The Immigration Issue in the United States: A Literature Review and Policy Implications

Introduction

Immigration and crime have recently become a hot topic in the United States and politicians have been routinely discussing the issue in public forums with flimsy statistics or wayward agendas that do not depict the circumstances realistically (Greene, 2018; Heyer, 2018; Valverde, 2019).  More specifically, the issue of immigration and crime has been used as a political utility and many postulations are centered on acquiring support in order to retain public office or political authority (Crawford, 2017; Fryberg et al., 2011; Jacobs, 2019; Valverde, 2019).  Not many discussions are made that present the hosts of crimes that are associated with immigration, the reasons that they occur, the laws that guide immigration and penalties for when immigrants are found guilty of criminal activity, and the characteristics of immigrant-based crime victims or the full breadth of the accusations.  Given this, is it necessary for the social science community to produce materials that depict the full breadth of the immigration and crime issue. 

Thus, this paper will present the immigration policies in the United States that guide legal intervention, causations for immigration and criminal activities, this author’s position on the issue, a literature review of the subject, and policy implications.  The policy implications for this paper will be based on the previous literature on the subject and the current policies that are in place.  That is, after the literature review and facts are fully presented, this author will disclose policy implications that better the immigration and crime issue in the United States and elsewhere. 

Description of Policy

The current policy on immigration and crime control is best described as an entanglement of the use of detainment, deportation laws, and the basic understandings of felonies and misdemeanors in the United States.  Difficulties in describing the exact policy arise because of the large volume of laws, responsibilities of law enforcement agencies, augmentations that have been made throughout the many years since its inception, and the separation between state and federal regulations.  With this being stated, it should be noted that the immigration and crime control policies in this country are mostly conveyed through a political lens (Oliverio, 2018; Philbins, Flake, Hatzenbuehler, & Hirsch, 2018).  That is, the states that have a zero-tolerance policy mostly have a conservative affiliation; whereas the states that are more lenient toward crime control policies and immigration issues mostly have a liberal association (Oliverio, 2018; Philbins et al., 2018). 

Regarding the federal system, again, the immigration and crime control policies are typically guided by the political relationship that the executive branch of government has (Oliverio, 2018; Philbins et al., 2018).  Even with the sovereignty of states from the federal legal system, there is an authority in the federal system that dictates how states of the union operate their legal system when it comes to crime and immigration-related issues (Oliverio, 2018; Philbins et al., 2018).  Currently, the federal policy for immigration and crime is a zero-tolerance exertion (Greene, 2018; Kopels, 2018; Philbins et al., 2018).  Problems have arisen because of the aforementioned separation between state and federal legal systems and political division in the United States.  Yet, and again, the current authority of the federal legal system is a zero-tolerance policy toward immigration and unlawful behaviors by legal and illegal foreigners (Greene, 2018; Kopels, 2018; Philbins et al., 2018). 

This Author’s Position on the Immigration and Crime Policy in the United States

           

                 Legal separation, political division, and lack of international communication are the primary culprits for having such a complex and confusing immigration and crime control policy in the United States (Greene, 2018; Kopels, 2018; Oliverio, 2018; Philbins et al., 2018).  This can be eliminated by producing an agenda on a national and international level that is not overzealous and incorporates human rights concerns with its crime control methods.  This includes the procedures associated with unlawful entries into the United States.  With this being stated, this author supports some of the elements of the current immigration and crime control policies in the United States, but disagrees with overly strict decisions to not let immigrants to return to the country after some crimes of conviction – especially for low-level offenders – and believes that routine domestic and international communication and assistance processes would greatly improve the current immigration policies in the United States and elsewhere.   

 Specifics of International and Domestic Assistance

            Part of the domestic policy on immigration and crime should encompass international alliances that assist countries that have issues with poverty and migrations toward more affluent nations.  Global renditions of assistance would decrease the flux of legal and illegal immigration as well as make poorer nations more stable and livable for its citizens.  Allocations for better housing, food programs, employment building and training, healthcare advances, transportation, and education would also allow the wealthier nations to produce a positive imagery for themselves and even create better relationships that, in turn, can return assistance for themselves and additional countries.  All of this could be done by creating enhanced funding programs in the United Nations and European Union, as well as establishing similar organizations throughout the entire world.

