Search

Despite being frequently invoked in everyday police work and immigration enforcement to justify coercive measures, public order and security remains an ambiguous legal concept. For EU citizens, the Citizens' Rights Directive stipulates public order and security grounds to provide a higher threshold against removals than criminal convictions alone. However, the removal grounds for EU citizens were founded on even less than criminal convictions in analysis of 100 removal orders for mobile Estonian and Romanian citizens in Finland. Ultimately, the removal orders relied on the assumption of future crimes and invoked a conception of 'dangerous individuals' with criminal tendencies, even based on single minor offences and administrative penal orders without criminal convictions. Notwithstanding various legal meanings, I argue that the required public order and security grounds for the removal of EU citizens corresponded to police conceptions of mobile populations as a potential source of criminality and a threat to social order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What happens to international media reporting when governments expel foreign journalists? Countries around the world expel foreign reporters, yet there is no consensus about the effects of such expulsions. We argue there are three possible outcomes of expulsion: a chilling effect, resilience, and backlash. Using China as a case study, we evaluate these competing theories by collecting a novel dataset of foreign news stories about China and applying time-series causal inference methods to measure the effects of expulsion on information origination, composition, and reach after March 2020, when the Chinese government expelled a large number of foreign correspondents. Results show that expelled media organizations did not experience a chilling effect or backlash on reporting and may have changed their production processes to account for expulsion. These findings suggest that news organizations can remain resilient to the impact of extraordinary events which target the organization and disrupt internal production processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The threat of deportation is a common experience shared by migrants around the world. Migrant-serving nonprofit organizations must also contend with these threats. While there is considerable research on how nonprofits serve migrants, there is a lack of research that explores what mass deportation threats may mean for nonprofits actors and their work. In order to address this gap, this study explores the case of the Dominican Republic where there was widespread fear that mass removals would occur after the closing of the National Regularization Plan for Foreigners on June 17, 2015. Using semi-structured interviews with 20 nonprofit actors from Haitian-migrant serving organizations, a qualitative content analysis reveals three main themes that capture how nonprofits perceived and pursued opportunities from the threat of deportation. They include the opportunity to grow, the opportunity to advocate, and the opportunity to learn and educate. This research is important for shedding light on the organizational resilience of migrant-serving nonprofits in the Dominican Republic and offers insight into how policies might be developed to support nonprofits as they address migration policies in their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper calls for greater attention to air deportation, defined as the multiple ways in which states utilize aviation systems for the purpose of expelling unwanted people under immigration and criminal law. Civil aviation is pivotal to the expulsion of people from the countries of the global North, yet scholars of deportation have rarely addressed questions of aerial mobility. The paper makes two moves to centre aerial and carceral mobilities within the study of deportation. (1) Empirically, and taking the UK for its case material, it brings scholarly attention to one particular practice of air deportation: the phenomenon of charter flights. These are special operations on which there are no regular passengers, just deportees who are out-numbered by Detainee Custody Officers and other authorities. (2) Conceptually, the paper develops three tools from this case to advance the study of carceral circuits and mobilities: custodial chains, affordances and encumbrances. By helping us better understand agonistic power relations, and by offering a contextualized account of change attuned to the interplay of a variety of factors, these concepts can promote a more mobilities-attuned understanding of deportation by plane. They can also help us better understand tension and transformation in carceral mobilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contemporary comment considers the consequences of the 2014 amendments to Section 501—the character test—of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and considerations of greater fairness, responsibility and social cohesion for long-term residents who experience character-based visa cancellation. New Zealanders have become the largest nationality group of people deported from Australia, a relatively new phenomenon in Australia's deportation history. Many are long-term residents. The increasing numbers of deportations across the Tasman caused diplomatic rifts to emerge, testing the traditionally close relationship between Australia and Aotearoa, New Zealand. It raised the issues of fairness and where responsibility lies for the conduct of non-citizen long-term residents who call Australia home. Recognising the value of long-term non-citizen residents to the Australian community, those resident for a period of 10 years or more were once protected from criminal deportation under the Hawke-Keating Labor Governments. With a focus on New Zealanders and a commitment to reset diplomatic relations, the Albanese Government has returned to this 'common sense' approach. This