By: Sarah J. Eckman and Karen L. Shanton

Federal law prohibits certain types of intimidation of or interference with election workers, including intimidation to discourage serving as a poll watcher or election official or in response to such service; interference by members of the Armed Forces with election officials' exercise of their duties; and intimidation for helping voters register or cast a vote. Many states have laws that address other threats to election workers, such as through privacy protections for election commissioners. More general laws, such as prohibitions against voter intimidation or harassing or threatening interstate communications, might also apply to some conduct. Some state and local officials have responded to recent reports of threats to election workers with administrative action or legislative proposals. Election officials have included local law enforcement in poll worker trainings, for example, and implemented new security measures in their offices. State legislators have established new prohibitions or protections, such as a New Hampshire law that prohibits intimidating election officials to interfere with their work and an Oregon law that extends existing privacy protections to election workers.

Library of Congress, Sep 9, 2024

The Australian Human Rights Commission

The treatment of children in the criminal justice system, some as young as 10 years old, is one of the most urgent human rights issues facing Australia today. Numerous inquiries and reviews, including Royal Commissions, as well as UN Committees, have highlighted serious breaches of rights and systemic problems with our child justice and related systems over many years. However, Australia continually fails to implement evidence-based reforms to our child justice systems which would reduce offending behaviour and make our communities safer. This report investigates opportunities for reform of child justice and related systems across Australia, based on evidence and the protection of human rights. It is the result of a project undertaken by the National Children’s Commissioner (NCC) in 2023–24. The project included a submissions process, consultations with children and young people, families, community members, and interviews and roundtables with government and non government stakeholders across Australia.

Canberra: The Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024. 195p.

By Jesuit Refugee Service Europe

By definition, things that occur in detention occur behind walls, and in a context where those detained have been disempowered. Scrutiny and transparency are therefore often elusive, and access to justice to which people are legally entitled may be denied altogether or made more difficult. This situation is compounded because people are often detained under immigration powers at borders, or when facing removal—in contexts of limbo, where normal justice procedures are easier to circumvent.

Against this background, this report looks into if and how detained migrants can effectively access justice in Europe today. This is a particularly relevant topic, as this work comes at a moment in which the use of detention upon arrival at external borders is likely to increase, as a result of the adoption of the EU Pact on Asylum and Migration. Because of the complexity of immigration procedures in Europe, effective access to justice cannot be properly assessed without considering if migrants—in this case detainees—have effective access to legal assistance. For this reason, a chapter of this report is dedicated to access to legal aid. We further looked into how effectively detainees can access remedies against their detention and return orders. Another chapter explores the existence and effectiveness of complaint mechanisms for detainees to address violations of rights that happen in detention. Finally, we looked into the possibility for migrants to apply for international protection while in detention.

This work is based on the experience of JRS visiting people in detention centres across Europe. JRS opposes the use of administrative detention as a practice that is inherently harmful to human dignity and has a negative impact on both physical and mental health. As long as detention is a reality, however, JRS staff and volunteers work to accompany detained migrants and advocate for the respect of their rights and for humane detention conditions.

Brussels, Belfium, JRSEurope, 2024. 69p.

By The International Organization for Migration (IOM)

This toolkit builds on the outcomes of two international exchanges on access to justice for migrant workers and victims of trafficking for labour exploitation and on an additional round of internal consultations, consolidated with IOM best practices and additional research inputs. Various relevant stakeholders from different European countries participated in the workshop, including law enforcement authorities, prosecutors, labour inspectors, trade union representatives, international organizations and civil society organizations, among others.

Produced under the framework of the MiRAC-funded project Enhancing IOM’s Protection Capacity in the EEA+ Region to Protect the Rights of Migrants Subject to Labour Exploitation, this document serves as a practical guidance tool for addressing the needs of migrant workers and victims of trafficking for labour exploitation in the European Union, as well as in Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. It was specifically developed to support national authorities, in particular, relevant labour, immigration, prosecution and counter-trafficking agencies, as well as other relevant stakeholders, such as civil society organizations and trade unions, to provide the tools needed to effectively support and empower migrant workers and victims of trafficking for labour exploitation.