Legally Admitted Immigrants in the United States

Explaining more, and starting with immigrants who are lawfully in the United States, criminal justice procedures ought to be configured in the same fashion that American citizens undergo with the exception to serious crimes of violence.  For instance, immigrants who have been found guilty of seriously heinous crimes and are not a naturalized citizen should have an administration of justice that all other civilians undergo and then be deported to their place of origin after their sanctions are served.  Readmittance into the United States should only be done for brief professional situations, extreme personal reasons (familial and health issues), or if the individual has successfully proven adequate rehabilitation that proves that no threat to the public is imminent.  Moreover, the professional situations, extreme personal reasons, and rehabilitation endeavors should encompass a vetting procedure to ensure the validity of the requested admittance and if an immigrant is readmitted into the United States their whereabouts should be monitored by law enforcement officials until it is determined that no safety issues are apparent.  Lawful foreigners who are found guilty of minor offenses (misdemeanors and violations) should be given the same administration of justice as citizens in the United States and then be judicially evaluated to determine if their presence in the country poses any risks to the public.  The ratio of their time in the United States and problematic behaviors should be the principle method used to determine deportation and other severe administrations of justice.   

Unlawfully Entered Immigrants in the United States   

    

            Discussing the policies about immigrants who illegally enter the United States is a sensitive subject and requires international communication, coupled with constant assistance, and compassionate discourses in many cases to deal with immigration in general and crime control methods.  Specifically, there is a two-part understanding to immigration and crime control in this aspect of the policy.  That is, and first, there are many individuals who enter or attempt to enter the United States because of their desperation to live a better lifestyle.  Second, there are also many individuals who attempt to enter and do enter the United States for the sole purpose to engage in criminal activities. 

Starting with people who enter the United States out of desperation, criminalizing unlawful entry or attempted entry when individuals are seeking a more fulfilling lifestyle for themselves and their families, and resorting to immediate detainment and deportation for those who have committed a crime while in the country illegally, is an awful demonstration of governmental efforts and, in turn, displays callous human behaviors.  Of course, this depends on the type of criminality that is undergone by the individual.  Nonetheless, individuals who travel to the borders or somehow make it into the United States and are attempting to live a better lifestyle should be dealt with in a compassionate manner.  Currently, the United States has a threshold of how many immigrants are allowed into the country on an annual basis.  The excess of people who are unable to go through the legal channels can still be dealt with in a manner that allows for prosperity.  This can be done through the previously mentioned international and domestic agendas.  For example, better approaches to assisting countries and their citizens can be done through a collaborated effort between all nation-states and not only the United States.  Better assistance via housing, employment, educational and vocational training, and healthcare can be delivered through conjoined efforts of monetary and organizational assistance from all countries.  Doing so would greatly decrease the flux of migrants who travel to the United States and other countries to seek a better standard of living. 

Regarding individuals who enter the country unlawfully and are convicted of a criminal offense – other than simply attempting to enter or have entered the country illegally – the same administrations of justice that all others receive in the United States should be undergone and the seriousness of the offense should be judicially evaluated.  More precisely, if the instant offense is especially heinous then deportation and sanctions ought to be delivered wholeheartedly, but if the offense is not considered to be extremely atrocious and the offender is sincerely seeking more affluent living via lawful means, then the aforementioned international and domestic assistance should be initiated.  This assistance depends on the individual’s needs and specific functions ought to be delivered for the sanctity of humanity and respect for the law.   