contemporary comment draws on a systematic policy review to provide policy insights from the past and present to consider future directions for New Zealander and other long-term non-citizen Australian residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European migration control regime claims to strife for ‘orderly’ and safe conditions of migration, yet systematically generates the opposite. This paper explores the role of informality in creating solutions to enable control and produce order in the European migration control regime by examining two areas of border policy characterised by high degrees of regulation and contestation : the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation (2013) and transnational negotiations over readmission agreements between European states and deportable people’s assumed countries of origin. We focus on Sweden and Switzerland, two countries perceived as having high degrees of ‘formality’ in their migration control regimes, and draw on ethnographic material generated between 2015 and 2018 in Swiss and Swedish migration control agencies. We demonstrate the central role of informality in making formal regulations 'work'. The Dublin Regulation necessitates tacit toleration of informality to be enforced, and readmission agreements rely on informal, transnational politics that neither follow migration law nor respectthe rights and lives of people on the move. The article underscores the importance of debunking the myth of an ‘orderly’ migration control regime, informality is what makes European migration control ‘work’, often to the detriment of people on the move. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fiction of non-entry is a legal fiction usually employed by States at their borders. Such a fiction is based on the distinction between the physical presence of a person on the national territory and her legal entitlement to cross the border and reside herewith. More precisely, the fiction of non-entry revolves around the concept of admission and on the premise that unadmitted migrants (i.e. migrants not fulfilling the entry conditions and, therefore, refused entry, or migrants awaiting admission) at the borders, despite being physically present on the territory, are not to be considered so for legal purposes. By this mean, States are able to deny the application of the ordinary legal regime, institutionalizing a detrimental legal framework for unadmitted migrants at the borders as opposed to the one applicable to regular or even irregular migrants within the national territory. The purpose of this article is to explore the role of such a fiction in European migration law, namely in the context of EU law and the ECtHR jurisprudence, with a focus on the issues of admission on national territory, detention and expulsion. Moreover, this contribution aims at showing how this legal construct is to become increasingly central to European migration law. Indeed, the fiction of non-entry is currently at the core of the new "integrated border procedure" proposed within the 2020 new pact on migration and asylum. Therefore, the contribution will analyse the consequences of such an institutionalization on the rights of migrants at the EU external borders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diagnoses of breast cancer are continuing to increase in the Philippines, but little is known about incidence rates among the significant number of Filipino women working abroad as migrant domestic workers (MDWs). These women are often the main income providers for their families, and their ability to work depends upon their physical health and strength. In this article, we use interpretive phenomenological analysis to explore the experiences of 10 MDWs from the Philippines who were diagnosed with breast cancer during a period of employment in Hong Kong. Analysis of these narratives revealed numerous points at which their status as temporary, transnational migrant workers intersected with their experiences of breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment. We argue that these women's experiences of breast cancer were shaped by the structures of migration that link the Philippines with host destinations like Hong Kong. These structures create a unique context in which these women had to constantly renegotiate their identities as migrants, financial providers, and breast cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates who counts as dangerous for immigration control purposes and how states spot and monitor purportedly dangerous people for immigration enforcement measures. By examining Canadian immigration detention law and practice during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the study finds that nearly all danger-based immigration detentions targeted long-term Canadian residents who had typically lost permanent legal status following a criminal conviction. The article argues that a core function of immigration enforcement processes is the removal of supposedly undesirable persons from society and that danger-based detentions are used primarily for post-admission migration control. Furthermore, the study reveals that the surveillance and policing of dangerous individuals largely relies on external police agencies, with immigration officials rarely initiating or managing their own investigations. The findings from this research contribute to the growing body of literature on the overlap between criminal law and immigration law and shows that—in the context of danger-based immigration detention—immigration authorities do not initiate their own investigations, but depend almost exclusively on the work of criminal police forces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout the 1950s, as anti-communism shaped immigration law, the Los Angeles Committee for the Protection of Foreign Born developed a leftist rhetoric of immigration justice that cast the quest for equal justice for the foreign-born as a test for the