Search

Examining what we call “crimmigrating narratives,” we show that US immigration court criminalizes non-citizens, cements forms of social control, and dispenses punishment in a non-punitive legal setting. Building on theories of crimmigration and a sociology of narrative, we code, categorize, and describe third-party observations of detained immigration court hearings conducted in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, from July 2018 to June 2019. We identify and investigate structural factors of three key crimmigrating narratives in the courtroom: one based on threats (stories of the non-citizen’s criminal history and perceived danger to society), a second involving deservingness (stories of the non-citizen’s social ties, hardship, and belonging in the United States), and a third pertaining to their status as “impossible subjects” (stories rendering non-citizens “illegal,” categorically excludable, and contradictory to the law). Findings demonstrate that the courts’ prioritization of these three narratives disconnects detainees from their own socially organized experience and prevents them from fully engaging in the immigration court process. In closing, we discuss the potential implications of crimmigrating narratives for the US immigration legal system and non-citizen status.

Background Plasma metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) is an emerging diagnostic tool. As the clinical use of mNGS increases, efforts to better understand the role of mNGS in diagnosis and management of infectious diseases are essential. Current literature is limited to small retrospective reviewers and a prospective study therefore subject to institutional variability. Here, we aim to describe the use, sensitivity, time to diagnosis, clinical impact, and cost effectiveness of mNGS in the largest patient cohort to date. Methods We included pediatric and adult patients who had plasma mNGS testing as part of care from December 2017 through December 2021 at University of Minnesota (UMN). Patients were identified using the Karius database. Electronic medical records were reviewed for every mNGS test, recording patient demographics, underlying conditions, indications, and results within 30 days of mNGS. All cases were assessed by 2 reviewers including one board-certified infectious diseases doctor. Sensitivity of mNGS was determined relative to conventional tests. The primary end point was change in clinical management. Secondary end points included accuracy, time to diagnosis, and infectious disease consultation. UMN IRB approved this study as non human subjects research. Results 584 mNGS tests were ordered in the study period, with 203 reviews completed to date. Solid organ transplantation (SOT) (32%) was the most common underlying condition, followed by hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (28%). Fever (45.8%), then pulmonary findings (26%) were the most common indications for ordering mNGS. Conventional and mNGS tests identified an infectious cause of the clinical syndrome in 49% of cases, while a contaminant was found in 52% of cases. The sensitivity of mNGS in identification of infectious cause was 47%, approximately 7% more sensitive than conventional testing. Despite this increased sensitivity, mNGS changed clinical management in 20% of cases. Conclusion mNGS demonstrated superiority in accurate detection of infectious causes of clinical syndromes, however, changed clinical management in a minority of cases, suggesting timing of the mNGS test is critical. This study identified SOT and HSCT as high yield patient groups for implementation of a prospective study. Disclosures Beth K. Thielen, MD, PhD, Horizon: Advisor/Consultant|Horizon: Honoraria|Merck: Grant/Research Support.

Across several decades there has been an unprecedented increase in immigration enforcement including detention and deportation. Immigration detention profoundly impacts those experiencing detention and their family members. An emerging area of research has found that immigrants experience a number of challenges which constrain and limit their decisions, choices, and options for security and integration in the United States due to social, political and structural determinants. These determinants lead to greater structural vulnerabilities among immigrants. The purpose of the current study was to illuminate the perceived vulnerabilities of detained noncitizen immigrants as they are raised and described while attending case hearings at the Bloomington, Minnesota immigration court. Through conducting a thematic analysis of notes derived from third party immigration court observers, three areas of perceived vulnerability were identified. These perceived vulnerabilities include 1) migration and motivations to migrate, 2) structural vulnerabilities (e.g., discrimination, financial insecurity, social ties and family support, stable or fixed residence, English language proficiency, health and mental health) in the US, and 3) challenges in navigating immigration detention. These findings demonstrate that noncitizen immigrants who are undergoing immigration detention are experiencing multiple intersecting vulnerabilities which profoundly impact their lives. Collaborative efforts across sectors are needed to work towards comprehensive immigration reforms including both short-term and long-term solutions to address pressing issues for noncitizens undergoing immigration detention.