Turning to those who are deliberately attempting to enter and are entering the United States to solely participate in criminal activities, there is no justifiable reason why these individuals should be allowed in the United States or be given clemency regarding naturalization.  It should be noted that this does not include the offense of only unlawfully entering the United States.  More specifically, those who offer no positive contribution to society should not be allowed entry and immediately removed to their place of origin when discovered and after judicial sanctions are met.  Rather than immediate deportation after conviction, a sanction from a court of law should be served in order to promote respect for the law.  The class of offense should not have any impact on the law enforcement toward this stance.      

Literature Review

            

               Social science has shown that less political division and collaborated efforts that address the immigration-crime link are effective in decreasing social hostility about the subject, as well as decreases the levels of unlawful behaviors related to immigration altogether (Cavallero, 2006; Chacón, 2010; Dudai, 2017; Ponce & Archila, 2017).  In addition to this, research has also shown that when there is a commitment toward compassionate discourses that individuals are more likely to stay in their places of origin and even help develop their communities.  Oberman (2015) confirms these notions through his examination of previous studies on immigration-related issues.  Specifically, he alludes to the idea that better assistance in countries that have large migration populations would not only better the individuals who are flocking to more affluent nations, but also allow richer nations to fulfill their duties that many political theorists and human rights advocates have claimed are necessary and desired (Oberman, 2015, pp. 240-247).  Moreover, he claims that less strict immigration policies would decrease many of the social stressors that are known to cause crime and that migration itself is a basic human right that, if allowed, would bring positive benefits to society – including in crime control policies (Oberman, 2015, pp. 240-247).

            Moreover, other studies on the subject have postulated that when there are collaborated efforts put toward assisting immigrants on a domestic and international level that the legal system becomes less burdened and law enforcers are able to identify those who are engaging in criminal activities easier.  Studies that have presented policies about helping others who are seeking a better standard of living have shown that there are not only better methods of law enforcement undergone, but also frees up government institutions to focus on other important issues and the decrease in the amount of money spent on this issue goes toward improvements in other facets of society.  Of this, public officials are perceived in a positive fashion and less distrust toward governmental functions occurs when more humanistic policies are intertwined in the immigration-crime administration of law, which, in turn, causes positive mental attitudes to permeate.  In contrast, when harsh policies are commenced many civilians tend to distrust their government institutions and have more negative emotions.  Cruz Nichols, LeBrón, and Pedrazza (2018) confirmed these ideations.  Specifically, the authors stated:

"The findings reported here suggest that immigrant policing is cross-sectionally associated with trust, with important variations by race and ethnicity. Specifically, U.S.-born and immigrant Latinos who live in counties where immigrant policing under the SComm program is the most intense are less likely to trust health information from government agencies than their Latino counterparts living in counties with lower levels of immigrant policing. By contrast, in general immigrant policing does not appear to be associated with the judgments of Blacks, Asians, and whites toward health information from the government. Importantly, this study shows that for Latinos, immigrant policing is associated with trust in government beyond the policy’s target population or targeted policy scope." (p. 440)

     

Although the study presents findings of distrust toward the Hispanic/Latino population, the concept can be applied in a broader fashion to citizens’ and to other non-citizens’ trust in public institutions and its practitioners.  Nonetheless, the fact remains that the current United States immigration and crime control policy mostly targets the Hispanic/Latino community more so than other races and ethnicities.  With this being stated, White (2016) found that stern immigration policies “…can have a far-reaching and unexpected political implications, and suggest that the current immigration debate may have major consequences for the future makeup of the American electorate” (p. 355).  These findings bring merit to the notion that public trust in general – and not only with the Latino/Hispanic community – are affected when strict immigration policies are created and enforced.       