integrity of democracy and the Bill of Rights. While the group was marginalized by the anti-communist crackdowns of the postwar era, it managed to create a unique multi-racial, multi-ethnic coalition and crafted a rhetoric that knitted together ideas of migration as a basic right, universal due process, free speech for all non-citizens, and deportation as an inhumane and politically repressive state intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through an Ambiguous Loss framework, this study examines how family members in the United States and in Cambodia process grief and cope with deportation and separation. The ongoing sense of loss can result in families feeling stuck, continually dealing with the ambiguity of whether their deported family member is in or out of the family. Individual and group interviews conducted with family members in the United States and in Cambodia revealed the following main themes: frozen grief- inability to move on, ambiguous loss compounded by unclear roles and boundaries, and sense of betrayal. This research examines life after deportation and seeks ways to improve the conditions for families. These findings recognize the painful irony that exist for families dealing with loss from deportation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Comment examines how the United States deviates from most of the Western world by allowing deportation of noncitizen juvenile offenders to be essentially mandatory for a wide number of crimes. Deportation is "mandatory" in the sense that it is often an automatic result with very few options for judges to consider relevant mitigating factors, such as how long the noncitizen has lived in the United States, ties to U.S. citizen family members, or behavior since committing the crime. Deportation of juvenile offenders is applied harshly to both authorized and unauthorized noncitizens, many of whom have lived in the United States most of their lives. This Comment uses the Supreme Court's approaches to juvenile justice, the Eighth Amendment, and international law to show that deportation of juvenile offenders, absent judicial discretion, is a cruel and unusual punishment, and that it is time for the United States to significantly curtail deportation of noncitizens for crimes they committed as minors. Mandatory deportation of juvenile offenders not only conflicts with the rehabilitative purposes of juvenile justice but is also unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment as informed by international norms. International norms universally confirm mandatory deportation of juvenile offenders, without consideration of mitigating factors, is considered inhumane on the global stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Munich Agreement and the Vienna Arbitration led to the first displacement of Jewish residents. Representatives of the regime saw the loss of territory as an opportunity to resolve the 'Jewish question.' On November 4th, 1938 an operation was launched to deport the Jews to their home villages and the ceded territories. It is estimated that 700 Jews remained imprisoned in 'No Man's Land' on the border of Slovakia and Hungary. Two camps were established where these Jews were concentrated. This study illustrates the events in the case study of the town of Čadca and the local Jewish population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experiencing parental deportation during childhood is associated with higher rates of mental health and behavioral health challenges. This adversity may be exacerbated by the uncertainty of what is happening to their deported parent and to their family system following a deportation experience. Effective clinical intervention can reduce the likelihood and/or severity of physical health, mental health and behavioral health difficulty caused by the trauma of parental deportation; however, clinicians have insufficient resources and guidance on effectively engaging with children and their families following parental deportation. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with English-speaking Latino individuals from the United States who experienced parental deportation between the ages of 6 and 17 (n = 10). Using interpretive phenomenology analytic procedures, three major themes emerged related to participants' experiences of their family after their parent's deportation: (a) I wish I knew what was happening, (b) I wish people had checked in on my emotions, and (c) I wish people had been supportive and included us in the conversation. These findings are examined from an ambiguous loss framework to provide clinical implications of children's needs after parental deportation. Suggestions are offered from the adults who lost their parent to deportation as a child about what they needed following their loss. By understanding what children need in these moments of crisis, practitioners, providers, and others are better prepared to address this form of complex childhood adversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the 2015 ‘migration crisis’, various measures have been introduced in Europe to enforce deportations. They include detention in prison-like facilities, unannounced executions of deportations at night-time and the scraping of legal safeguards like medical reasons prohibiting deportations. These evidently violent measures are justified with alarmist reports which suggest, supported by statistical knowledge, an ever-widening ‘deportation gap’. The term refers to the divergence between the number of migrants issued with a return order and the much smaller number of deportations. Illustrated through the case of Germany, this article combines insights from ignorance studies with a sociology of translation to show that the claim of a widening deportation gap is a statistical chimera that is based on various kinds and sources of nonknowledge. Contrary to actor-based approaches in ignorance studies, it is argued that this nonknowledge is not