforcement efforts on other outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on Bacchi's (2009) 'What's the problem represented to be?' framework, this article provides a critical analysis of HM Government's (2021a) New Plan for Immigration. We explore how immigration is problematised, the assumptions that underlie these problematisations, alternative ways of representing the 'problem' of immigration, and the possible effects of the proposed reforms. Our article demonstrates how the New Plan is increasingly hostile towards, not only 'illegal' migrants, but an ever-widening group of people and organisations who may be viewed as facilitating illegal entry (organised criminals, hauliers) and/or those held responsible for preventing/delaying their removal (lawyers). The government's proposals risk creating a two-tiered system, increasing the exclusion experienced by those seeking asylum, and widening the net of those held responsible for immigration control. Ultimately, we conclude that while the sentiments behind the government's New Plan may not be all that 'new', they are nevertheless significant for their continuation and intensification of existing hostile policies and practices relating to immigration in the UK. This is especially so, given a number of recent global events that could have provided an opportunity to disrupt the government's problematisation of, and hostility towards, people seeking refuge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States claim to have authority over prospective immigrants who have not yet been admitted but are nonetheless expected to comply with immigration law. But what could ground such an authority claim? The service conception of authority defended by Raz appears not to apply in this case. Nor can it be argued that immigrants give their consent to the state by applying for admission. Another approach appeals to the practice of reciprocity between states in respecting each other's immigration regimes, but many immigrants will fall outside of its scope. Instead, the article defends the view that the natural duty of justice requires immigrants to comply with the state's immigration regime provided that it is reasonably just. This does not require that the immigrant herself should have authorised the regime through democratic participation. However, the natural duty argument has to be qualified by recognising that some migrants can legitimately appeal to necessity as grounds for breaching the duty and entering unauthorised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aside from the case of refugees under international law, are non-citizen outsiders morally justified in unlawfully entering another state? Recent answers to this question, based on a purported right of necessity or civil disobedience, exclude many cases of justified border-crossing and fail to account for its distinctive political character. I argue that in certain non-humanitarian cases, unlawful border-crossing involves the exercise of a remedial moral right to resist the illegitimate exercise of coercive power. The case accepts, for the sake of argument, two conventional assumptions among defenders of immigration restrictions: that states have a 'right to exclude' and that migrants have a prima facie duty to respect borders. Nonetheless, where immigration law is racist or otherwise discriminatory, it violates the egalitarian standards at the core of any authority it can plausibly claim over outsiders. In such cases, it may be resisted even where the law is facially non-discriminatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about the challenges faced by migrant workers in household and care work in the Spanish State, emphasizing the exploitation of racialized bodies and the structural issues perpetuated by the Immigration Law and special regime. Topics include the demand for the repeal of discriminatory laws, the undervalued nature of domestic work, and the call for systemic change to recognize the rights and value of in-home and care work.

The article focuses on prosecutorial discretion in immigration law, with a specific focus on the Mayorkas and Doyle Memos. It discusses the background of immigration agencies and the concept of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. It explores the various approaches to prosecutorial discretion under different administrations and the recent legal developments, such as the vacatur of the Mayorkas Memo.