   

Results in studies on the immigration and crime subject also infer that law enforcement officers’ safety is at stake when zero-tolerance agendas and lack of assistance are apparent as well (Epstein & Goff, 2011; Kirk, Papachristos, Fagan, & Tyler, 2012; Mamma & Spandidos, 2019; Nyugen & Gill, 2015; Office of Inspector General, 2018; Olsen, 2017).  That is, research has shown that strict policies and a lack of compassionate collective efficacy toward the immigration-crime link contribute to more dangerous experiences and injuries while on the job for law enforcers (Epstein & Goff, 2011; Kirk et al., 2012; Mamma & Spandidos, 2019; Nyugen & Gill, 2015; Office of Inspector general, 2018; Olsen, 2017).  In other words, because there are aggressive law enforcement tactics, the amount of immigration and crime incidents increase and, in turn, the negative emotions that are abundant because of the zero-tolerance issues cause more dangerous situations for law enforcement personnel (Epstein & Goff, 2011; Kirk et al., 2012; Mamma & Spandidos, 2019; Nyugen & Gill, 2015; Office of Inspector General, 2018; Olsen, 2017).  In addition to this, the research on the subject has also shown that more deaths and serious injuries occur when there is a zero-tolerance policy and lack of compassionate discourses toward immigrants of either low-level criminal status or for those who are attempting to seek asylum (Androff & Tavassoli, 2012; Durkin, 2018; Granski & Keller, 2015; Kerwin, 2018; Venters, Dasch-Goldberg, Rasmussen, & Keller, 2009). 

Other facets of society are burdened because of strict immigration and crime control policies.  That is, medical services are forced to deal with healthcare issues that could have been avoided, social skillsets are difficult to progress, families of law enforcers and others are negatively impacted, and the aggressive law enforcement tactics transition into Eighth Amendment rights violations, which, in turn, cause quality-of-life issues in detention facilities and, again, unnecessary deaths (Office of Inspector General, 2018; United States Customs and Border Protection, 2018).  Abrego, Coleman, Martínez, Menjívar, and Slack (2017) validate the above-mentioned collateral harms.  Particularly, the scholars found that the zero-tolerance policy on immigration and crime in the United States exacerbates the hardships that social service agencies deal with because of the individuals who are targeted and, in most cases, have the same or similar social barriers of criminal offenders who are legally permitted to be in the United States (Abrego, Coleman, Martínez, Menjívar, & Slack, 2017, pp. 704-708).    

Turning to the collateral effects of zero-tolerance policies for individuals who are traveling to the United States to solely engage in criminal activities, American taxpayers are paying the bill for extensive administrations of law (Andreas & Nadelmann, 2006; National Immigration Forum, 2018; Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012; United States Department of Justice, 2018; Valverde, 2018).  That is, lengthy court processes and harboring serious immigrant-criminals in our jails and prisons along with non-serious offenders is costing taxpayers a lot of money and hindering the growth of other parts of society (Andreas & Nadelmann, 2006; National Immigration Forum, 2018; Orrenius & Zavodny, 2012; United States Department of Justice, 2018; Valverde, 2018).  Again, studies have shown that when domestic and international assistance is undergone, and less political division exists, that the criminal justice system benefits in general and specifically in the immigration applications of law (Cavallero, 2006; Chacón, 2010; Glaeser & Ward, 2006; Oberman, 2011; Ponce & Archila, 2017; Wood, 2018; Wozniak, 2016).  More precisely, policies that target those who only have criminal intentions in the United States alleviates the burdens with detaining indigent immigrants who have lawfully and unlawfully entered the country, or are attempting to, and the only criminal law violation is the illicit entry or attempted entry (Cavallero, 2006; Chacón, 2010; Glaeser & Ward, 2006; Oberman, 2011; Ponce & Archila, 2017; Wood, 2018; Wozniak, 2016).  Research has inferred that if this were to be undergone that more time could be focused on individuals who are ill-willed and immigration detention and correctional facilities could be reserved for those who are truly a threat to the public, which means less money spent and less resources expended (Cavallero, 2006; Chacón, 2010; Glaeser & Ward, 2006; Oberman, 2011; Ponce & Archila, 2017; Wood, 2018; Wozniak, 2016).  As above-mentioned, this would also free-up the strain on courts and the Department of State and its ancillary components (Greene, 2018; Sacchetti, 2017). 