reducible to the production of ‘strategic ignorance’ (McGoey 2019) by policy actors seeking to advance their agenda. Rather, the production and circulation of nonknowledge appears to be dispersed and messy as it is facilitated by complex and fragile sociotechnical networks. In this way, a sociology of translation allows scholars to avoid the impression of entertaining a conspirational logic in the study of strategic ignorance and other forms of nonknowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the context of forced repatriation, this study investigates the conditions under which Syrian refugees face the spectacle of detention and deportation in Türkiye. As the largest group of Temporary Protection holders within a single country (currently 3.7 million), this case provides a unique lens to examine how asylum policies' increased emphasis on the temporariness of protection and the eventual return leads to the production of illegality , and consequently of the deportable refugee. Based on qualitative data collected between September and December 2019 in Istanbul, Türkiye, this paper argues that the escalating fear of deportability is built on three pillars: (1) exploitation in the informal labour market, (2) quotidian police surveillance and factory raids, and (3) discrimination in public life. The study contributes to the discussion of temporality and deportability in refugee studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper examines the international relations on migration leverage and coercion between sending and host countries and their success and failure. It uses the global perspective theorists which rate migration politics 'low' rather than 'high'. The study adopts a systematic literature review (SLR), which includes relevant peer-reviewed journals and magazines related to the study selected for the write-up. Nowadays, with the advent of technology, the rise in tourism, and globalisation, migration politics between nations are on the rise. Regarding bilateral agreements, they are 'cemented' between states to avoid rows and frosty relationships. In instances where, bilateral disagreement occurs, host nations adopt measures such as border tightening, stringent visa control, strict border policing, and a restriction policy for sending migrants. If demands are not met under the restriction and deterrence policies, remittances sanction into the origin country are adopted, or in some cases, both (restriction and remittances sanction). Further resistance from sending nations leads to deportation or expulsion measures from the host country, which is detrimental to sending states. Roadblocks, harassment, violence, and raids on migrants' homes and workplaces are among the tactics employed. However, it was revealed that the success or failure of migration diplomacies and politics depend on the vulnerability and sensitivity of the state. Nations that are vulnerable might comply with the host nation's demand, but those that are sensitive and have close ties with other states for assistance in times of difficulty usually resist. The study identifies that both weak and strong nations leverage and coerce other states depending on their location, economic power, and type of governance. It is therefore recommended that nations, irrespective of being weak and strong states, must unite to form strong forces instead of 'fighting' each other to uplift the standard of living of their citizens. The study further recommends empirical studies to juxtapose the findings that the paper identifies under this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Economics, Politics, Humanities & Social Sciences / Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi is the property of International Journal of Economics, Politics, Humanities & Social Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper argues that there are resources within theories of corrective justice to make the case against the deportation of immigrants, including those accused of committing criminal actions. More specifically, the argument defended here is that a nation acts impermissibly by deporting criminal immigrants who belong to countries that the nation itself wronged in a manner that contributed to create the migratory flow that led the immigrants in question there. In that case, admission and, equally important, permanent residence in the host nation must be understood as a form of compensation for past wrongs, the interruption of which represents a breach of its duties of rectification, and is therefore unjust. Put in slightly different terms, some migrants have a retributive right-claim against their host state (which they may or may not exercise) to be admitted into the host state and not be deported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 29 October 1956, the first day of the Suez War, detachments of the Israeli Border Police massacred forty-seven Arab men, women, and children in the village of Kafr Qasim. Although the government and army denounced the atrocity, some historians have since argued that the massacre was planned by high-level military and government circles. The government's goal, according to this view, was to drive the Arab villagers across the border in line with a contingency plan known as Operation Mole. We present an alternative view based on new documents: rather than being either part of a preconceived plan of expulsion or an aberrant individual crime, the massacre was in fact a result of an Israeli deception plan that got out of hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzes intersections between penal deportation and Indigenous captivity in southeastern South America during the eighteenth century. Via records on Lincompani, a cacique taken captive in the southern borderlands of Buenos Aires and exiled to the Malvinas Islands alongside other prison laborers (presidiarios), it highlights the scale of penal deportation within the early Americas and connects the practice to the formation of geopolitical borders. As colonial officials banished purported criminals to borders, rather than across them, and banished male Indigenous captives from one borderland to another, these forced migrations reinforced territorialized spatial logics and contributed to Indigenous land dispossession. Drawing upon a half century of records from Malvinas, the article also analyzes convicts' and captives' experiences of penal deportation, highlighting instances when their shared status as presidiario may have superseded or been subordinated to ethnic distinctions, considering the gendered logics that shaped their banishment, and reflecting upon the narration of their actions via colonial records. