Crimmigration

The systems of immigration and criminal law come together in many important ways, one of which being their role in instilling difference and undermining inclusion and integration. In this article, I will begin a discussion examining the concept of integration, simplistically described as inclusion into “American” life, not in the more traversed realm of citizenship, but in the context of crimmigration. I posit that when considering the relationship between those who are formally considered integrated versus other, or outsider, which may or may not overlap with immigration status, the accepted concept of integration is misguided at best. Instead, if the concept of integration is framed as an epistemological tool of settler colonialism, the construction of race provides a more fruitful line of inquiry. There remains a divide in United States civil society, where people racialized as nonwhite do not have the same lived experience as people racialized as white. Similarly, identity, or t...

Crimmigration, that is, the merging of criminal and migration law, is receiving increasing attention within criminology. However, while crimmigration widens our understanding of coercion and punishment, it is a reductive lens through which to make sense of migration control. This article comprises three parts: first, I critique the concept of crimmigration, its conceptual foundations, and its methodological limitations. Second, I explore how migration control practice transcends both the state’s territory and sovereignty, using the example of the European Union’s policy of non-assistance, and argue that this policy evidences the need to move beyond crime-based categories in favour of a social harm-based approach. Lastly, I propose a zemiological methodology for the study of migration control, based on a critical realist view of society and building on Nancy Fraser’s idea of social justice. The resulting framework provides a coherent and empirically useful tool for the study of border-related harms.

Durante los primeros años del 2000 los medios de comunicación prestaron especial atención a la realidad de los menores marroquíes que inmigraban solos. Fueron unos años de auge de este fenómeno tanto desde el punto de vista cuantitativo -por la cantidad de menores que llegaron en estas condiciones-, como por los estudios jurídicos y sociales que proliferaron entonces, dando a conocer esta realidad y alertando de los riesgos de exclusión de estos menores si el sistema de protección y la política de extranjería no se hacían cargo de la situación de forma adecuada y conforme a los derechos del menor. Una década después nos encontramos con jóvenes marroquíes en prisión que inmigraron a España solos siendo menores de edad y que fueron tutelados por un sistema de protección español. Con este trabajo se pretende visibilizar la realidad de los menores inmigrantes que llegan a prisión, conocer sus trayectorias de vida y explorar a través de sus miradas posibles factores de riesgo específicos en este colectivo.

For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime: immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the undocumented, regardless of their country of origin or level of education. But while the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not “criminals” by any commonly accepted definition of the term, immigrants have the stigma of “criminality” ascribed to them by an ever-evolving assortment of laws and immigration-enforcement mechanisms. Whole new classes of “felonies” have been created which apply only to immigrants; deportation has become a punishment for even minor offenses; and policies aimed at trying to end unauthorized immigration have been made more punitive rather than more rational and practical. The apparatus designed to implement these policies has expanded dramatically in recent decades. More and more immigrants have been ensnared by enforcement mechanisms new and old, from worksite raids to Secure Communities. Detained immigrants are housed in a growing nationwide network of private, for-profit prisons before they are deported from the United States. As U.S. immigration laws create more and more “criminal aliens” and the machinery of detention and deportation grows larger, a widening dragnet is cast over the nation’s foreign-born population in search of anyone who might be deportable. With the technology in place today, being stopped by a police officer for driving a car with a broken tail light can culminate in a one-way trip out of the country if the driver long ago pled guilty to a misdemeanor that has since been defined as a deportable offense. The US is in the midst of a “great expulsion” of immigrants who tend to be non-violent and non-threatening and who often have deep roots in this country. This relentless removal campaign is frequently justified as a war against “illegality.” But that justification does not come close to explaining the banishment from the United States of lawful permanent residents who committed traffic offenses and who have U.S.-based families. Nor does it explain the lack of due-process rights accorded to so many immigrants ensnared in deportation proceedings. The current wave of deportations is often portrayed as a crime-fighting tool, but as the findings of this report make clear, the majority of deportations carried out in the US each year do not actually target “criminals” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Historically in the United States, periods of large-scale immigration have been accompanied by perceptions of threat and stereotypes of the feared criminality of immigrants. A century ago major commissions investigated the connection of immigration to crime; each found lower levels of criminal involvement among the foreign-born. The present period echoes that past. Over the past quarter century, alarms have been raised about large-scale immigration, and especially about undocumented immigrants from Latin America. But over the same period, violent crime and property crime rates have been cut in half; the decline in crime has been more pronounced in cities with larger shares of immigrants; and foreign-born young men are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. The evidence demonstrating lower levels of criminal involvement among immigrants is supported by a growing number of contemporary studies. At the same time the period has been marked by the criminalization of immigration itself, and by the confluence of immigration and criminal law and enforcement apparatuses. A series of critical events succeeded by moral panics influenced the passage of hyper-restrictive laws and a massive injection of institutional resources that has built the " crimmigration " enforcement apparatus into the " formidable machinery " underpinning mass deportation today.