A secondary aspect arises in the research because of the above-mentioned findings.  That is, research has shown that if immigration and crime control policies implemented a wholehearted effort to capture those who are coming to the United States to commit crimes then the perception toward law enforcers – especially those who specialize in immigration and border patrol – would be more positive because of an approach that targets individuals who are actually criminals and have no good intentions while in the United States (Cruz Nichols et al., 2018; Treyger, Chalfin, & Loeffler, 2014).  In other words, researchers have inferred that a positive frame of mind could come about in many individuals and, in turn, develop a respect for the immigration laws, people who enforce them, as well as respect for differences in cultures and human beings when more compassionate discourses are dispensed (Cruz Nichols et al., 2018; Treyger et al., 2014).  

Affirmation of Position and Implications

             

              Once more, this author supports some of the immigration and crime control policies that are already set into place, such as strict law enforcement and deportation methods toward those who are entering, or attempting to enter the United States, to only engage in criminal activities.  Regarding those who are legally permitted to be in the United States and are convicted of a criminal offense, their behavior ought to be judicially evaluated with a rate of problematic behavior and time in the country ratio so that the public can be reassured about the criminal justice system’s respect for their safety.  If an immigrant does not pose a serious risk to the public, and is attempting to be naturalized, then there should be assistance given so that the individual can prosper and assimilate to the culture in the United States.  Research has shown that an approach like the above-mentioned allows civilians to respect the law and the differences in human beings, as well as recognize that mistakes can be made and that severe administrations of justice are not always in the best interest of society (Abrego et al., 2017; Cavallero, 2006; Cruz Nichols et al., 2018).  More specifically, producing kind-hearted assistance to those who pose no risk to the public transitions into a worldly perception that encompasses notions about proper understandings of human rights (Abrego et al., 2017; Cavallero, 2006; Cruz Nichols et al., 2018).  These internal and external perceptions also allow for the growth of the aforementioned international and domestic assistance, which, again, research has shown that such understandings decrease the levels of migrations and allows individuals to remain in their places of origin and help in developing their communities (Abrego et al., 2017; Cavallero, 2006; Cruz Nichols et al., 2018). 

            Elaborating more on the international and domestic assistance element, research has also shown that such efforts decrease the amount of political division that guides the immigration and crime control policies in the United States and elsewhere (Dudai, 2017; Loyd, Burridge, & Mitchelson, 2009-2010, Oberman, 2011, 2015).  Specifically, when collaborated efforts are undergone to address the underlying issues for immigration it typically allows governmental bodies to be respected and trusted by its citizens and decreases hostility between nation-states and individuals.  In other words, rather than implementing a zero-tolerance policy that exerts harsh collateral effects, the conjoined efforts to assist people and countries that are dealing with large migrant populations – and other issues that cause migration – produce better governmental practices and less hostility toward issues that governmental bodies are responsible for regulating, as well as respect for human beings in general (Dudai, 2017; Loyd et al., 2009-2010, Oberman, 2011, 2015).  As previously stated, this author supports procedures of these qualities. 

            Overall, the current zero-tolerance policy immigration and crime control in the United States is overzealous and a complete mockery of human rights comprehensions and needs to be augmented to deliver better appreciations for the law, issues that cause migrations, and respect for human beings of all walks of life.  Currently, the zero-tolerance immigration policy is causing more detrimental behaviors and stunting the progress of the United States and human beings in general.  Again, research has confirmed much of this, but one only needs to look at the practices in a realistic fashion to understand the harm that is being caused by the existing policy (Dudai, 2017; Greene, 2018; Loyd et al., 2009-2010; Oberman, 2011, 2015).  That is, hatred, distrust toward governmental functions, and political divisions are the outputs of such a stringent policy and, to date, the United States is one of the leaders in producing such terrible characteristics and administrations of law (Dudai, 2017; Loyd et al., 2009-2010; Oberman, 2011, 2015).  Thus, more human rights-based changes ought to be configured in the immigration and crime control policies in the United States.  This, in turn, would also provide an example to the rest of the world that suggests that immigration policies can include applications of law enforcement and still incorporate respect for variances in cultures and assistance for those are in need.                       