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The deportation of foreigners for committed violations is considered as the last resort taken by the state to address foreign nationals who are believed to disrupt public order, endanger public safety, or refuse to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The research problem formulation is how the implementation of deportation according to Immigration Law Number 6 of 2011 and the analysis of the case. The research method applies a normative juridical method with a conceptual approach. The results of this study indicate that the implementation of deportation as a response to immigration law violations is regulated in Law Number 6 of 2011. This is a law enforcement measure to expel foreign nationals who have violated the law, as an effort to maintain state sovereignty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All non-citizens face risk of deportation, but a variety of factors unequally stratify this risk. To capture the range of formally unequal statuses produced by migration control systems, we introduce the concept of "differentiated legality." This paper applies this framework to analyze perceived deportation risk reported by 1,976 immigrants from a range of origin countries in the 2016–2017 Collaborative Multi-racial Post-election Survey. Findings show that unauthorized immigrants and immigrants with temporary authorized status worry more than naturalized citizens about being deported. Respondents who know someone who has been deported and who were interviewed in a language other than English express greater fear of deportation, even in models with controls. In addition, system embeddedness – i.e. perceived legibility to the state – may increase deportation fears, even among those with comparatively secure legal statuses. This paper is a significant contribution to understandings of citizenship, legality, and how immigrants experience deportability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australia has been widely condemned for its harsh and comprehensive external border controls that seek to control the inward mobility of would-be asylum seekers through visa denial, interdiction and offshore detention. Less widely discussed is the fact that internal controls have been repeatedly ramped up over the past two decades. This includes the administrative removal of lawfully-present non-citizens following visa cancellation on character grounds under s501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Automatic visa cancellation was introduced in 2014 for non-citizens sentenced to a prison term of 12  months or more, or for certain offences, bypassing individualised decision-making and raising the spectre of a visa cancellation pipeline feeding a highly automated deportation machinery. In an age of increasingly automated forms of governance, a key question that arises is the role that has been played by automated systems in achieving what has been a seismic shift in practice, and the normative implications of any developments towards automation within the visa cancellation and removal systems. This paper outlines the shift towards automation in other systems of governance in Australia—most notably the notorious Robodebt scheme—before examining automation in Australia’s visa cancellation system. Documentary analysis of recent parliamentary inquiries, independent reports and government policy is used to piece together the development of inter-agency data exchange practices and automation over three specific periods—historical practice pre-2014, post-2014 to the present, and proposed future developments. We conclude that Australia’s s501 visa cancellation system is neither automated nor automatic. Rather, the 2014 law reform gave rise to a ‘surveillance fantasy’ with immense consequences for non-citizens, particularly those who face long days in immigration detention at the conclusion of their prison sentence. We show that while concerns about increasing automation are well-founded, systems based on less sophisticated forms of information handling and reliant on human decision-making nevertheless continue to raise age-old questions concerning efficiency, accuracy and fairness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on attempts by settler colonial states to deport Indigenous non-citizens. The concept of "Indigenous anti/deportation" is introduced to capture both the inseparability of deportation from its contestation, as well as the unique stakes involved in contesting the imminent deportation of members of Indigenous communities. Comparing cases in Canada and Australia, Indigenous anti/deportation highlights fundamentally divergent claims of sovereignty, the assertion of Indigenous citizenship orders, and a transformation of how belonging is understood in contexts of settler colonial occupation. This article concludes by considering the implications of cases of Indigenous anti/deportation for future struggles for Indigenous sovereignty and for solidarity-building between migrants and Indigenous peoples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has shown that children of undocumented Latinx parents in the United States are at greater risk for negative long‐term effects on their mental health