Federal Immigration Authorities Research Articles

Territory, rights, and migrant justice: Undocumented first amendment rights, or the deterritorialization of rights access

This paper analyzes the work of the powerful migrant rights organization Migrant Justice, as they exemplify ways in which migrant activists in the U.S. today are challenging the socio-political confines of bordered state territory and are pushing the landscape of rights access in new directions. This work utilizes a year-long ethnography conducted with Migrant Justice as they faced intense targeting and surveillance from immigration authorities, including the use of a covert informant, in response to their successful labor and human rights organizing in the state of Vermont. This work in particular details Migrant Justice’s First Amendment rights lawsuit against the federal government in response to this targeting. Here, Migrant Justice directly challenged the federal government in a groundbreaking lawsuit that saw federal immigration authorities forced to acknowledge constitutional rights for undocumented migrant activists. In this confluence of opposing forces, we of course see egregious abuses against migrant actors, but we also see exemplifications of new and progressively powerful forms of resistance that are posing a specific challenge to the state’s bordered and territorially based limitations on human and civil rights. This work utilizes Stuart Elden’s conception of territory—as a process and a praxis of control—to understand migrant resistance to state-sanctioned exclusion and exploitation and the ways in which these challenges to state power are creating new spaces for political belonging. An analysis in this way allows us to see the work of Migrant Justice as that which increasingly deterritorializes relationships between residents and state power—an undoing of spatial limitations on rights and belonging. Throughout this work, the concept of deterritorialization as a form of migrant resistance is unpacked and defined to understand the full potentials of migrant activism today.

The Gendered Effects of Multilayered Immigration Enforcement: Sanctuary Policy and Police-Community Relations in New Mexico

Executive Summary This study explores the relationship between “sanctuary policies” that bar local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration authorities and immigrant attitudes toward law enforcement agencies. It draws upon original survey data collected in New Mexico in 2019 and finds: • First, that immigrants who believe they are protected by sanctuary have more trust in their police and sheriffs than immigrants who anticipate collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration authorities; • Second, that awareness of sanctuary policies is nonetheless the exception to the rule, particularly among immigrant men. The study therefore highlights not only the limits to sanctuary policies sensu stricto but the limited scope and gendered nature of legal consciousness among immigrants in a multilayered enforcement regime. Our findings suggest that promoting sanctuary policies to immigrant communities, particularly through immigrant-serving agencies, may be nearly as critical in improved immigrant-police relations, as adopting sanctuary policies. The Department of Homeland Security and the courts should therefore adopt a uniform definition of sanctuary and disseminate it to state and local officials — especially in law enforcement — throughout the country. Furthermore, localities that adopt sanctuary policies should publicize them as widely as possible so that they have the desired effect in immigrant communities and facilitate the improvement of police-community relations in particular.

Immigration Enforcement Climate in Georgia and the Mental Health of Latinx Immigrants.

Immigrant-related social policies and immigration enforcement contribute to a sociopolitical environment that affects immigrants' health. This exploratory study in six metro-Atlanta counties examined associations among immigrants' perceived vulnerability to harmful immigrant-related social policies and county-level 287(g) agreements (which facilitate cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities), county-level immigration enforcement levels (arrests, community arrests, detainers, and removals), and immigrants' mental health. Using data from a 2020 study among Latinx parents who were undocumented or members of mixed-status families (N = 140), we merged data on individuals' perceived policy vulnerability and depressive and anxiety symptoms with county 287(g) status and immigration enforcement levels. Perceived policy vulnerability was not associated with county-level 287(g) status or immigration enforcement levels. Greater policy vulnerability and Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests were associated with higher depressive and anxiety symptoms, but 287(g) status was associated with lower depressive and anxiety symptoms. Perceived policy vulnerability, 287(g) status, and immigration enforcement levels do not always align and can have different associations with mental health.

Medical Deportations and Racial Narratives of the Burdensome Migrant

Hospitals across the U.S. are quietly removing severely injured and chronically ill migrants to other nations. It is a reality that exists in practice but not in policy and is experienced by hundreds, potentially thousands, of low-income uninsured migrants. There is no formal accounting or regulation of this practice and federal immigration authorities remain silent regarding this practice despite the fact that alien removals, or deportations, are solely within their jurisdiction. Focusing on a case study, this paper analyzes migrant narratives embedded within news media accounts and legal analyses of medical deportations to address how this controversial practice is rationalized by health care providers. In these accounts, a racialized narrative of migrants as public burdens was clearly evident. This paper argues that such narratives have the power to transform actions legally defined as illegal—such as medical deportations—into a reasonable practice. In this way, social “cost” is racialized into individual debt, allowing for seemingly extraordinary disciplinary actions that are contrary to normative policy and ethics.

