Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
How Punitive Immigration Policies Negatively Affect Citizens, Families, and Communities
While watching a YouTube video about a nine-month old infant, tears began to well up in my
eyes. The baby had been taken to the hospital to be treated for dehydration, after being deprived
of her mother’s breast milk. The infant’s mother had left for work that morning and never
returned. She was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in an immigration
raid in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and was in ICE’s custody. As a result, the baby refused to
take a bottle, had a high fever, and was crying inconsolably. As I listened to the narrator explain,
over the persistent wail of this child, that her mother was put in jail for working without proper
documentation, I became increasingly upset. Perhaps I was so troubled because I, too, am a
mother who has nursed her children, and I could imagine the distress this mother felt, or perhaps
it was because the story was simply heartbreaking. I scrolled down the screen to read comments
left by viewers. Many experienced an entirely different reaction to the video than I did. For them,
the video evoked not sympathy, but disgust, and they sharply expressed their thoughts by writing
comments such as these:
―Way to go ICE!! Arrest and deport the cockroaches!‖
―Only tragedy here is that now the U.S. has to pay for some kids that freaking
illegals left here.‖
―hahaha, am i supposed to feel bad for these people? ALL of this could have been
avoided had they simply followed the laws of immigration. not our fault you
wanna break the law when you got kids.‖1
I would like to think that these are just a few bigots willing to equate undocumented workers
with insects. However, comments such as these are pervasive. The responses below nearly any
YouTube video on immigration or any online article related to immigrants are filled with similar
expressions of hate. One viewer disparages ―Rosa‖ for getting prenatal care at the health clinic.
Another complains his tax dollars are being used to pay for the education of children who are
U.S. citizens but have parents who are undocumented migrants. How have we reached such a
point? When did it become acceptable to chastise women for getting prenatal care and children
for going to school? What compels my fellow citizens to fail to see the humanity of people,
simply because they lack the proper documentation to remain in this country?
This book is a step toward restoring the dignity of undocumented migrants by focusing
on the human rights of migrants and their families. I am primarily concerned with the human
rights impact of the surge in interior enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. I take a close look at
the costs of immigration law enforcement to individuals, families, and communities. The United
States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has drastically increased its efforts in raids,
detentions, and deportations in the past few years. I attempt to make an in-depth assessment of
the human costs these tactics have effected in migrant communities.
Immigration policies in the United States have had negative consequences for citizens,
families, and communities. Even though family reunification has been at the core of U.S.
immigration policy since 1965, our policies often tear families apart. Despite the perception that
Immigration Nation -2-
workers earn. A human rights analysis would insist that all workers deserve a living wage. In
addition, many of the costs that Camarota mentions are related to the care of children of
undocumented migrants. These arguments are echoed by economist Barry Chiswick (1988), who
points out that low-skilled foreign workers can be economically beneficial, so long as they do not
bring their nonworking family members with them to the United States. A human rights analysis
considers family unity to be an inalienable right.
The debate over the economic costs and benefits of undocumented migration is not
settled. Frank Bean and his colleagues (1988) argue that undocumented workers do not bring
down native workers’ wages. Kjetil Storesletten (2000) contends that high-skilled immigration is
not only economically beneficial, but also necessary to maintain the fiscal health of the United
States. Overall, it appears that assessments of the economic advantages and disadvantages of
immigration are based on what factors scholars choose to include in their analyses. Either way, a
purely economic analysis ignores the human element. Migrants in the United States are not
simply commodities. They are people with family and community ties in the United States.
members of citizens. Laws that lead a noncitizen to unemployment, living in fear, incarceration,
and their possible deportation inevitably have consequences for their communities and their
family members who are citizens. These policies are detrimental not only for noncitizens, but
also for citizens. I will explain how the punitive nature of U.S. immigration policies creates an
unstable tension between human rights and citizenship rights.
The spectacle of interior enforcement, especially since 9/11, has its precedents in
previous shows of border enforcement. In the last decade of the twentieth century, the United
States government engaged in a series of widely publicized operations designed to enhance
border security. Despite an abundance of evidence that militarizing the border would not reduce
border traffic, but redirect it and intensify the incentive for criminal organizations to engage in
human smuggling, the border was increasingly fortified. Politicians were unwilling to vote
against border militarization, because voting against securing the border would be viewed as
politically unfavorable (Andreas 2000).
Many critics called on the U.S. government to dedicate more resources to interior
enforcement. When asked in 1996 why the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) did not
spend more money on preventing undocumented migrants from obtaining employment, INS
Commissioner Doris Meissner responded that ―the centerpiece of effective enforcement must be
the border, and ... it must be backed up with employer enforcement‖ (Andreas 2000: 01). At the
time, only about 2 percent of the INS budget was dedicated to enforcing employer sanctions.
Peter Andreas (2000) argues that this emphasis was because of the symbolic importance of
border enforcement and the lack of political will to enhance interior enforcement.
In the first few years of the twenty-first century, the focus, tactics, and emphasis of
enforcement shifted. In the post-9/11 context, it is no longer intolerable for immigration agents to
engage actively in interior enforcement. In the context of the War on Terror, there is no longer a
lack of political will to enhance the policies and use of various operations of interior
enforcement. Worksite enforcement operations, for example, increased twelvefold between 2002
and 2008—from 510 arrests to 6,287.6 The escalation of interior enforcement has required
increasing the number of beds available in immigrant detention facilities, having more
interagency cooperation, and enhancing the capacity to deport people from the interior.
