Detention and alternatives to detention in international protection and return procedures in Ireland

Related Press Release Detention and alternatives to detention can be used for immigration-related purposes in Ireland. Detention takes place in Garda Síochána stations and prisons. Throughout 2019, 477 people were detained in Irish prisons for immigration-related reasons, reducing to 245 people in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternatives to detention, such as regularly reporting to a Garda station, however, tend to be used more routinely and in the first instance. This study presents a comprehensive review of legislation and practice on detention and alternatives to detention in international protection and return procedures in Ireland. It is based on the Irish contribution to a European Migration Network (EMN) report comparing the situation in EU Member States. Immigration detention in the EU and the UK has been the subject of considerable academic research; however, there has been comparatively less research on the situation in Ireland, particularly regarding alternatives to detention.

University and Professor Practices to Support DACA and Undocumented Students: DACA Student Experiences, Teacher Knowledge, and University Actions

The United States immigration policy Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) which protects some individuals from deportation was enacted in 2012, phased out in 2017 and is now under court challenges. There are still thousands of DACA students currently in higher education. The article highlights promising practices that professors and universities can put in place to support DACA students in the United States. Several semi-structured interviews were conducted with DACA students and Dream Center Directors in California universities to gauge students’ barriers and bridges to their higher education success. DACA students articulated public policy suggestions that universities and professors can immediately enact and have tangible results. Three themes were revealed in the interview data: the need for teacher knowledge, diversity of DACA student experiences, and for actions. These were explained as (1) knowledge of student’s lives, and, conversely, students’ access to information necessary for navigating college life; (2) the diversity of students’ life stories and experiences of trauma suffered during and after DACA rescinding decision; and (3) actions that should be taken by the faculty, staff, and the university community that would help students succeed academically.

Detained during a Pandemic: Human Rights behind Locked Doors

Every year, thousands of people are detained in United States immigration detention centers. Built to prison specifications and often run by private companies, these detention centers have long been criticized by academics and advocacy groups. Problems such as overcrowding and lack of access to basic healthcare and legal representation have plagued individuals in detention centers for years. These failings have been illuminated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately impacted detained migrants. Against a human rights backdrop, this article will examine how the U.S. immigration detention system has proven even more problematic in the context of the pandemic and offer insights to help avoid similar outcomes in the future.

Why Physical Barriers Backfire: How Immigration Enforcement Deters Return and Increases Asylum Applications

What, if any, effect do physical barriers have on cross-border population movements? The foundational claim that barriers reduce migration flows remains unsupported. We conceptualize barriers as a tool of immigration enforcement, which we contend is one form of state repression. State repression could reduce mobilization (reduce immigration), have no effect on mobilization (barriers as symbolic political tools), or increase mobilization (backfire). We evaluate the relationship between barriers and cross-border population movements using a global directed dyad-year dataset for the 1990–2016 time period of all contiguous dyads and nearby non-contiguous dyads. Using instrumental variables, we find that physical barriers actually increase refugee flows, consistent with the “backfire effect” identified in research on United States immigration enforcement policies on its Mexican border. Furthermore, we find that state repression (immigration enforcement) creates this “backfire effect” via a “sunk costs” problem that reduces movements of people and increases movement of status from migrant to refugee.

“Better than having no evaluation done”: a pilot project to conduct remote asylum evaluations for clients in a migrant encampment in Mexico

Background Asylum evaluations are highly specialized medico-legal encounters to collect physical or mental health evidence for use in immigration proceedings. Although the field of asylum medicine is growing, access to these evaluations is still inadequate, particularly for those in United States immigration detention or other forms of custody, such as under the U.S. Migrant Protection Protocols or “Remain in Mexico” policy. Given advances in telehealth in recent years and growing evidence of similar outcomes with in-person management, it seems prudent to examine whether remote modalities may also be effective for conducting mental health asylum evaluations in hard-to-reach populations. Methods We analyzed the responses of 12 U.S. clinicians who conducted 25 cross-border remote mental health evaluations with clients in Mexico prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and completed a post-evaluation survey regarding their impressions and experiences of the remote encounter. Data were coded through a process of thematic analysis. Results The average evaluation time was 2.3 h, slightly shorter than might be expected from an in-person encounter. Five themes emerged from the coding process: rapport building, achieving overall goal, comparison of in-person vs. remote, technical issues, and coordination. Clinicians encountered a number of challenges including technical difficulties and a decreased ability to establish rapport. Nearly uniformly, however, clinicians noted that despite difficulties, they were able achieve the goals of the evaluation, including rapport building and diagnosis. Conclusion Remote evaluations appear to achieve their intended goal and may be useful in expanding legal options for hard-to-reach asylum seekers.

Ganged Up On: How the US immigration system penalises and fails to protect Central American minors who are trafficked for criminal activity by gangs

This article addresses the failures of the United States immigration system to protect Central American minors who were trafficked for exploitation in criminal activities by gangs. In particular, it focuses on the ways in which the US immigration system denies humanitarian protection to Central American minors who were forced to participate in criminal activity by the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and 18th Street gangs, and instead detains them. The article will examine this trend in the context of a larger proclivity to criminalise immigration in the US, particularly minors fleeing violence in Central America. We draw upon our experience representing Central American minors in their applications for humanitarian immigration relief to highlight how the US immigration system fails to protect this vulnerable population and penalises these children for their own victimisation.

Immigration Policy in the Crossfire of Neoliberalism and Neonationalism

Previous scholarship has looked at Western states’ immigration policies from the vantage point of advancing liberalism. This perspective needs to be updated by including two additional factors: neoliberalism and a new nationalism that arises in its context, typically in the form of populist right parties. I argue that contemporary immigration policy is bifurcated into two policies with opposite logics: one of proactively courting the top, and another of reactively fending off the bottom. This dual structure is best explained in neoliberal terms, with neonationalism merely reinforcing but not generating it.

When Does Migration Law Discriminate Against Women?

It is possible to identify gendered disadvantage at almost every point in a migrant woman's journey, physical and legal, from country of origin to country of destination, from admission to naturalization. Rules which explicitly distribute migration opportunities differently on the grounds of sex/gender, such as prohibitions on certain women's emigration, may produce such disadvantage. Women may also, however, be disadvantaged by facially gender-neutral rules. Examples of indirectly disadvantageous provisions include those which classify certain forms of labor as either “low-” or “high-” skilled, using this categorization to distribute migration opportunities differentially. Such rules may disproportionately affect the mostly female workers whose labor in certain fields is considered “low-skilled” in comparison to that undertaken by their predominantly male, “high-skilled” counterparts. Scholars have identified the diverse ways in which states’ immigration and nationality laws continue to involve gendered and racialized exclusion, subordination, and violence. Migration control practices, including those concerned with deterrence, detention, and deportation, have also been impugned on these bases. This essay draws on this literature to examine whether rules that produce gendered disadvantage are open to challenge under the international legal regime charged with eradicating discrimination against women, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).