References  

Abrego, L., Coleman, M., Martínez, D. E., Menjívar,C., & Slack, J.  (2017).  Making immigrants

            into criminals:  Legal processes of criminalization in the post-IIRIRA era.  Journal of

            Migration and Human Security, 5(3), 694-715. 

Andreas, P., & Nadelmann, E.  (2006).  Policing the globe:  Criminalization and crime control in

            international relations.  New York, NY:  Oxford University Press.  

Androff, D. K., & Tavassoli, K. Y.  (2012).  Deaths in the desert:  The human rights crisis on

the U.S.-Mexico Border.  Social Work, 57(2), 165-173. 

Cavallero, E.  (2006).  An immigration-pressure model of global distributive justice.  Politics,

            Philosophy & Economics, 5(1), 97-127.    

Chacón, J. M.  (2010).  A diversion of attention?  Immigration courts and the adjudication of

            fourth and fifth amendment rights.  Duke Law Journal, 59(8), 1563-1633. 

Crawford, E. R.  (2017).  When boundaries around the “secret” are tested:  A school community

response to the policing of undocumented immigrants.  Education and Urban Society,

50(2), 155-182. 

Cruz Nichols, V., LeBrón, A. M. W., & Pedrazza, F. I.  (2018).  Spillover effects:  Immigrant

policing and government skepticism in matters of health for Latinos.  Public

Administration Review, 78(3), 432-443. 

Dudai, R.  (2017).  Transitional justice as social control:  Political transitions, human rights

norms and the reclassification of the past.  The British Journal of Sociology, 69(3),

691-711. 

Durkin, E.  (2018, December 29).  The immigrants who have died in US custody in 2018.

Two Guatemalan children who died recently have shone a light on the treatment of immigrants detained by authorities.  The Guardian.  Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/29/immigrant-deaths-us-custody-felipe-gomez-alonzo-jakelin-caal.

Epstein, L. M., & Goff, P. A.  (2011).  Safety or liberty?:  The bogus trade-off of cross-

deputization policy.  Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11(1), 314-324.

Fryberg, S. A., Stephens, N. M., Covarrubias, R., Markus, H. R., Carter, E. D., Laiduc, G. A.,

            & Salido, A. J.  (2011).  How the media frames the immigration debate:  The critical

role of location and politics.  Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 12(1), 96-112.

Glaeser, E. L., & Ward, B. A.  (2006).  Myths and realities of American political geography.

            The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 119-144. 

Granski, M., & Keller, A.  (2015).  Death rates among detained immigrants in the United States.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(11), 14414-14419. 

Greene, J.  (2018).  Confronting immigration enforcement under Trump:  A reign of terror for

immigrant communities.  Social Justice, 45(1), 83-97, 132. 

Heyer, K. E.  (2018).  Internalized borders:  Immigration ethics in the age of Trump. 

            Theological Studies, 79(1), 146-164. 

Jacobs, B.  (2019, March 29).  Trump threatens to close border with Mexico.  The Guardian.

Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/29/donald-trump-threatens-close-mexico-border. 

Kerwin, D.  (2018).  From IIRIRA to Trump:  Connecting the dots to the current US

immigration policy crisis.  Journal of Migration and Human Security, 6(3), 192-204.

Kirk, D. S., Papachristos, A. V., Fagan, J., Tyler, T. R.  (2012).  The paradox of law

enforcement in immigrant communities:  Does tough immigration enforcement undermine public safety?  The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 641, 79-98. 

Kopel, S.  (2018).  Family separation, zero tolerance, and advocacy.  School Social Work

            Journal, 43(1), IX-XIV. 

Loyd, J., Burridge, A., & Mitchelson, M.  (2009-2010).  Thinking (and moving) beyond walls

and cages:  Bridging immigrant justice and anti-prison organizing in the United States.

Social Justice, 36(2), 85-103. 