and overall well‐being. Chief among these concerns are the negative effects of disrupted attachment processes, as deported parents are often taken from their families by force and required to parent from afar, if they can continue parenting at all. Despite the ubiquity of deported families, little is known about the effects of deportation on the attachment of left‐behind children and the subsequent potential disruptive effect of deportation on their adult relationships. This phenomenological study aims to understand how adults who have experienced parental deportation in their childhood describe the effects of that event on their adult intimate relationships. Themes of (1) ambiguous loss; (2) inability to trust others; (3) fear of separation from loved ones; and (4) shame emerged and are discussed considering existing literature on attachment theory, immigration, and the Latinx population. Treatment implications are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most widespread form of violence against women and the most common perpetrators are male partners. Immigration can involve stressors and barriers that are linked to male IPV perpetration. The objective of this systematic review was to identify the factors associated with IPV perpetration among migrant men. Four electronic databases, MEDLINE Complete, Embase, PsycInfo, and SocINDEX with full text, were searched up to August 2021. Studies were selected that examined factors associated with IPV perpetration among first-generation migrants who identified as men/males and were aged 18 years or older. In all, 18 articles met the eligibility criteria for the review, representing a total of 12,321 male participants, including 4,389 migrant men. A wide range of factors associated with IPV perpetration were found at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels. Unique risk factors for migrant men's IPV perpetration were exposure to political violence, deportation experiences, and minimal legal sanctions for perpetration in some countries of origin. Societal factors explored among Latino immigrants were traditional gender roles such as machismo and norms of violence. All identified factors should be considered in the cultural contexts of the relevant samples and should not be generalized to all migrant men. The findings of modifiable and culture-specific factors have important implications for strategies aimed at reducing IPV perpetration. Future research should explore factors associated with IPV perpetration within specific cultures rather than across broad cultural groupings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws on an expansive archive of internal government records obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act to examine federal, state and local police practice within the United States' 100‐mile border zone. Analysis of this archive reveals a large number of "border" enforcement events that involve the arrest of US citizens, lawful permanent residents and others with deep roots in US communities. It further shows how, regardless of where US Border Patrol agents operate, those whom they target overwhelmingly tend to be persons of Latin American origin. Reflecting on these enforcement patterns, the paper argues for the troubling of categorical distinctions between "border" and "interior" enforcement that permeates scholarly, popular and journalistic accounts of the contemporary geography of mass deportation in the United States. As an alternative, the paper calls for greater attention to the "intensity" of immigration policing, as a way to account for multiple overlapping pathways of enforcement and to diagnose how the networked interconnectivity of agencies, personnel, resources and infrastructures involved in these activities amplifies the risks of racial profiling, arrest, and a host of related downstream consequences (family separation, financial hardship, diminished educational performance, and adverse health outcomes) for US citizens and noncitizens alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of History / Habaršy Tarihi Seriâsy is the property of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We study horizontal between-group cultural transmission using Stalin's ethnic deportations as a historical experiment. Over 2 million Soviet citizens, mostly Germans and Chechens, were forcibly relocated from the western to eastern parts of the USSR during WWII solely based on ethnicity. As a result, the native population of the deportation destinations was exogenously exposed to groups with drastically different gender norms and behavior. We combine historical and contemporary data to document that present-day gender equality in labor force participation, business leadership, and fertility as well as pro-gender-equality attitudes are higher among local native population of deportation destinations with a larger presence of Protestant compared to Muslim deportees. The effects are stronger for culturally closer groups and when adopting deportee norms is less costly. The results cannot be explained by selection, vertical cultural transmission, or deportee impact on the local economy. The evidence strongly suggests that gender norms diffused horizontally from deportees to the local population through imitation and learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through detailed analysis of archival records, Anita Casavantes Bradford traces the history of the clinical, academic, and popular understandings of trauma as it influenced US immigration policy for unaccompanied migrant children during the twentieth century. She questions why adults charged with the care of unaccompanied minors have "(mis)understood ... (mis)managed ... and (mis)represented" children as traumatized, both unintentionally and deliberately, in order to advance adult objectives. Casavantes Bradford provides a historical overview of US immigration and refugee polices since the 1930s as applied to unaccompanied