The U.S. immigration detention center is both a transnational space and a foreign policy microcosm. Its detainees reside physically within the nation yet legally outside, while its walls, fences, and doors clearly demarcate those bodies that do not belong to the nation from those that do. The detention center is not merely a domestic place where foreign policy is executed. It is a place both locally and globally defined, where social interactions and cultural narratives transcend concrete walls and nation-state boundaries. Bodies are controlled, marked, and contested in this liminal space. This essay explores the detention and processing of Mariel Cubans at Fort Chaffee in 1980-1 as exercises of biopolitical management in the era of President Ronald Reagan’s revitalized nationalism. Through a process of inclusion and exclusion, a previously welcomed “anticommunist” exile group suddenly became cast by the media and politicians as “undesirable.” While some Cuban refugees were rendered acceptable additions to the national body through “American” cultural training, sponsorship, and resettlement, nonnational “excludables” were simultaneously rendered invisible through the act of detention.

In this paper, I argue that school-to-prison pipeline (SPP) research on Latin@s shows the existence of an interconnected system of policies and social practices, in and out of schools, punitive and non-punitive in nature, which together work to criminalize Latin@ students and their families. This intersection (Crenshaw, 1991) and multiplicity (Hames-Garcia, 2012) of oppressive immigration, mass incarceration and schooling systems, among other factors, shapes the process and outcomes of Latin@s’ criminalization (Scott & Saucedo, 2013; Timmons Flores, 2013; Campano et al, 2013). As a result, I believe we must re-conceptualize the “pipeline” metaphor in
a way that views policies and social practices that criminalize Latin@ students and their families as part of an interconnected, interdependent system or web. Such an expansion of how we understand this term challenges a central assumption inherent in this “pipeline” metaphor; that the criminalization of youth flows unidirectionally and unidimensionally from schools to prisons and that disruption of such criminalization should be primarily focused on fixing punitive policies in schools. Advocacy and research efforts built upon the reconceptualization of this system or web would address the criminalizing social practices and policies that, while interconnected with much of the existing SPP literature, have been largely missed in the dominant SPP discourse.

The goal of this paper is to examine the hyperinivisibilization of Southeast Asians in America and how it interacts with various mechanisms of the American racial project— Asianization, racially-ascribed deviance, relative invalidation, colorism, and anti-Black ideology within the Asian community— to produce  a particularly unique and complex racialization process for Southeast Asians. Additionally, it will also highlight resulting policies past and present towards Southeast Asian peoples having to do with what Juliet Stumpf termed the “crimmigration system” that are rooted in a form of double displacement and position Southeast Asians as both inferior and alien. And lastly, it celebrates the values that our community holds dear: giving back to parents and the community, resistance and resilience, and activism in challenging dominant ideologies and furthering social justice, and charts new potential waters for resisting the crimmigration system through institutional policy and practice. My hope is that Southeast Asian activists, scholars, and the community at large will use these tenets as well as knowledge of their history of organizing to mobilize for social change in the diaspora.

2015 is a watershed moment as regards Polish migration policy. An effect of the so called refugee crisis in Europe on Poland was the introduction of the topic into the election campaign. It immediately became a hot issue. As a result the 2015 election was won by one of the far-right political parties which uses xenophobic language and withdrew Poland from the EU relocation scheme. Although asylum law hadn’t been changed to a large extent, some of the regulation were toughened for “security reasons”. What changed though was the practice – Polish borders became practically closed to asylum seekers.
Simultaneously, a parallel reality was created for economic immigrants from Ukraine. Since 2016 more than million Ukrainians have worked in Poland each year. They became one of critical pillars of the Polish economy. That’s why legislation for labour migrants hadn’t been significantly changed at that time and still remains very open (especially comparing to other EU countries).
The papers presents duality in the approach to migration and immigrants of the Polish government. It describes the main changes in migration legislation and their official justification.

The systems of immigration and criminal law come together in many important ways, one of which being their role in instilling difference and undermining inclusion and integration. In this article, I will begin a discussion examining the concept of integration, simplistically described as inclusion into “American” life, not in the more traversed realm of citizenship, but in the context of crimmigration. I posit that when considering the relationship between those who are formally considered integrated versus other, or outsider, which may or may not overlap with immigration status, the accepted concept of integration is misguided at best. Instead, if the concept of integration is framed as an epistemological tool of settler colonialism, the construction of race provides a more fruitful line of inquiry.