Brussels: International Organization for Migration, 2023. 124p.

By Paul Butcher, Alberto-Horst Neidhardt

Migration remains a salient political issue and a major topic of disinformation. Lies and half-truths about migrants spread freely across the EU. But the narratives and themes used by disinformation actors are not static. As events develop and public concerns shift, so do the types of stories pushed by those seeking to mislead. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a growing stream of articles linking migrants to infection risks and accusing them of receiving preferential treatment. Disinformation actors have certain advantages over other communicators, as they can promote simplistic or one-sided depictions of migration without regard for truth or accuracy. Rather than seeking to counteract specific claims, such as through fact-checking or counternarratives, communicators and policymakers should instead promote alternative narratives that can undermine the appeal of hostile frames and create ‘herd immunity’ against disinformation. Alternative narratives should especially target those in the ‘movable middle’ who are most open to changing their views, especially as these groups may also be more liable to being influenced by disinformation. This Issue Paper examines nearly 1,500 news articles from four EU member states (Germany, Italy, Spain and the Czech Republic) published between May 2019 and July 2020. It shows that disinformation narratives about migration seek to exploit readers’ fears to polarise public opinion, manufacture discontent, sow divisions and set the political agenda. Disinformation actors link migration to existing insecurities, depicting it as a threat to three partly-overlapping areas: Health (migrants as violent criminals, potential terrorists, or a COVID-19 infection risk); Wealth (migrants as social benefits cheats, unfair competition for jobs, or a drain on community resources); Identity (migrants as a hostile invasion force, a threat to European or Christian traditions, or the subject of a conspiracy to replace white Europeans). An effective communication strategy based on alternative narratives should take account of the following recommendations: The message should aim to reframe the debate. It should resonate with the target audience’s lived experience, acknowledging their values and concerns, but avoid amplifying anxieties. Messages promoting alternative narratives must be timely and reflect the news cycle. Like a vaccine administered at regular intervals, communicators should repeat simple, specific messages that can prompt the best immune response against hostile frames spread by disinformation. The medium should aim to restore trust among groups. Institutions, which are often subject to discrediting campaigns, should prioritise communication through trusted intermediaries who can get messages to the hard-to-reach. They should work in partnership with civil society and local actors to deliver coordinated messages in the right environments. They should seek to reach people ‘where they are’ using the most appropriate communication channel, taking into consideration where their audience consumes information. The selection of the audience should aim to reclaim readers from the fringes. Audiences should be targeted based on their values and what they feel is important. To gain a first hearing, communicators should find an ‘entry point’ where the messenger and audience share common ground. All communicators seeking to promote a more balanced debate should aim to develop messages that can support a single overarching meta-narrative: for example, that migration is a normal phenomenon that can bring benefits to European societies if managed effectively and in full respect of fundamental human rights. More effective communication strategies can help to undermine threat-based discourses about migration. But such narrative strategies must also be backed up by policy changes. Effective policies combined with alternative narratives will go a long way towards resolving the concerns that drive disinformation on migration. A more balanced debate will, in turn, facilitate the adoption of meaningful reforms in line with EU fundamental values and human rights, thus creating a mutually reinforcing cycle of alternative narratives and policymaking

Brussels, Belgium: Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS). 2020. 52p.

By Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart

The use of civil immigration detention has expanded exponentially over the past few decades, with a record high of more than half a million people detained in fiscal year 2019. The widespread use of civil detention—at a cost to taxpayers of billions of dollars annually—is often justified by the government as being necessary to ensure that immigrants continue to appear for their court hearings. Yet there is irrefutable evidence that over the past two decades the majority of immigrants—including adults, families, and children—have shown up for immigration court hearings. In fact, those who attend court outside detention on what are known as “non-detained” dockets almost always continue to appear for their hearings when they are able to secure legal representation, calling into question the logic of confining people in costly and inhumane prison-like conditions when representation is clearly a viable alternative to ensure continued court appearances. This fact sheet reviews evidence from the Vera Institute of Justice’s (Vera’s) programs and related studies as well as government data analyzed by independent researchers to help unpack what is known about appearances in immigration court and, alternately, orders of removal in absentia, which are issued when a person does not appear in court.

Non-detained immigrants with representation almost always continue to appear in court

Data from Vera’s programs and other studies shows that most immigrants released from custody continue to appear in court when represented by counsel.

• During the first three years of Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, which provides free representation through a universal access model in 21 jurisdictions across the country, 98 percent of clients released from custody have continued to appear for their scheduled court hearings.

• Similarly, Vera’s evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) found that at the time of the study fewer than 2 percent of clients released on bond had received orders of removal in absentia for failing to appear in court.

• These high appearance rates are supported by findings in an in-depth study of orders of removal in absentia published in March 2020 by Eagly and Shafer, who observed that, “those who obtained lawyers also almost always came to court: 96 percent attended all court hearings in pending and completed non-detained cases since 2008.”

• An earlier study by Eagly and Shafer also found high appearance rates among immigrants released on bond nationwide from 2007 to 2012: among immigrants with completed cases, only 7 percent of those with representation received orders of removal in absentia.

• The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) or “remain in Mexico” program has made it nearly impossible for many asylum seekers to attend court. Yet even among this program rife with due process challenges, 95 percent of immigrants with representation have continued to appear for all their hearings. In short, representation continues to be associated with high rates of appearance in immigration court.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2020. 5p.

By The Vera Institute of Justice

We need a federally funded universal legal defense service for immigrants — one that is deliberately modeled on the criminal federal defender system, which, while not perfect, is generally regarded as more successfully realizing the values of high-quality, appropriately funded representation than its state counterparts. This service should provide universal, zealous, and person-centered legal defense to all immigrants in any immigration proceedings. The Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) makes this recommendation based on years of experience building and managing national immigrant legal defense programs. A federal defender service built on these core values is effective and achievable, and it would help ensure that the lives, liberty, and community health of immigrants are given full and equal protection under the law, regardless of status. There is an urgent need for a federal defender service for immigrants because most immigrants are unrepresented, and the stakes in immigration proceedings are so high. Deportation can result in physical exile from home, separation from family, loss of income, and even forcible return to conditions of persecution, violence, torture, or death in a person’s country of origin. But immigrants are not entitled to publicly funded counsel in these proceedings. Currently, there are 1.25 million pending cases in the immigration court system, and people in more than 500,000 of those lack legal representation. The lack of representation is particularly staggering for people subjected to immigration detention, where over the past five years, 70 percent have had no counsel. The stakes in immigration proceedings are extraordinary: the U.S. Supreme Court has described them as no less than “both property and life, or of all that makes life worth living.”

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2021. 4p.

By Sylvia Walby and Karen A. Shire

The book offers a theory of trafficking and modern slavery with implications for policy through an analysis of evidence, data, and law. Despite economic development, modern slavery persists all around the world. The book challenges the current fragmentation of theory and develops a synthesis of the root causes of trafficking chains. Trafficking concerns not only situations of vulnerability but their exploitation is driven by profit-taking. The policy solution is not merely to treat the issue as one of crime but also concerns the regulation of the economy, better welfare, and social protection. Although data is incomplete, methods are improving to indicate its scale and distribution. Traditional assumptions of nation-state sovereignty are challenged by the significance of international law historically. Going beyond the polarization of the debates on sexual exploitation in the sex trade, the book offers an original empirical analysis that shows the importance of a focus on profit-taking. Although individual experience matters, the root causes of trafficking/modern slavery lie in intersecting regimes of inequality of gender regimes, capitalism, and the legacies of colonialism. The book shows the importance of coercion and theorizing society as a complex system.

Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2024. 

By Physicians for Human Rights

Survivor-centered, trauma-informed, and rigorous medico-legal documentation is essential to offer survivors a pathway to justice, with standardized forensic medical evaluations playing a key role in documenting and corroborating accounts of sexual violence and torture. To support Ukrainian government officials, civil society, and international partners in building systems to support survivors, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) assessed the medico-legal documentation pathway in Ukraine to identify opportunities to strengthen systems to center survivors’ well-being, autonomy, and access to remedies.

Physicians for Human Rights assessed the medico-legal documentation pathway in Ukraine to identify opportunities to strengthen systems to center survivors’ well-being, autonomy, and access to remedies.

Building on the numerous efforts by Ukrainian authorities and their partners to address challenges to medico-legal documentation, this policy brief outlines current obstacles that impede justice and healing for survivors and sets forth actionable opportunities for the Ukrainian government and other stakeholders for reform. The recommendations put forward in the brief emphasize the need to expand the pool of qualified professionals authorized to conduct forensic medical evaluations in cases of conflict-related sexual violence and torture. They also call for legislative reforms to empower survivors in the justice process, the development of standardized medico-legal documentation tools, and the implementation of capacity-building initiatives to ensure trauma-informed, survivor-centered approaches. Together, these efforts can transform the experience of survivors as they seek remedy and reparation and ultimately facilitate greater accountability and healing.

New York: Physicians for Human Rights, 2024. 10p.

By Magdalena Moorthy Kloss

This first detailed study of slavery in medieval Yemen examines the lives of women and men who were enslaved as children and then placed in various subaltern positions - from domestic servant to royal concubine, from quarryman to army commander.

Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2024.

By Mohammad Musfequs Salehin

This open-access book investigates the gendered violence and vulnerabilities experienced by Rohingya men and women, drawing on qualitative data from refugee camps in Bangladesh. It shows that in Myanmar, men suffered torture and sexual violence, while women experienced physical, mental, and sexual violence, legitimized by patriarchal norms. Sexual violence was wielded as a weapon to coerce their exodus from Myanmar and to disrupt the essential facets of Rohingya femininity, motherhood, and reproductive capabilities. Structural, cultural, and symbolic violence affected the Rohingya differently across gender lines. A gendered threat narrative and othering cast women as ‘ugly’ and reproductive threats while men are framed as potential threats to national security and Buddhist nationalism. In Bangladesh, gendered othering continued, with Rohingya men seen as security threats and women as vulnerable victims. This book contributes to peace and conflict studies, gender studies, and migration and refugee studies, by analyzing gendered violence.

Cham: Springer Nature, 2024.

By Stephanie Leutert

Every day, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers send individuals into Mexican border cities, including the city of Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, across the border from Laredo, Texas. These individuals leave the United States through deportations, Title 42 expulsions via the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) COVID-19 order, or as part of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which sends people to Mexico to wait during their U.S. immigration proceedings. Immediately upon entering Nuevo Laredo, these individuals are at high risk for kidnapping and serve as a source of income for organized crime. Migrant kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo are not a new phenomenon. For more than a decade, organized crime in the city has made migrant kidnapping a component of its income generating activities. Members of organized crime kidnap both migrants traveling north for a chance to enter the United States and people sent back to the city. However, recent U.S. policies that return individuals and families to Nuevo Laredo—such as MPP and Title 42—have added new, lucrative populations for the criminal activity. This report focuses on migrant kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo due to the crime’s high frequency and its systematic nature. Migrant kidnappings are largely concentrated in a few sites around the city, and kidnappings follow a similar modus operandi. In fact, the practice is so common that members of organized crime in Nuevo Laredo allegedly refer to migrant kidnappings as “passing through the office.” Migrant kidnappings also commonly take place in other cities along the U.S.-Mexico border, but none follow quite the same systematic pattern as in Nuevo Laredo. To analyze migrant kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo, this report uses a mixed methodology. The analysis is based on an original dataset of 154 separate kidnappings in the city between 2018 and 2021, involving 352 people. This dataset was compiled through open-source records and legal intake forms. It includes 65 kidnapping cases (139 people) that occurred in Nuevo Laredo after CBP returned the individuals through MPP and 16 kidnapping cases (39 people) that occurred after CBP returned the individuals through Title 42. The additional cases involve people who were kidnapped prior to being returned to Mexico and cases where it was not specifically stated that the person was expelled under Title 42 or placed in MPP. The dataset does not attempt to be a comprehensive account of migrant kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo. Rather, it attempts to shed light on recent migrant kidnappings in the city, particularly as U.S. policies continue to send people back. The dataset was supplemented by information obtained through content analysis and semi structured interviews with civil society members, legal service providers, and journalists who are familiar with recent migrant kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo.