migrant children. This history also traces the evolution of clinical and popular definitions of trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)—officially recognized by psychologists in 1980—and suggests that policies for managing and mitigating trauma among unaccompanied minors often led to negative consequences. These polices, above all, were often based on geopolitical and domestic political considerations rather than the welfare of children, according to Casavantes Bradford. Thus, during the 1980s, unaccompanied minors from Haiti and Central America reaching the United States faced detention and deportation, while Sudanese "lost boys" were granted preferential treatment that aligned with US national security interests in Africa. Since the 1930s, markers of difference such as race, class, and religion have also played fundamental roles in which unaccompanied minors have been given the "right to be traumatized" and resettlement. Casavantes Bradford cautions researchers against interpreting migrant children's experiences through biased or ahistorical notions of trauma that oversimplify individual young people's experiences and their potential resilience. Historians and others should critically examine their own assumptions when studying trauma and the experiences of unaccompanied migrant children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined the collateral effects of deportation on the children of mixed-immigration households where the father is Mexican and has been deported, the mother is American, and the children were born in the United States. These children are American citizens by birth, but after spending most of their lives in the United States, they begin a new life in Mexico. The results of this qualitative study show that the adaptations of these young people are not one-dimensional, and decisions are made within the family that affect the incorporation of these young people into a new context. The prevalent idea that the family should stay together conditions the direction the family takes. One of the main results of this study advances the discussions around the educational profiles of transnational youth by showing two new profiles derived from their status as American citizens by birthright and their access to online education. The implications question the work of the Mexican government to recognize these young transnationals in a context of collateral deportation. This recognition would be invaluable to authorities, school communities, instructors, and families in granting the legitimate right to quality educational care to current and future transnational youth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I trace transnational movement of the term DREAMer as it travels alongside deported and self-returned undocumented youths to Mexico, where the DREAMER narrative serves a neoliberal agenda. In the 2000s, the DREAMer narrative gained momentum as a popular trope in political and activist discourse across the United States, utilized as a tool to justify the inclusion of some (but not all) undocumented youths. As an UndocuScholar--a scholar researching and writing about the immigrant experience from an undocumented perspective--I join a growing number of current and former undocumented scholars who interrogate the DREAMer narrative for prioritizing a singular idea, based on neoliberal ideologies, that excludes the diverse experiences of immigrant communities. I use original testimonials captured in Los Otros Dreamers, edited by Jill Anderson, to document the experiences of deported and self-returned undocumented youths and application of the term DREAMer in Mexico. In so doing, I show how the unique routes and choices of immigrant communities are shaped by political discourse, notions of cultural belonging, and opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal agency that manages the world's largest civil immigration detention system, transfers hundreds of detained noncitizens to different detention centers every day at its sole discretion and for any reason, typically without advising the noncitizen's counsel or family. This unchecked transfer power, in tandem with ICE's power to begin deportation proceedings wherever and whenever it chooses, creates a ripe environment for forum shopping. This Note explores how the current system allows ICE to engage in forum shopping--by transferring noncitizens to regions of the country where their claims have a lower probability of success--to the great detriment of their cases and often their lives. This Note argues that the U.S. Congress should enact venue-protective legislation to safeguard noncitizens' due process rights and prevent ICE from gaining an unfair advantage in deportation cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When a noncitizen in an expedited removal proceeding has a colorable claim to delay their deportation for fear of torture in their home country, a special review process occurs. Certain noncitizens face an especially stringent procedure-the reasonable fear review hearing, where a noncitizen must navigate a complex legal argument before an immigration judge to show that they meet specific statutory and regulatory criteria for relieffrom or delay of deportation. Congress has specified that noncitizens are entitled to access counsel at this reasonable fear review hearing: yet, all too often, the hearing takes place without anorneys present who were already retained or were willing to represent that noncitizen. In nearly half of all federal circuit courts, this absence ofcounsel before the immigration judge is of no legal significance. This Comment urges the view endorsed by the other half of federal circuits: noncitizens in reasonable fear review hearings are statutorily guaranteed the right to access counsel, and that statutory right is elfectively denied when pro se noncitizens are required to prove prejudice from their lack of representation. While other scholars have argued