The escalation of interior enforcement means that both detentions and deportations
increased considerably in the first decade of the twenty-first century. The DHS, which replaced
the INS in 2003, has been able to secure funding for these operations by relying on a rhetoric of
national security concerns. The detention of asylum-seekers and undocumented meatpacking
workers has been made possible through claims that the DHS is ―protecting the nation from
dangerous people.‖7 This heightened, yet unsuccessful, frenzy to find dangerous people has
created a climate of fear in immigrant communities across the United States.
Even though, as stated, the DHS’s primary goal is to ―protect our nation from dangerous
people,‖ when the department issues statements regarding this objective, the focus is almost
exclusively on immigration enforcement. For example, the first piece of evidence, put forth in a
DHS document with a subsection titled ―Goal 1: Protect Our Nation from Dangerous People,‖
refers to the deployment of 6,000 National Guard to the border in 2008. From issues of border
security, this DHS document goes on to talk about workplace enforcement of immigration laws
and deportations and detentions of noncitizens.8 By publishing documents such as these, the
DHS’s national security agenda seems clear: it is endeavoring to show concrete evidence of its
success in protecting the nation from dangerous people. The documentation on the agency’s
Immigration Nation -7-
he did not have much money when he lived and worked in Mexico, it seemed he enjoyed life
more then. Even though he worked, he still had time to hang out with his friends. In Chicago, he
said, he works a lot and has little time to enjoy life. I asked him what he does on Sundays, his
only full day off. He said that, because his driver’s license has expired and he can’t get a new
one, he stays close to home. He fears getting on the interstate, so he no longer goes fishing in
Indiana as he once did. He also does not visit his brother in Waukegan, just 40 miles away.
Neither has a valid driver’s license, and both feel as though it is too risky to make the trip. They
make do with phone conversations.
Don Franco and Doña Lucrecia have four grandchildren in Chicago. Their grandchildren
come over most weekends and play in and around the house. Even though Don Franco has
Sundays off, he never takes the kids outside of their neighborhood. He would like to take them to
the beach when the weather is warm or to Waukegan to play with his brother’s grandchildren,
but it is not worth the risk that he would be stopped by the police, fined for not having a driver’s
license, and potentially deported to Mexico.
Don Franco says his life has gotten worse since 9/11. He asked me why the events of
September 11 have had such a dramatic impact on his life, when he had nothing to do with what
happened on that day. I, too, ask this question. Why is immigration being linked to security
issues? Why do we, as a society, choose to make life less enjoyable for people like Don Franco?
Wouldn’t financially stricken, Northwest Indiana like for Don Franco and his family to come to
the beaches there on Sundays, thereby contributing to the economy through park fees, tolls, and
likely a meal at one of the many taquerías in deindustrialized Northwest Indiana? The
enhancement of interior enforcement of immigration laws has made people like Don Franco feel
less secure in the United States yet has done little to reduce terrorism.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 made it clear that there are people who seek to harm
civilians in the United States. There is no question that there is a need for a defense system to
protect people in the United States from terrorists. However, these systems must be more
elaborate than fences over which well-organized terrorist groups can fly and under which they
can dig tunnels. Migrants from Mexico, Central and South America, or other countries in the
Global South who walk across deserts, swim across rivers, or climb over fences in search of
better employment prospects are not terrorists. Neither are undocumented workers who work in
meat processing and garment factories. There is, of course, a need for national security in the
United States, yet building fences, raiding factories, and terrorizing immigrant communities does
not make the United States a safer place (Golash-Boza and Parker 2007).
Overview of Chapters
I open the discussion, in the first chapter, with an outline of the roots of immigration to the
United States of America. This discussion involves a consideration of why we continue to have
high levels of immigration despite restrictive laws. I argue that migrants come because migration
decisions are not simply cost/benefit decisions made by individual migrants; they are influenced
heavily by structural linkages between the United States and other countries.
Immigration Nation - 10 -
Revisiting my argument that a human rights framework is essential for making changes to
immigration policies, I contend that the immigration policy debate must take into account the
human cost, in addition to security and economic needs. I make the case that the human rights of
migrants and their families should be at the center of our analyses.
1
NewBedfordRelief. 2007. ―New Bedford.‖ YouTube video. Comments online at
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=a-8ke8gd60g&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3Da-
8ke8gd60g. Accessed July 15, 2009.
2
In the United States District Court for the District of Arizona United States of America,
Plaintiff, vs. State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity,
Defendants. No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB ORDER. Online at
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100729_ARIZONA_DOC.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2010.
3
―Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration Is Sending Schools into the Red.‖
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_researchf6ad. Accessed April 5, 2010.
4
ICE. December 1, 2003. ―Changes to the NSEERS Program.‖
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/NSEERSFAQ120103.htm. Accessed February 15, 2010.
5
The Associated Press. 2007. ―High Profile Raids Leave Immigrants Across U.S. Living in Fear.‖ International
Herald Tribune. Feb. 20, 2007. Online at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/21/america/NA-GEN-U.S.-
Immigration-Raids-Fear.php. Accessed March 20, 2007.
6
―Worksite Enforcement Overview.‖ ICE. November 25, 2008. Online at
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/factsheets/worksite.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2009.
7
DHS FY 08 Budget Priorities. http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/budget/gc_1170797368531.shtm. Accessed January 16,
2009.
8
―Goal 1: Protect Our Nation from Dangerous People.‖
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/testimony/gc_1170955059184.shtm.
9
The name Don Franco, as well as the names of all the other undocumented migrants, their family members, and
deportees in this book, are pseudonyms, with the exception of those names derived from human rights reports and
newspaper articles.