Rethinking Sanctuary: The Origins of Non-Cooperation Policies in Social Welfare Agencies

Too often, scholarship on immigration conflates sanctuary ordinances with the non-cooperation policies, often embedded in these ordinances, which limit cooperation between local officials and federal immigration authorities. In this article, I disentangle the two by tracing the rise of non-cooperation policies in health and welfare agencies since the New Deal. Doing so challenges assumptions about the origins, targets, consequences, and significance of early sanctuary policies. It reveals that non-cooperation was federal policy between 1935 and the early 1970s, when local, state, and federal officials began to experiment with cooperation. When the consequences of such practices became clear, welfare and health officials were forced to reaffirm non-cooperation just before the sanctuary movement burst onto the scene. This research clarifies why scholars see early sanctuary ordinances as largely symbolic: because many local, state, and federal officials had largely abandoned cooperation in practice. It also challenges the widespread assumption that non-cooperation fundamentally represents local resistance to federal power. Instead, I demonstrate the key role played by the federal government in the rise of non-cooperation in health and welfare agencies. Lastly, this research reaffirms the significance of the fragmented nature of federal institutions for promoting immigrant rights.

Can Sanctuary Policies Reduce Domestic Violence?

AbstractDomestic violence remains a serious public problem, especially in Hispanic communities, where one in three women are victims of domestic violence in their lifetimes. Yet $<$50$\%$ of victims report the incidents, often because of concerns over police officers asking about their immigration status of the status of their family members. We assess the extent to which the implementation of sanctuary policies, which limit the cooperation of local law enforcement with federal immigration authorities, affect domestic homicide rates—a crime rarely unreported. We find that sanctuary policies reduce domestic homicides with a Hispanic female victim, especially in counties with more female officers. In contrast, the effect is smaller in magnitude in counties with mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence already in place. Overall, the results are suggestive of the protective role of sanctuary policies in Hispanic communities.

Mayoral leadership, immigrant sanctuary, and multilevel policy dynamics in San Francisco

ABSTRACT This article analyses immigrant sanctuary policies and practices in San Francisco between 1985 and 2018 to theorise about the role of mayors in developing, defending, and adjusting city efforts to shield undocumented immigrants from federal immigration authorities. Drawing on assorted qualitative data, it makes the case that the multilevel context of US immigration policy is an important determinant for how mayors have addressed immigration issues locally. In particular, it highlights two strategies that San Francisco mayors have used to influence sanctuary policies and practices while navigating ongoing intergovernmental scrutiny of the city’s lenient treatment of undocumented immigrants. When the risk of intergovernmental antagonism over city policies and practices was low, mayors adopted facilitative, democratic leadership strategies characterised by collaboration with local governmental and non-governmental actors to strengthen or institutionalise immigrant sanctuary. When the risk of intergovernmental antagonism was high, mayors retreated to executive, less democratic leadership strategies characterised by top-down decision-making and mayoral insulation from local political actors to curtail immigrant sanctuary and protect the city from state or federal attacks. This research illustrates how state and federal interference in city affairs can make it challenging for mayors to govern democratically by collaborating with other local actors.

Police trust and domestic violence among immigrants: evidence from VAWA self-petitions

AbstractDomestic violence is a serious under-reported crime in the United States, especially among immigrant women. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was an attempt to partially address this problem by allowing battered immigrants to petition for legal status without relying on the sponsorship of an abusive U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident spouse. The tougher immigration policy climate may have made immigrant women more vulnerable to domestic violence, as well as more reluctant to report domestic violence to law enforcement. Sanctuary policies, which limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities, may counteract these effects. After exploiting the temporal and geographic variation in the adoption of interior immigration enforcement and sanctuary policies, we can successfully identify the impact of sanctuary policies, which help boost the rate of VAWA self-petitions. Additionally, we provide suggestive evidence of the channel through which this impact is likely taking place—namely through victims’ increased willingness to report cases and leave their abusers. Understanding survivors’ responses to immigration policy is crucial given growing police mistrust and immigrants’ vulnerability to crime.

Im/migrant Farmworker Deportability Fears and Mental Health in the Trump Era: A Study of Polimigra and Contramigra in New York State

AbstractThe Trump administration’s policies have created a climate of heightened hostility in the U.S. northern borderlands that exacerbates im/migrant farmworkers’ anxieties surrounding deportation and family separation. At the same time, Trump’s enforcement initiatives have inspired resistance efforts aimed at mitigating these threats. Drawing on evidence from ethnographic research with Mexican and Guatemalan farmworkers in New York, we explore these interrelated, countervalent trends. First, we show how farmworkers’ heightened fears and social isolation since the outset of Trump’s presidency negatively impact their emotional and mental health. Second, we trace an opposing force of state‐level political shifts and local activities that may be mitigating these detrimental effects for im/migrant farmworkers. In particular, we focus on pro‐immigrant advocacy efforts in New York. We refer to this pro‐immigrant turn as contramigra, a phenomenon of intentional pushback against immigration detention and polimigra cooperation tactics between nonfederal law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