Background: Disasters have an unequal impact on the population because of differences in conditions of vulnerability, exposure, and capacity. Migrants and women are among the groups that are at greater risk for and disproportionately affected by disasters. However, despite the large body of evidence that analyzes their vulnerability separately, disaster research that targets migrant women is scant. The aim of this scoping review was to analyze the published scientific literature concerning the vulnerability of migrant women and the consequent negative impact they experience during disasters. Methods: A literature search was conducted on December 15th, 2021 on Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. No time filter was applied to the search. Information regarding the article's main characteristics and design, migrant women and their migration experience, as well as about the type of disaster was collected. The factors responsible for the vulnerability of migrant women and the negative outcomes experienced during a disaster were extracted and inductively clustered in main themes reflecting several vulnerability pathways. The review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and relied on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Results: After full text review, 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. All of them adopted a qualitative methodology and focused on COVID-19. The pandemic negatively affected migrant women, by triggering numerous drivers that increased their level of exposure and vulnerability. Overall, six vulnerability factors have been identified: legal status, poverty conditions, pre-existing health conditions, limited agency, gender inequality and language and cultural barriers. These resulted in nine impacts: worsening of mental health status, poor access to care, worsening of physical health conditions, fraud, exacerbation of poverty, gender-based violence, jeopardization of educational path, and unfulfillment of their religious needs. Conclusions: This review provided an analysis of the vulnerability factors of migrant women and the pathways leading to negative outcomes during a disaster. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that health equity is a goal that is still far to reach. The post-pandemic era should constitute the momentum for thoroughly addressing the social determinants of health that systematically marginalize the most vulnerable groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the inauguration, the Trump administration authorized a series of anti-immigrant policies, including modifications to the public charge regulation. This study analyzed the effect of the publication of a proposed public charge rule in 2018 on the risk of preterm birth between uninsured and privately insured Latinx birthing people in the United States by using natality files from the National Center for Health Statistics. In total, 1,375,580 Latinx birthing people reported private insurance as their primary source of delivery from 2014 to 2019, while 317,056 Latinx birthing people reported self-pay as their primary source of delivery during the same period. After the publication of the proposed public charge rule in 2018, the odds of preterm birth among uninsured foreign-born Latinx birthing people increased by 6.2% compared with privately insured foreign-born Latinx birthing people (OR: 1.062; 95% CI: 1.016, 1.110). On the other hand, the odds of preterm births among uninsured US-born Latinx birthing people did not significantly increase after the publication of the proposed rule compared with privately insured US-born Latinx birthing people. These findings suggest the publication of the public charge rule proposed in 2018 may be associated with adverse birth outcomes among uninsured foreign-born Latinx birthing people in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mental health burden associated with anti-immigrant rhetoric and ever-changing immigration policies is undeniable, though the psychological and emotional sequalae may remain invisible for years to come. Exclusionary immigration policies, as a form of structural racism, have also led to an epidemic of stress-related health within the Latinx community, particularly the Latinx immigrant community, across the United States. Recent examples of anti-Latinx and anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies include the 45th President's implementation of the Zero Tolerance policy, Migrant Protection Protocols, and Title 42. The recognition of previous and existing anti-immigrant policies, and the impact on Latinx immigrants, is critical in understanding the manifestation of psychological stress to prevent it from becoming chronic. For mental health providers, attention to existing policies that can be detrimental to the Latinx immigrant community is essential to understanding their mental health trajectory and applying frameworks that honor an individual's psychological stress to prevent pathologizing the immigrant experience and negative health outcomes. The objective of the present brief review is to shed light on recent research and offer recommendations for practice (eg, educating the Latinx community about the link between the immigrant experience and psychological stress) and policy (eg, drafting of legislation aimed at rescinding harmful immigration policies) regarding the relation between aggressive anti-immigration rhetoric and psychological stress among Latinx immigrants in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In implementing its immigration enforcement regime, the federal government has favored the use of three-party contracts, known as Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs), wherein the federal government contracts with a state or local government for the provision of detention space and services. The state or local government then subcontracts with a private entity, which provides the necessary space and services. This Note discusses the government’s current immigration detention regime within the context of federal procurement regulations. Specifically, it analyzes the problems arising out of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) preferential use of IGSAs, as opposed to directly contracting with public and private entities, in procuring detention facilities and services. No governmental entity has taken affirmative and effective ownership of overseeing private companies that participate in IGSAs. Those firms then provide subpar detention facilities and services, thus running afoul of underlying principles governing the U.S. immigration law regime. This Note asserts that the use of IGSAs in acquiring detention facilities and services is an