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 Daniel Drewski and Jürgen Gerhards

Across the world, the number of people forcibly displaced from their homes has more than doubled during the last decade. Although international law does not allow states to turn back refugees, some countries close their borders to refugees, some open their borders and grant extensive protection, while others admit some groups of refugees while excluding others. How can we make sense of these different responses to admitting refugees? In this book, Daniel Drewski and Jürgen Gerhards show that governments' refugee policy, as well as the stance adopted by opposition parties on the issue, is heavily dependent on how they frame their country's collective identity on the one hand and the identity and characteristics of the refugees on the other. By defining the "we" and the "others", politicians draw on collectively shared cultural repertoires, which vary by country and by political constituency within a country. The book is based on a discourse analysis of parliamentary debates. It explores the specific framing of nations' identities and the corresponding perceptions of otherness by focusing on six countries that have been confronted with large numbers of refugees: Germany, Poland, and Turkey, all responding to the exodus of Syrian and Middle Eastern refugees; Chile's reaction to the Venezuelan displacement; Singapore and its stance towards Rohingya refugees; and Uganda's response to the displacement from South Sudan. The study explores not only differences between governments of different countries but also the conflicting views of different political parties within the same country.

Oxford, UK; New York: Oxford University Press,  2024.  321p.

Edited by Angela Di Stasi, Ida Caracciolo, Giovanni Cellamare, Pietro Gargiulo

This book discusses existing and future trends concerning the development of migratory policies between local and global levels, to understand the challenges and gaps in the protection of migrants. The collection explores international migration and its impact on sovereignty, international cooperation, security, and human rights. In particular, it takes into account the composite framework of international and national rules, and the role of judicial and monitoring bodies in protecting the rights of migrants, with the aim of assessing the state of the art, identifying the gaps, and formulating possible remedies. The work of some international organizations such as the UN and its specialized agencies and the European Union is investigated, together with a set of regional practices such as those of Latin America and South-East Asia, and countries, such as Mexico, Georgia, Tunisia, Italy, and the United States. The issues of the fundamental rights of migrants in the European legal order are also addressed, including the emerging scenarios related to recent crises like the one generated by the war in Ukraine. This timely collection will be essential reading for academics, researchers, and policy-makers working in the areas of Migration Law, Asylum and Refugee Law, International Law, International Organizations, EU Law, International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law, Comparative Law and Socio-Legal Studies.

London; New York: Routledge, 2025. 705p.

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.

Crisis Group Latin America Briefing N°51  

What’s new? Across the region where Brazil, Colombia, and Peru meet deep in the Amazon, an assortment of criminal organizations are exploiting the feeble reach of states, abundance of natural resources, and poverty of local communities to grow, diversify, and hatch new cross-border ventures. Why does it matter? Surging cocaine production in Peru and the spread of other rackets like gold dredging and illicit logging threaten Indigenous ways of life, spur deadly violence, and harm the environment. Should these criminal ventures go unchecked, they could undermine the already tenuous state control of the world’s largest rainforest. What should be done? Following up on promises made in 2023, the three countries should bolster security cooperation and harness foreign assistance with a view to prosecuting and sanctioning those responsible for environmental crimes. Support for law-abiding livelihoods and stronger collaboration with Indigenous communities at the front lines of criminal expansion are vital.

  Bogota/Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2024.    28p.

By James Robertson

There is evidence suggesting that a large part of the British public has a relatively narrow view of modern slavery, why it's happening, where it's happening, and who’s involved. This view shapes perspectives on what should be done about modern slavery, which tend to focus on punishing the perpetrators and supporting those at risk to better avoid exploitation, whilst leaving out how systemic drivers create the conditions that cultivate and sustain exploitation. There is also growing evidence that language used to describe modern slavery is not accepted by some people with lived experience. The project aimed to identify frames and narratives that would be more effective in increasing the understanding of modern slavery by the British public, enabling a more evidence-based and survivor-informed public debate, and developing language in collaboration with survivors that resonates with survivors of modern slavery in the UK.

Methods: The project first carried out desk-based research to gain an understanding of public perceptions of modern slavery and issues around the framing of modern slavery in the public debate. It then organized a workshop with people with lived experience to identify what they wanted the public to understand about modern slavery and what language should be used. The project developed messages and tested them in three focus groups with members of the British public, led by a research company (Survation). It then brought back experts by experience together to gather their views on the messages and the questions raised by the focus groups.

Key findings:

Drama triangle dominates the narrative on modern slavery – and masks the complexity of it

Modern slavery is often framed in a way that evokes the relationships in the so-called drama triangle, in which the government (the hero) is cracking down on the villains (evil gangs of people smugglers) who are kidnapping the victims of (women from overseas) who are being sexually exploited. The government (the heroes) are doing their best to rescue these ‘slaves’ (victims). The drama triangle masks the breadth and complexity of modern slavery.