Austin, TX> Strauss Center for International Security and Law at The University of Texas at Austin, 2021. 17p.

By Sarah Decker and Anthony Enrique, et al.

“When they took us from the border, we were shackled, head to toe. Then they told us we were going to Louisiana. We all started shaking with fear. We knew we were about to lose our freedom, our rights, even our humanity. We knew we were going to the Black Hole.”

The United States maintains the world’s largest immigrant incarceration regime, imprisoning an average of over 35,000 people a day undergoing administrative proceedings to determine if they will be deported.2 Over 6,000 of those people, a mix of recently-arrived asylum seekers and long-term U.S. residents, are detained in Louisiana, the second-largest state for immigrant detention behind Texas.3 The explosion of immigrant incarceration in Louisiana occurred in the late 2010s and largely benefitted private prison companies, which run eight of the nine immigration jails in the state, profiting off of the abuses described in this report.4

This report documents systemic human rights abuses carried out by or under the supervision of the New Orleans Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office (“NOLA ICE”), the federal office that oversees immigration detention in Louisiana. NOLA ICE contracts with two private prison companies and a local sheriff’s office to operate Louisiana’s nine immigration jails.5 Inside those jails, officials rampantly violate detained peoples’ human and civil rights, locking them away in punitive conditions indistinguishable from those in criminal jails and prisons, in some cases for prolonged periods lasting years.6 In some instances, the abuses that detained people describe firsthand in this report meet the definitions of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party.7

The information contained in this report comes from two years of visits to nine immigration jails in Louisiana beginning in April 2022, all told comprising interviews with 6,384 people from 59 jail visits and information from seven jail tours conducted by NOLA ICE officials. During these visits, attorneys and legal workers gave Know Your Rights presentations and conducted legal interviews with detained people. Their testimony reveals that NOLA ICE officials routinely violate ICE’s own minimum standards of care and state, federal, and international law and legal standards. Abuses inflicted include:

• DENIAL OF LANGUAGE ACCESS: including interpretation and translation access, resulting in language-related denials of medical and mental health care; due process in preparation of legal materials; and protection against abusive treatment and coercion.

• DEPRIVATION OF HUMAN NECESSITIES: including minimally nutritious food and potable drinking water; sanitary conditions of confinement; access to basic hygiene supplies; protection from extreme temperatures; and access to sunlight and outdoor time.

• ABUSIVE & DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT: including physical abuse; sexual abuse; torturous solitary confinement; humiliating and degrading speech; and retaliation against and suppression of speech and religious worship protected by the First Amendment.

• MEDICAL ABUSE & NEGLECT: including denial of medical care for chronic, urgent, and emergency conditions; provision of ineffective or non-responsive care for serious health conditions; denial of the right to informed consent to treatment; disruption of ongoing care due to sudden transfers in custody; denial of dental care; denial of reproductive health care; mental health neglect; medical neglect of people with disabilities; and fatal deficiencies in medical care.