Rescaling the Sanctuary City: Police and Non‐Status Migrants in Ontario, Canada

AbstractCanadian cities pledge to provide access to municipal services to non‐status migrants and withhold information identifying non‐status migrants from federal immigration authorities. Despite these promises, local police continue to cooperate with the Canada Border Services Agency, which raises questions about the capacity of cities to honour their promises. An empirical study involved interviews with high‐ranking police officers in eight local jurisdictions in Ontario about police perceptions regarding their role in the enforcement of federal immigration law and their obligations to honour sanctuary‐city policies. The results show that many police officers believe they possess legal authority to report non‐status migrants to federal authorities. We suggest that this belief rests on misconceptions about the relationship between criminal law and immigration law, claims of jurisdictional immunity from municipal government, and distortions of the principles of policing in Canada. Rescaling of sanctuary policies to the provincial level may offer solutions.

Sanctuary Status and Crime in California: What’s the Connection?

In 2017, California officially became a sanctuary state following the passage of Senate Bill 54, which limits state and local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Following the passage of SB54, critics worried that crime rates would rise. What impact did this policy have on crime in California? The current study, the first of its kind, addresses this question. Using a state-level panel containing violent and property offenses from 1970 through 2018, we employ a synthetic control group design to approximate California’s crime rates had SB54 not been enacted. We interpret the gap between California’s 2018 crime rate and its synthetic counterfactual as SB54’s impact. Results show that SB54’s impact on violent and property crime is neither robust nor sufficiently large to rule out a null effect. Sensitivity analyses buttress this finding. We discuss the implications of the findings for crime policy in the U.S.

Can Sanctuary Polices Reduce Domestic Violence?

Domestic violence remains a serious public problem, especially in Hispanic communities, where one in three women are victims of domestic violence in their lifetimes. Yet, less than 50 percent of Hispanic women report the incidents, indicating lack of confidence in the police and fear they might be asked about their immigration status or that of relatives and friends as two main motives for not reporting. We examine the extent to which the adoption of sanctuary policies, which limit the cooperation of local law enforcement with federal immigration authorities, affect domestic homicide rates – a crime rarely unreported.We find that sanctuary policies lower domestic homicide rates among Hispanic women, but have no effect on white-non Hispanic women or men. The impact is particularly large in counties with higher immigration enforcement and in those with more female officers. On the other hand, sanctuary policies are less effective in counties withmandated arrest laws in place. These findings are suggestive of the important role of policies that increase community trust in the police in curtailing domestic violence, whether it is by promoting the early reporting of incidents, inhibiting potential offenders or increasing women's economic independence.

Is it Population or Personnel? The Effects of Diversity on Immigration Policy Implementation by Sheriff Offices

The federal-local cooperative immigration removal program Secure Communities (S-Comm) has resulted in wide variation into how aggressively national interior immigration policy has been implemented locally. Some communities have removed thousands, but others have removed few if any. Community composition explains much of the variation, but representative bureaucracy tells us agency diversity also influences implementation. Focusing on county sheriff offices, a vital local partner in S-Comm, this study finds that agency personnel diversity (specifically, offices with larger percentages of Hispanics and African Americans) produce fewer removals and submissions to ICE for immigration background checks. Other agency-specific factors are also important. Both the agency’s total budget and whether it has a 287(g) agreement with federal immigration authorities increase removals. Despite recent efforts to blur the distinction between immigration and criminal justice policy, this study finds no relationship between local removals and local crime.

Dreams Deterred: The Collateral Consequences of Localized Immigration Policies on Undocumented Latinos in Colorado

Recent years have seen a broadening of the scope of immigration enforcement. As a result, immigrants free of criminal convictions, once considered low priorities for enforcement, are increasingly subject to arrest, detention, and removal. At the same time, federal immigration authorities have sought the cooperation of states and localities in the enforcement of immigration laws. While there has been growing scholarly attention paid to the ways in which legal geographies can account for variation in local immigration policies, the long‐term effects of these policies on immigrants themselves are often overlooked. In this article, we use the case of Colorado, one of the first states to pass a “show‐me‐your‐papers” law in 2006, and data from two qualitative studies to highlight the collateral consequences of enhanced immigration enforcement on immigrants’ economic opportunities, emotional health and well‐being, and academic trajectories. We situate our analysis within the crimmigration literature and discuss the implications of our findings in light of the current political climate.