The public has a broader understanding of modern slavery but the drama triangle shapes the primary associations.

On the whole, the British public’s understanding of modern slavery is somewhat broader and more nuanced than the common media narrative outlined above. However, the dominant associations do tend to align with the media narratives, that while modern slavery happens in the UK, it primarily affects people trafficked to this country by gangs into exploitation behind closed doors.

Outlining how specific policies increase the risk of exploitation can help reduce the blame placed on individuals

Outlining how policy choices made by the government create conditions that put people at risk can shift the emphasis toward the structural drivers of modern slavery and set up a conversation around how policy change is part of the solution. The more specific the messages were about both the policy problem and the policy solution, the more receptive the public was to the message. However, a great deal of emphasis by the public was still placed on the characteristics of ‘vulnerable’ individuals and the need for them to change; to ‘be more educated’ and ‘to know what to look out’ for.

Dominant narratives around immigration and crime shape understandings and attitudes to modern slavery

By far the most powerful narrative that seemed to block or get in the way of shifting blame away from survivors as if they are ‘illegal migrants’. Even if the public was sympathetic to how ‘desperate’ their situation was and how much they disagreed with the government’s immigration or labor policies, some expressed that people were ‘complicit’ with their exploitation because they broke the law either entering or once in the UK.

Evoking empathy can help shift public attitudes toward modern slavery

The research suggests that using shared values and simple, relatable language to evoke empathy with people experiencing trafficking can be used to disrupt or temporarily dislodge the blocking narrative around ‘illegal migration’. For example, a message that opened with the shared value of “No matter who you are or where you're from, wanting to guarantee the health and well-being of your family is as ordinary as breathing” before asking the public to “imagine if you worked non-stop and still couldn't afford to send your child to school or get your mum the medical help she needs”, was well received by the focus groups, shifting blame away from survivors, as it built empathy for people whose circumstances necessitated making some very difficult choices.

The term ‘victim’ evokes pity - not empathy - amongst the public and is disempowering for people with lived experience

The terms used to describe people who’ve experienced exploitation seemed to have an effect on the empathy the public felt towards survivors and their attitudes towards their role in tackling modern slavery. Amongst the public, ‘victim’ evoked sympathy rather than empathy, whereas ‘survivor’ evoked respect for the individual's strength and resilience. ‘Person with lived experience’ elicited that such a person had a role in leading change. This correlated with the preferences of people with lived experience who found the term ‘victim’ disempowering and warned that the term ‘survivor’ can be gendered and associated with particular forms of exploitation (particularly sexual exploitation) and an obligation to share traumatic stories.

Modern slavery is not a neutral frame

It is important to keep in mind that ‘modern slavery’ is in itself a frame, a metaphor likening multiple contemporary forms of exploitation to the transatlantic slave trade and triggering an association with the commonly used drama triangle.

This frame has been used by the government since before the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act to cast itself in a particular light and in doing so helped to obscure a more complex picture of the issue, including the impact of a “hostile environment” for migrants, which put people at greater risk of exploitation.

Communicators seeking to fill the gaps around the public's understanding of modern slavery must be mindful of this and act accordingly. This may not mean abandoning the term modern slavery altogether, but it does mean understanding that it is not a neutral frame.

2024. 36p.

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 Naomi Schaefer Riley and Rafael A. Mangual

Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. die of maltreatment—and, in most of these cases, the child’s family is known to child welfare or law enforcement before the fatal incidents. Most Americans agree that the main goal of the child welfare system should be to prevent these tragedies—by closing the gaps that lead to children being left in the custody of guardians who abuse and neglect them. Balancing the safety and well-being of children with the rights of parents is no easy feat. A nationally representative poll conducted last year by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) shows that the public is sensitive to this tension: a majority (58%) favored parents’ authority to raise their children as they see fit, over the government’s authority to intervene—but nearly the same percentage of respondents (57%) did not believe that the child welfare system is engaged in government overreach. Alarmingly, a small group of increasingly vocal activists are trying to upset this balance by pushing a radical policy agenda that would all but eliminate the government’s role in child protection. Not only is this agenda wholly incongruous with the broader American public’s views regarding the appropriate scope of child welfare systems; it also undermines the well-being of at-risk children across the country. Illustrative of this broader push to weaken, if not wholly abolish, the child welfare system is a recent report issued by the New York Advisory Committee (NYSAC) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “Examining New York Child Welfare System and Its Impact on Black Children and Families.” One of the coauthors of this brief, Rafael Mangual, resigned from NYSAC in April 2024—after serving nearly four years on the committee—ahead of its final vote to approve its report on child welfare.

