The expansion of “crimmigration,” mass detention, and deportation

ARTICLE: The expansion of

“crimmigration,” mass detention, and deportation

  • Authors: Cecilia Menjívar, Andrea Gómez Cervantes, Daniel Alvord

  • Affiliation: Sociology Department, The University of Kansas

Abstract

  • The deportation and detention of immigrants are now common globally.

  • Key Concepts:

    • Crimmigration: The blurring of lines between immigration and criminal laws.

    • The article examines U.S. trends to exemplify crimmigration issues, notably how these processes involve the criminalization of undocumented immigrants.

  • Highlighted issues:

    • Racialization and gendering of immigrant groups, with a particular focus on Latino populations.

    • Profit motives tied to private corporate detention practices in the U.S.

  • Suggestions for future research highlighted.

1 | INTRODUCTION

  • Aims to outline global crimmigration expansion, specifically in the U.S. and other receiving countries.

  • Emphasizes the connection between crimmigration and the racialization/gendering of specific immigrant populations.

    • Construct: Perception of a "Brown threat," often applied to Latino populations, leading to increased surveillance and deportation.

  • Historical context: Deportation as a tool for social control, particularly in today’s xenophobic climate.

  • The article is structured as follows:

    1. Definition and background of crimmigration.

    2. Review of global trends in crimmigration.

    3. Detailed analysis of U.S. immigration laws since the 1980s.

    4. Examination of private corporate involvement in immigration enforcement.

    5. Recommendations for future research.

2 | WHAT IS CRIMMIGRATION?

  • Definition: Coined by Juliet Stumpf (2006), crimmigration refers to the merging of immigration law and criminal law, particularly policing practices.

  • Historical changes since the 1980s:

    • Immigration laws targeting the criminalization of certain groups, especially undocumented immigrants.

    • Key Ideologies: National security narratives, often fueled by post-9/11 concerns and fears of terrorism or drugs, influence legal changes.

  • Scholarly focus on effects:

    • Research indicates crimmigration impacts immigrant communities disproportionately based on race and gender.

  • Distinction between immigration laws (civil) and criminal laws:

    • Civil offenses historically treated as non-criminal are now often criminalized through reclassification of minor infractions.

    • Immigrants have limited due process rights – expedited removal lacks formal hearings, offering fewer legal protections.

  • Legal Vulnerability: Unequal protections exist between immigrant criminals and native criminals.

  • Emphasis on systemic racism in crimmigration discourse.

3 | THE GLOBALIZATION OF CRIMMIGRATION

  • Neoliberal Policies: Evolved since the 1970s, promoting free-market agendas and curtailing safety-net programs.

  • Punitive mechanisms have arisen alongside deregulation:

    • Resulting in increased surveillance, policing, detention, and categorization of specific populations (e.g., low-income, minorities).

  • The impact of global security discourses (e.g., wars on drugs and terror) on American incarceration rates, particularly of marginalized groups, is examined.

  • EU parallels noted with local enforcement of immigration laws and framing immigrants as criminals, consistent with a "fortress Europe" mentality:

    • Specific Narratives: Focus on criminality ties certain immigrant groups (e.g., Sub-Saharan women linked to prostitution).

    • Increased policing and deportation in the EU, particularly after 1990s "asylum crises" linked to conflicts and migration flows.

  • Surveillance technologies being developed in EU countries mirror U.S. practices.

4 | U.S. CRIMMIGRATION TRENDS

  • Historical Context: U.S. crimmigration post-1986 saw an increase in deportation through policies like IRCA.

  • Legislation Overview:

    • 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) established amnesty for some, but significantly increased enforcement budgets and sanctions against employers hiring undocumented immigrants.

    • 1990 Immigration Act expanded definitions of "aggravated felonies" to include minor offenses, leading to a broader scope of deportable offenses.

    • IIRIRA (1996) and AEDPA (1996) further expanded definitions, limited judicial review, and imposed retroactive penalties for crimes associated with immigration, making more offenses deportable even retroactively.

  • Local law enforcement now plays a significant role in immigration enforcement via programs like 287(g).

    • Concerns about racial profiling and the effectiveness of such collaborations.

    • Programs like Secure Communities and Priority Enforcement Program further expanded categories of deportable offenses, integrating local police into federal immigration enforcement.

  • Racial and gender disparities persist, with Latinos being the primary focus of enforcement efforts.

5 | GENDERED CRIMINALIZATION OF LATINO IMMIGRANTS

  • Statistics: In 2014, 96% of deportees were from Mexico and Central America, with a notable gender imbalance disproportionately affecting men, while women also faced significant detention.

  • Concept of racial projects depicted:

    • Legal frameworks lead to the criminalization of primarily Latino populations.

  • Media narratives shape public perception by associating criminality with Latino identity.

    • This has increasingly led to distrust between Latino communities and law enforcement.

6 | PROFITING FROM MASS DEPORTATION

  • Over 3.5 million deportations occurred in the U.S. between 2006 and 2016.

  • Major shifts in detention practices correlated with the enforcement programs and quotas for detention beds set by ICE, leading to an increase in the scale and duration of detention. 

    • Private corporations profit significantly from the detention of immigrants.

    • Congressional lobbying by companies like The Geo Group Inc. and CCA reveals deep profit motivations in detaining immigrants.

  • Budgets and projections: Significant funding requests from DHS signal growing deportation operations amid heightened enforcement.

  • Alternatives to Detention: Programs introduced to monitor immigrants awaiting proceedings; at times, those who have never committed crimes face criminalization through surveillance, often involving restrictive electronic monitoring that can also be profitable for private companies.

7 | CONCLUSIONS

  • Crimmigration represents a disturbing merging of immigration and criminal law, reflected in global practices.

  • Propagation of narratives characterizing immigrants as criminals is directly connected to private profit motives.

  • Calls for ongoing critical examination of crimmigration, with highlighted areas for future research, including:

    1. Intersectional analyses addressing varying immigrant experiences.

    2. Expanding research on local actions impacting federal immigration enforcement.

    3. Exploring community responses to criminalization narratives.

    4. Understanding how local and federal laws interact and impact immigrants differently.