Taken together, the abuses inflicted by NOLA ICE officials deprive detained people of due process in their immigration proceedings. In NOLA ICE detention, officials isolate people with viable defenses to deportation from the legal and language resources needed to fairly present their claims. And they use abusive treatment in punitive conditions to coerce people into renouncing those claims and accepting deportation to escape the misery of detention.

The record of documented abuses in NOLA ICE jails predating this report is so extensive that in December 2021, the Department of Homeland Security’s oversight agency, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, opened an investigation into the entire network of NOLA ICE jails, the first-ever field-office wide investigation.8 But as the findings of this report show, oversight bodies have failed to hold NOLA ICE accountable, permitting the continued abuse of detained people with impunity

New Orleans: ACLU of Louisiana, 2024. 108p.

By Human Rights Watch

Adequate housing is an internationally protected human right. But the United States, which has been treating housing primarily as a commodity, is failing to protect this right for large numbers of people, with houselessness a pervasive problem. In the US city of Los Angeles, California, where the monetary value of property has risen to extreme heights while wages at the lower end of the economic spectrum have stagnated for decades, houselessness has exploded into public view. Policymakers addressing the issue publicly acknowledge the necessity of increased housing to solve houselessness, but their primary response on the ground has been criminalization of those without it. The criminalization of houselessness means treating people who live on the streets as criminals and directing resources towards arresting and citing them, institutionalizing them, removing them from visible public spaces, denying them basic services and sanitation, confiscating and destroying their property, and pressuring them into substandard shelter situations that share some characteristics with jails. Criminalization is expensive, but temporarily removes signs of houselessness and extreme poverty from the view of the housed public. Criminalization is ineffective because it punishes people for living in poverty while ignoring and even reaffirming the causes of that poverty embedded in the economic system and the incentives that drive housing development and underdevelopment. Criminalization is cruel. Criminalization effectively destroys lives and property based on race and economic class. It is a set of policies that prioritizes the needs and values of the wealthy, property owners, and business elites, at the expense of the rights of people living in poverty to an adequate standard of living. As a consequence of historical and present policies and practices that discriminate against Black and other BIPOC people, these groups receive the brunt of criminalization. Arrests and citations as the direct mode of criminalization have decreased substantially over the past several years in Los Angeles. But authorities use the threat of arrest to support the relentless taking and destruction of unhoused people’s property through sanitation “sweeps” and people’s removal from certain public spaces. Criminalization has simply taken a different primary form, though punitive criminal enforcement always looms.

Criminalization responds in destructive and ineffective ways to legitimize concerns about the impact of houselessness on individuals and their communities. Rather than improving conditions and leading towards a solution, criminalization diverts vast public resources into moving people from one place to another without addressing the underlying problem. In contrast to criminalization, housing solves houselessness. Policies that have proven effective include the development of affordable housing—with services for those who need them—preserving existing tenancies and providing government subsidies that help people maintain their housing. This report takes an in-depth look at houselessness in Los Angeles and at city policies towards unhoused people in recent years, with reference to historical practices. It looks at criminalization enforced by police and the sanitation department and explores how homeless services agencies and the interim housing and shelter systems sometimes support and cover for that criminalization. The report features the perspectives of people with lived experience on the streets and have directly experienced criminalization in all its forms. Human Rights Watch spoke to over 100 unhoused or formerly unhoused people, whose stories and insights inform every aspect of this report. The report features analysis of data obtained from various city agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Los Angeles Department of Sanitation (LASAN), Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), and the Mayor’s office, that exposes the extent and futility of policies of criminalization. The report looks at the underlying causes of Los Angeles’ large scale houselessness, primarily the lack of affordable housing. It explains how racist policies over the decades have created a houselessness crisis in the Black community. The report also discusses the proven effectiveness of preserving and providing housing as a solution to houselessness, including examples of people who faced criminalization on the streets and whose lives have dramatically improved once housed. Finally, the report makes recommendations for policies that end criminalization and that move towards solving the crisis and realizing the international human right to housing in Los Angeles.