An Unlikely Cause: The Struggle for Driver's Licenses to Prevent Family Separation

Abstract As a result of the family separation policies that were implemented at the southern border of the United States this summer, public attention turned to draconian federal practices that criminalize, imprison, and harm unauthorized immigrants. In Upstate New York, by contrast, the immigrant rights movement is focused on a state level policy that would protect immigrant families from the separations that occur when immigrants who lack a driver's license are turned over by state and local law enforcement to federal immigration authorities. This article highlights the reasons why one grassroots organization of Latin American dairy farmworkers is campaigning for a humane driver's license policy and why they see this as the best route to protect against family separations. We highlight the motivations members of the group express and discuss how our research and advocacy with this organization follows a model of engaged anthropology in which directly-affected people take the lead.

Sanctuary Cities: Public Attitudes Toward Enforcement Collaboration Between Local Police and Federal Immigration Authorities

Local law enforcement has dramatically increased its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, while other localities refuse to cooperate. Although scholars have examined how sanctuary cities may differ from other places in terms of crime rates, attitudes toward local law enforcement’s collaboration with federal immigration authorities remain understudied. We utilize original data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey (CCES) to study attitudes toward local/federal collaboration. Our results demonstrate that those who most recognize the racial advantage of Whites are significantly less likely to support collaboration between local police and federal authorities. Confirming prior work, our results also support the critical role of partisanship, nativity, and education in explaining attitudes toward sanctuary policies. Our findings have important implications for understanding attitudes toward immigration enforcement and policies.

Sanctuary Cities: Public Attitudes Toward Enforcement Collaboration Between Local Police and Federal Immigration Authorities:

Local law enforcement has dramatically increased its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, while other localities refuse to cooperate. Although scholars have examined how sanctuary citi...

Policing immigrants or policing immigration? Understanding local law enforcement participation in immigration control

AbstractAs the United States has expanded its immigration control strategies, police participation in immigration enforcement has increased in scope and intensity. Local law enforcement agencies contribute to immigration enforcement in three key ways: through the direct enforcement of immigration law, through cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and through the everyday policing of immigrant communities. These enforcement approaches have consequences for unauthorized immigrants, and for the agencies and officers tasked with providing them police services. This article reviews local law enforcement practices and argues that future research should move away from an exclusive examination of police policies towards immigrants, to consider how the policing of immigrants actually occurs on the ground. Moreover, we argue that as long as discretionary arrests funnel removable immigrants into the deportation system, some immigrant communities will perceive policing as fundamentally unfair and discriminatory.

Dream chasers: immigration and the American backlash

How the immigration battle plays out in America, from curriculum disputes to federal raids to the civil rights activism of young Dreamers. Illegal immigration continues to roil politics. The right-wing media stir up panic over anchor babies, job stealing, welfare dependence, bilingualism, al-Qaeda terrorists disguised as Latinos, even a conspiracy by Latinos to retake the Southwest. State and local governments have passed more than 300 laws that attempt to restrict undocumented immigrants' access to hospitals, schools, food stamps, and driver's licenses. Federal immigration authorities stage factory raids that result in arrests, deportations, and broken families-and leave owners scrambling to fill suddenly open jobs. The DREAM Act, which would grant permanent residency to high school graduates brought here as minors, is described as amnesty. And yet polls show that a majority of Americans support some kind of path to citizenship for those here illegally. What is going on? In this book, John Tirman shows how the resistance to immigration in America is more cultural than political. Although cloaked in language about jobs and secure borders, the cultural resistance to immigration expresses a fear that immigrants are changing the dominant white, Protestant, real American culture. Tirman describes the mentality of our response to immigration, which seeks violent solutions for a social phenomenon. He considers the culture clash over Chicano ethnic studies in Tucson, examines the consequences of an immigration raid in New Bedford, and explores the civil rights activism of young Dreamers. The current round them up, deport them, militarize the border approach, Tirman shows, solves nothing.

287(g) and the Politics of Interior Immigration Control in the United States: Explaining Local Cooperation with Federal Immigration Authorities

This paper aims to improve our understanding of emerging patterns of interior immigration control in the United States by examining local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities under the 287(g) Program. While several recent studies have drawn attention to the shifting terrain of immigration enforcement away from borders into the interior, few have attempted to systematically explain reasons for this shift. Using a county-level dataset of all counties in the United States, this study finds that, despite the purported links between the 287(g) Program and public safety, county crime rates are not significantly related to local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Rather, the results indicate that local decisions to engage in immigration control efforts are driven by political factors, particularly a county's partisan composition, and demographic pressures related to increases in the Hispanic/Latino population. Demography is not, however, destiny, as new immigration in localities with established foreign-born populations does not significantly increase the likelihood of cooperation under 287(g). This suggests that the partisan composition of the places where immigrants settle mediates the extent to which the demand for tighter immigration enforcement exceeds the political influence immigrant communities have in their efforts to contest restrictive immigration control policies.