for the presumption of prejudice when access to counsel is denied in other immigration proceedings, this Comment breaks new ground by extending that presumption to the reasonable fear review hearing noncitizens face in expedited removal with a felony conviction or a reinstated removal order. Presuming prejudice in this context ensures that all noncitizens have the reasonable opportunity to access counsel for reasonable fear review hearings, animating Congress's statutory mandate. This Comment proposes a uniquely administrable safeguard, borrowed from well-settled criminal law: immigration judges should be required to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of representation when a noncitizen appears unrepresented. Presuming prejudice upon review where (1) the noncitizen was not represented by counsel and (2) no valid waiver was obtained will impress upon immigration judges the seriousness of the right at issue with only minimal changes to current procedure and even a likely increase in judicial efficiency. Ultimately, this Comment provides additional support for the waiver requirement by exploring the real-world circumstances and consequences of denying access to counsel in a reasonable fear review hearing, the last chance for relief for noncitizens fearing torture upon return to their home country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A list of the first Jews deported from Compiègne, France on 27 March 1942 to Auschwitz-Birkenau was never found. Similarly, there is no known arrival list for this convoy. All the 1112 men entered the camp, were assigned prisoner numbers, and were then tattooed. In 1978, Serge Klarsfeld created a list by assembling sub-lists from WWII and immediate post-war sources. Despite significant ongoing research by Klarsfeld and others, no definitive list was ever compiled. Material recorded and maintained by the Nazis (daily count book, death registers, entry cards) pertaining to this early period does exist. This paper demonstrates how systematic use of Auschwitz prisoner numbers combined with French censuses and metrical records enabled us to significantly revise our records of who was deported in this transport, by eliminating dozens of names, amending many more, and adding several others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Nordics have employed discourses of gender equality and women's rights and a welfare‐oriented approach to punishment as integral parts of inclusive welfare states and their 'goodness'. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork with non‐citizen women at Vestre Prison in Denmark, this article suggests that the will to punish and banish prevails over the state's commitment to women's rights and protection. Rather than being an inherent feature of incarceration, the pain experienced by non‐citizen women in prison is a 'political statement' (Bosworth, 2023). Employing precarisation, incarceration and deportation to govern unwanted non‐citizens and (re)produce the borders of membership, the Danish state also reproduces the conditions for gendered harm. Bordered penality, this article concludes, is gendered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Final Rejected Person (FRP) is a foreigner whose refugee status application is rejected. FRPs are asylum seekers whose refugee status applications are case closed by UNHCR and cannot appeal. Basically, when there is a final rejection of an asylum claim, the subject to FRP has the obligation to leave the territory of the country. But in reality, many problems arise in the implementation of FRP deportations. In the context of carrying out deportations to FRP, many countries also experience difficulties in handling them. The purpose of this study is to determine immigration law enforcement in deportation to FRP by the Jakarta Immigration Detention Center, as well as obstacles in the implementation of immigration law enforcement. The method to be used is normativeempirical. The results of this study explain that law enforcement in the form of deportation of FRP by the Jakarta Immigration Detention Center has not been in accordance with the theory of sovereignty because it is limited by human rights and technical obstacles in forced deportation of foreigners from Indonesian territory. The obstacle to deportation of FRP by the Jakarta Immigration Detention Center is because FRP has no desire to return to the country of origin, making it difficult to carry out deportation. In this study, the author suggests that communication between agencies in handling FRP be improved so that coordination and deportation of FRP can be better in the future. Then it is necessary to develop persuasive methods in handling FRPs, both methods developed with other organizations, as well as other possible methods for the return of FRP to its country of origin. The return of FRP to the country of origin is carried out by involving other parties so that they can return to the country of origin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's October 2023 Current Population Survey, the United States is considered home to approximately 49.5 million immigrants (legal and illegal), now representing 15% of the U.S. population. An estimated 12.8 million immigrants are in the country illegally, an increase from 10.2 million in January 2021 (Camarota & Zeigler, 2023). Although these undocumented immigrants may consider the United States their home, they are often prevented from receiving and accessing health care, contributing to the health care disparity issues the country faces. Barriers that challenge undocumented immigrants put them in a position of grave vulnerability with little to no resources available for them. This article describes marginalized experiences and disparities of undocumented immigrant children in relation to health care, and outlines clinical implications for nurse practitioners and other medical professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]