New York; HRW, 2024. 344p.

By Tambini Stollwerck EA, Sarikaya I, Yen K, Friederich H-Christoph, Nikendei C

Torture seeks to undermine not only the physical and emotional well-being of an individual, but to damage the coherence of entire communities. Thus, torture and state repression are used to weaken entire subpopulations. After the failed coup d’état in Türkiye in 2016 and during the subsequently following state of emergency that lasted until 2018, allegations of torture and other degrading treatment in Türkiye spread widely. Since then, the number of asylum-seekers in Germany has risen considerably. This paper analyses the reports of twenty Turkish citizens that fled to Germany to seek asylum in the aftermath of the events. In semi-structured interviews held in Turkish, we assessed the experiences of torture and state repression, psychological consequences, and the current well-being and living situation. All interviewees described illicit violence of state authorities and government supporters, especially while under arrest. Though the methods varied, there was a constant pattern of imbalance of power. The psychological impact of these methods were present after relocation to Germany and included signs of PTSD, anxiety disorders, and major depression. The reports of torture, state repression, and their psychological impact emphasise the importance for policy makers to address the prevention of human rights violations and support the needs of survivors.

PLOS Glob Public Health 4(7): e0002561.2024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pgph.0002561

By Rebecca Gambler, United States, Government Accountability Office

ICE, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. Citing limited resources, ICE states that it cannot respond to all immigration violations or act on all persons determined to be removable from the U.S. It therefore prioritizes its enforcement actions. GAO was asked to review ICE immigration enforcement priorities. This report examines, among other things, (1) ICE data on immigration enforcement actions from 2019 through 2022, and the extent to which ICE is reporting data on all immigration detentions; (2) ICE’s implementation of immigration enforcement policies; and (3) ICE data on detentions of select vulnerable populations. GAO analyzed ICE enforcement action data for calendar years 2019 through 2022 (2022 being the most recent year that data were available). GAO also reviewed ICE policies and procedures, and interviewed agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is recommending that ICE publicly report (1) data on all detentions of individuals in ICE detention facilities, and (2) its explanation of the methodology used to report detention statistics. DHS did not concur with the recommendations, stating ICE already reports sufficient information. GAO continues to believe ICE should report complete and transparent information on its annual detentions

Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office 2024. 61p.

By Lucia Bird

Efforts to counter the COVID-19 pandemic have seen unprecedented restrictions on movement being imposed in many countries, both at borders and within countries. Some communities and policymakers have adopted increasingly hostile attitudes towards migrants, whom they perceive as contagion risks. Barriers to movement are therefore not only state-imposed but can also be community led.

While these measures are reducing migration and the smuggling business in many regions in the short term, they are also heightening migrant-protection risks.

Such measures are also likely to swell the profits of the smuggling industry in the medium term. COVID-19, and the measures introduced to control it are likely to increase the drivers for movement; the vulnerability of migrants at any point in their journey; the militarization of borders; and the further reduction of safe and legal routes.

As the policy environment becomes more hostile to migration, the operating risks and prices of smuggling look set to rise. This may drive out operators with a lower risk appetite and attract organized-crime groups, who are more likely to exploit migrants for ever greater profit.

To avoid emerging into a post-pandemic landscape characterized by a dramatically more severe migrant crisis and a more lucrative and professionalized smuggling market controlled by organized crime, it is key to monitor and mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on migrants and refugees throughout the pandemic.

Geneva: Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2020. 34p.