irredeemable ill in the United States’ immigration enforcement regime. Consequently, it recommends that Congress enact legislation to cure these deficiencies by explicitly (1) prohibiting the use of IGSAs in acquiring detention bedspace and services; (2) articulating a stated preference for the use of direct contracts to meet ICE’s detention needs; and (3) permitting ICE to meet exigent and compelling detention needs through limited use of interagency contracts (“riders”) with the United States Marshals Service. Only then will ICE be forced to recalibrate its efforts and affirmatively prioritize detainees’ health and safety over administrative flexibility and ease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Central Americans with irregular migratory status in transit through Mexico heading toward the United States experience immigration containment by both the U.S. and Mexican governments. This article uses official and pro-migrant organization sources to argue that during the 2020-2021 sars-cov2 pandemic, and in the context of Mexico's northern border, both spatial and socio-demographic changes took place in the processes of detention and deportation of Central American migrants. The author maintains that, beyond the simple exercise of Mexican immigration law, detentions and deportations are a central part of the national and regional migratory containment strategies in the framework of the U.S. anti-immigrant agenda. The article's contribution is to show that the northern border, as a territory that concentrates detentions and deportations, acts as a national regional space to de-articulate Central American migration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1891, the federal government excluded polygamous migrants from entering the United States. This clause, originally designed to stop Mormon migration to the West, had a strange career that filtered diverse religious migrants at American borders in the early twentieth century. Imperial expansion across the Pacific elided racial and religious undesirability in those who traveled to the American West. Inspectors brought these cultural assemblages with them when they asked migrants about their relationships with polygamy, and migrants navigated these encounters with various strategies of passing through the border, Drawing on numerous Boards of Special Inquiry, this article compares Mormon, Muslim, and Sikh migrant experiences with the polygamy question at the border and argues that, even though imperialists and immigration restrictionists policed the movement of insular and foreign people, religion facilitated imperial pathways for migrants to travel along to the American West. This article is part of a special issue of Pacific Historical Review, "Religion in the Nineteenth-Century American West." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main thrust of the scholarship on nationalism has so far been concerned with its origins. But nationalism also has effects. Whether it underpins the nation‐building efforts of states, is mobilised by counter‐state forces or is used in everyday life, nationalism might implicate a wide range of substantive outcomes, including political regimes, public goods provision, citizenship and immigration laws, and different patterns of conflict. Yet—with a few notable exceptions—the consequences of nationalism have received significantly less scholarly attention. In response, the aim of this Exchange is to create a new dialogue between different strands of scholarship around what we know and do not know about the consequences of nationalism. We organise this Exchange around the following questions: (1) What is nationalism? (2) How can we measure nationalism? (3) What are the consequences of nationalism? (4) What are new research frontiers? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the external dimension of EU migration governance has focused on the EU's interests, preferences, and policy efficiency and coherence. Little attention has been paid to the myriad ways both partner and third countries react to the union's external action. We explore the European influence on immigration and refugee policy liberalisation in South America, a region not directly targeted by extra-regional migration governance. Based on the analysis of 130 original interviews with government officials and NGO and IO representatives in eight South American countries we show that - although South American policymakers generally regard the EU as a model of 'efficiency', in terms of the EU's intra-regional mobility regime – the remarkable legislative liberalisation in the region took place in the context of both political and moral opposition to restrictive shifts in EU extra-regional migration governance. The paper contributes to the literature on the EU external migration governance, policy diffusion, and Latin American migration policies by uncovering some of the unintended consequences of European migration governance in South America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EU's response to the European 'refugee crisis' has involved parallel efforts to strengthen the EU's capacity for external migration management in the domains of CSDP and AFSJ. To provide a swift response to the 'refugee crisis' in 2015, EU member states decided to utilise existing operational CSDP capabilities as a short-term foreign policy tool. Simultaneously, we have seen an impressive strengthening of the mandate and capabilities of ASFJ actors in external migration governance. Although institutional links between civilian CSDP and AFSJ have existed for over two decades, the parallel task expansion has created new demands for inter-institutional coordination between the two policy areas. Combining neofunctionalist theory with insights from research on inter-institutional overlap, this article argues that responses to neofunctionalist spillover pressures may trigger inter-institutional dynamics, which can involve both cooperation as well as conflict. Empirically, we find that these inter-institutional interactions have had important implications for integration in both policy areas, which cannot be fully understood by studying these policy domains in isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article shares insights on decarcerating immigration prisons of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a tool for improved health. It cautions about the dangers posed by immigration prisons underscored by the COVID-19 pandemic such as medical mismanagement, neglect of detained individuals, harm to physical and mental health, and sexual assault. It highlights advocacy efforts to mitigate harm including population reduction to allow social distancing and vaccination.