Mamma, M., & Spandidos, D. A.  (2019).  Customs officers in relation to viral infections,

tuberculosis, psittacosis and environmental health risk.  Experimental and Therapeutic

Medicine, 17(2), 1149-1153. 

Nyugen, M. T., & Gill, H.  (2015).  Interior immigration enforcement:  The impacts of

expanding local law enforcement authority.  Urban Studies, 53(2), 302-323. 

Oberman, K.  (2011).  Immigration, global poverty and the right to stay.  Political Studies, 59(2),

            253-268. 

Oberman, K.  (2015).  Poverty and immigration policy.  The American Political Science Review,

            109(2), 239-251. 

Office of Inspector General.  (2018).  Assaults of CBP and ICE Law Enforcement Officers. 

            Washington, D. C.:  Office of Inspector General.  Retrieved from

            https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2018-09/OIG-18-76-Sep18.pdf.

Olsen, L.  (July 9, 2017).  Assaults on ICE and border patrol agents are increasing in 2017.

            Incidents have almost doubled on increased deportations, detentions.  Houston Chronicle.

            Retrieved from https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-

texas/houston/article/Assaults-on-ICE-and-Border-Patrol-agents-are-11276364.php. 

Oliverio, M. T.  (2018).  The role of the executive in rulemaking:  An exploration of executive

            action in United States immigration law.  Administrative Law Review, 70(3), 715-743.

Orrenius, P. M., & Zavodny, M.  (2012).  The economic of U.S. immigration policy.  Journal of

            Policy Analysis and Management, 31(4), 948-956.  doi:10.1002/pam.

Philbins, M. M., Flake, M., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Hirsch, J. S.  (2018).  State-level

immigration and immigrant-focused policies as drivers of Latino health disparities in the

United States.  Social Science & Medicine, 199, 29-38.  

Ponce, A., & Archila, N.  (2017).  Assistance for and protection of migrants:  Experience of the

Honduran Red Cross.  International Review of the Red Cross, 99(904), 53-62. 

Sacchetti, M.  (2017, April 18).  ICE immigration arrests of noncriminals double under Trump.

The Washington Post. 

Treyger, E., Chalfin, A., & Loeffler, C.  (2014).  Immigration enforcement, policing, and crime:

            Evidence from the secure communities program.  Criminology & Public Policy, 13(2),

            285-322. 

United States Customs and Border Protection.  (2018, February 9).   Border Patrol Academy

Aims to Change Law Enforcement Culture by Reducing Number of Preventable Agent Deaths.  Retrieved from https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/border-patrol-academy-aims-change-law-enforcement-culture-reducing.

United States Department of Justice.  (2018).  U.S. Department of Justice

FY 2018 Budget Request.  Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/file/968201/download.

Valverde, M.  (2018, May 11).  Does detaining an immigrant for a year cost 4 times federal

spending on a child in public school?.  PolitiFact.  Retrieved from https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/11/patty-murray/does-detaining-immigrant-year-cost-4-times-federal/.     

Valverde, M.  (2019, January 24).  Fact-checking Donald Trump’s false and misleading claims

about immigration, the border wall.  PolitiFact.  Retrieved from https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/jan/24/fact-checking-donald-trumps-false-and-misleading-c/. 

Venters, H., Dasch-Goldberg, D., Rasmussen, A., & Keller, A. S.  (2009).  Into the abyss:

Mortality and morbidity among detained immigrants.  Human Rights Quarterly, 31(2),

474-495. 

White, A.  (2016).  When threat mobilizes:  Immigration enforcement and Latino voter turnout.

            Political Behavior, 38(2), 355-382. 

Wood, L. C. N.  (2018).  Impact of punitive immigration policies, parent-child separation and

child detention on the mental health and development of children.  BMJ Paediatrics

Open, 2(1), e000338. 

Wozniak, K. H.  (2016).  Public opinion and the politics of criminal justice policy making:

Reasons for optimism, pessimism, and uncertainty.  Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1),

179-186. 

Photo Credit: Gigi Sini