By Brandon L. Garrett

Immigration laws are not just criminally enforced against individuals, but also corporations. For individuals, “crimmigration” is pervasive, as federal immigration prosecutions are a mass phenomenon. More than a third of the federal criminal docket—nearly 40,000 cases each year—con sists of prosecutions of persons charged with violations of immigration rules. In contrast, prosecutors rarely charge corporations, which are required to verify the citizenship status of employees. This Article sheds light on this unexplored area of corporate criminal law, including by presenting new empirical data. In the early 2000s, corporate immigration enforcement for the first time increased in prominence. During the Obama Administration, this trend accelerated, with a total of 101 corporate immigration prosecutions brought, and record penalties imposed. Under the Trump Administration so far, however, there have been just seven corporate immigration prosecutions, and the only large cases have been legacy matters from the prior Administration. This Article does not suggest that workplace immigration screening and enforcement, much less criminal enforcement, is desirable. Instead, this Article explores how corporate charging dynamics may exacerbate tensions inherent in criminalizing immigration in the workplace. This Article contrasts the mass prosecution of individuals, under strict zero-tolerance rules, with the leniency-oriented approach towards firms that carefully considers collateral consequences, to shed light on internally conflicted federal policy at the intersection of corporate and immigration law. Now that the federal criminal dockets have become dominated by immigration enforcement, the problem of “corporate crimmigration” deserves more urgent attention.

360 I. II. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS [Vol. 2021]

By Jo Spangaro, Nigel Spence, Jacqui Cameron, Kelsey Hegarty, et al.

Around one third of refugee women in Australia are estimated to have experienced domestic violence (DV) and many face multiple post-migration challenges. Universal screening for domestic violence, and response, is recommended for women in priority populations and has been implemented in health services across diverse jurisdictions. Universal screening for domestic violence involves asking all women a small number of standardised and validated questions about experiences of violence at home. Asking women directly about experiences of abuse increases disclosure and creates opportunity for supportive intervention. However, this is untested with refugee women accessing settlement services.

The Safety and Health after Arrival (SAHAR) study introduced and evaluated a culturally tailored DV identification and response strategy with women accessing five refugee settlement services in NSW, Australia, four in the greater Sydney area and one regional NSW site.

This report finds the SAHAR intervention was effectively implemented by the settlement service providers. The relatively high disclosure rate, and high levels of acceptance of the intervention with both refugee women and settlement staff, demonstrate the feasibility of culturally tailored, universal DV screening and response in settlement services. Successful implementation of DV screening and response requires: planning and preparation, organisational commitment, training, translated tools and resources, staff support during implementation, guidelines and referral protocols.

Wollongong, AUS: University of Wollongong 2024. 34p.

By Marie Segrave, Shih Joo Tan, Rebecca Wickes, Chloe Keel, Nuria Alarcón Lopez

This report presents the findings of research on migrant and refugee women’s attitudes about, experiences of and responses to workplace sexual harassment, highlighting the complexity of what it means to be “safe” at work and illustrating the ways in which sexual harassment intersects with other forms of workplace harms, such as racial discrimination and exploitative work conditions.

Disempowerment and power imbalances, such as those related to race, gender, disability or sexuality, can amplify the impacts of workplace sexual harassment; despite this, little evidence exists to guide government and employers in preventing and addressing the specific harms of workplace sexual harassment for migrant and refugee women.

The first report from this project, released in 2023, surveyed 701 women who identified as migrant or refugee and found that 46 per cent of respondents had experienced workplace sexual harassment. This final report from the project brings together the survey data with the qualitative phase of the study. While the findings from this report are not generalisable, they offer important insights into migrant and refugee women’s experiences of safety in the workplace.

Key practice and policy recommendations

Reduce siloing of different policy areas that seek to address various forms of workplace harm for migrant and refugee women

Evaluate, redevelop and better align the existing reporting mechanisms that respond to aspects of unsafe or exploitative work practices

Invest in safe work services external to employers that can ensure culturally responsive approaches for working women in every state and territory.

Emphasise proactive and transparent action in response to workplace sexual harassment that ensures women can remain employed and their career progression unimpacted

Extend exit interviews and complaints timelines to capture longer periods following cessation of employment so that women have the opportunity to report once they feel safe in another job or have citizenship or permanent residency.

Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's SafetyANROWS, 2024.