The NYSAC report offers a litany of policy recommendations that would make it more difficult for child abuse and neglect to be reported and investigated. The report calls for a “new paradigm of child welfare” that deemphasizes “reporting, investigating, surveillance, and family separation,” and it recommends that “federal, State and Local government offices and agencies” enact “legislation, policies and practices” prohibiting “the conflation of the consequences of poverty [including ‘parental/pregnancy substance use’] with child maltreatment” (emphasis added). The report also calls for federal law to be amended to:

• Eliminate or severely restrict mandatory and anonymous reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect

• Make it easier for convicted felons to become foster parents

Revise the definition of neglect to exclude parental drug abuse (including while pregnant) And for New York State law to be amended to:

• Prohibit routine drug screenings of pregnant women and newborns

• Establish a universal basic income

NYSAC’s proposals are ultimately premised on three false claims about the child welfare system: (1) what is often termed child neglect is often a consequence of poverty, which cannot justify traditional child welfare interventions; (2) parental drug abuse is an inadequate reason for intervention; and (3) racial disparities in child welfare enforcement in NY prove that the system is characterized by unlawful discrimination—particularly against black families. This issue brief provides an overview of the child welfare system’s central role, responds to each of these three claims, and highlights the dangers invited by the recommendations made in the NYSAC report.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2024. 10p.

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 Nancy Foner

A comparative analysis of the U.S.'s contemporary immigrants to those who arrived a century ago. According to the 2000 census, more than 10% of U.S. residents were foreign-born; together with their American-born children, this group constitutes one-fifth of the nation's population. What does this mass immigration mean for America? Leading immigration studies scholar, Nancy Foner, answers this question in her study of comparative immigration. Drawing on the rich history of American immigrants and current statistical and ethnographic data, In a New Land compares today’s new immigrants with the past influxes of Europeans to the United States and across cities and regions within the United States. Foner looks at immigration across nation-states, and over different periods, offering a comprehensive assessment and analysis. This original approach to the study of recent U.S. immigration focuses on race and ethnicity, gender, and transnational connections. Centering her analysis on the groups that have come through and significantly shaped New York City, Foner compares today’s Latin American, Asian, and Caribbean newcomers with eastern and southern European immigrants a century ago and with immigrants in other major U.S. cities. Looking beyond the United States, Foner compares West Indian immigrants in New York with those in London. And, more generally, the book views the process of immigrants’ integration in New York against other recent immigrant destinations in Europe. Drawing on a wealth of historical and contemporary research, and written in a clear and lively style, In a New Land provides fresh insights into the dynamics of immigration today and the implications for where we are headed in the future.

New York: NYU Press, 2005.

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.

By Thomas Mareite

While the literature on slave flight in nineteenth-century North America has commonly focused on fugitive slaves escaping to the U.S. North and Canada, Conditional Freedom provides new insights on the social and political geography of freedom and slavery in nineteenth-century North America by exploring the development of southern routes of escape from slavery in the U.S. South and the experiences of self-emancipated slaves in the U.S.–Mexico borderlands. In Conditional Freedom, Thomas Mareite offers a social history of U.S. refugees from slavery and provides a political history of the clash between Mexican free soil and the spread of slavery west of the Mississippi Valley during the nineteenth century.

The Hague; Boston: Brill, 2022. 

By Kent A. Ono and Michael G. Lacy

According to many pundits and cultural commentators, the U.S. is enjoying a post-racial age, thanks in part to Barack Obama's rise to the presidency. This high gloss of optimism fails, however, to recognize that racism remains ever present and alive, spread by channels of media and circulated even in colloquial speech in ways that can be difficult to analyze. In this groundbreaking collection edited by Michael G. Lacy and Kent A. Ono, scholars seek to examine this complicated and contradictory terrain while moving the field of communication in a more intellectually productive direction. An outstanding group of contributors from a range of academic backgrounds challenges traditional definitions and applications of rhetoric. From the troubling media representations of black looters after Hurricane Katrina and rhetoric in news coverage about the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres to cinematic representations of race in Crash, Blood Diamond, and Quentin Tarantino’s films, these essays reveal complex intersections and constructions of racialized bodies and discourses, critiquing race in innovative and exciting ways. Critical Rhetorics of Race seeks not only to understand and navigate a world fraught with racism, but to change it, one word at a time.

New York: NYU Press, 2011.

By Darder, Antonia and Torres, Rodolfo D.

After Race pushes us beyond the old "race vs. class" debates to delve deeper into the structural conditions that spawn racism. Darder and Torres place the study of racism forthrightly within the context of contemporary capitalism. While agreeing with those who have argued that the concept of "race" does not have biological validity, they go further to insist that the concept also holds little political, symbolic, or descriptive value when employed in social science and policy research. Darder and Torres argue for the need to jettison the concept of "race," while calling adamantly for the critical study of racism. They maintain that an understanding of structural class inequality is fundamentally germane to comprehending the growing significance of racism in capitalist America.

New York: NYU Press, 2004.