There remains a divide in United States civil society, where people racialized as nonwhite do not have the same lived experience as people racialized as white. Similarly, identity, or the perception of race, play a role in the criminal justice system, wherein people racialized as nonwhite are disproportionately incarcerated. These two problems are mutually reinforcing — being poor increases the chances of being incarcerated, while being a person racialized as nonwhite is part of the equation in socio-economic standing and the likelihood of experiencing incarceration. Achieving socio-economic parity with people racialized as white has generally been considered a hallmark of what over-simplistically, and even dangerously, is characterized as integration.

These problems are replicated in and by the crimmigration system. Just as people racialized as nonwhite are more likely to be relatively socio-economically poor and more likely to have contact with the criminal justice system, immigrants racialized as nonwhite face these same challenges. The effects of racialization are significant, and the mechanisms purportedly designed to reverse, erase, or change these dynamics have failed immigrants and citizens racialized as nonwhite. There is a longstanding myth that in a democratic society, such as the United States, everyone has the opportunity, the path, and maybe even a right to strive to and achieve integration. Becoming a naturalized United States citizen is a symbol or marker of such achievement, although it is superficial and still limited with respect to full membership and integration. Citizenship does not elevate one above the caste system of racialized hierarchy. The failure of integration is evidenced by the reality that immigrants and citizens racialized as nonwhite do not obtain the socio-economic successes of the dominant class.

This article will propose that the promise of integration is a myth. Even more than a false promise, the concept of integration itself erases the historical racialized institutional infrastructure that is responsible for the falseness of this promise. Crimmigration is a piece of this larger puzzle.

Derek Bell’s consideration of racial realism and theories of settler colonialism will be explored here to propose a theory of why the offer of integration is disingenuous and a promise never intended to be fulfilled. Settler colonialism is a continuing form of nation building, whereby settlers fortify the dominant culture, removing and replacing communities with constructed ones. (While racism predates colonialism, it plays a leading role in settler colonialism.) These methodologies also help explain why and how crimmigration is an extension of settler colonialism and is responsible for reinforcing racialized differences and the impossibility (and perhaps undesirability) of integration. While the theoretical tool of integration provides some insight into the relationship between racialization and the roles of the criminal justice and crimmigration systems, broadening the lens to examine crimmigration via the methodologies of racial realism and settler colonialism exposes the flaws in the integrationist paradigm.

In this paper, I demonstrate the process of treating asylum seekers and refugees as a dangerous enemy. Those two groups of immigrants find themselves at the receiving end of measures that infringe basic humanitarian laws and human rights, and are so inhumane that no one would ever dare to introduce them on their own citizens. Equating refugees with terrorists and prioritizing security constitute two pillars of the ruling parties’ policy in Poland and Hungary. Apart from technical security measures (like fences), both governments adopt additional instruments to discourage migrants from coming or encourage them to leave (like creating obstacles to let them onto the territory of the country, refusing to grant them international protection, making their integration difficult or almost impossible). Such activity fulfils the definition of “Fortress Europe”, which is not only about building stone walls or fences but about increasing control of every aspect of migrants’ lives as well.

For undocumented people who become eligible for a U.S. immigrant visa, the pathway to lawful status bifurcates around one central question: how did you get into the U.S.? While most visa overstayers can adjust their status within the United States, undocumented border crossers must leave the U.S. to change their status. When they do, all but a few trigger a 10-year bar—often called ‘el castigo’ in Spanish or ‘the punishment’—on their return. This paper draws on a three-year ethnographic study to explore the process of legalization for Latinos who entered and lived in the U.S. unlawfully. I pay particular attention to how ‘grounds of inadmissibility’ and federal criminal prosecutions for unauthorized entry disproportionately penalize working-class Latinos, creating a minefield of racialized obstacles to their lawful status. Together, I argue, racialized criminalization and higher hurdles to lawful status amount to a one-two punch that makes it extraordinary difficult for undocumented Latinos to ever change their status, even when they are eligible for an immigrant visa based on their marriage to U.S. citizens.

The criminalization of Muslims-framing an Islamic religious identity as a problem to be solved using state crime control logic-is undeniably in process in the United States. Local, state, and federal statutes target Muslims for surveillance and exclusion, and media sources depict Muslims as synonymous with terrorism, as others have shown. This paper analyzes the public's role in the criminalization of Islam, which I call "cr-Islamization." Drawing on in-depth, qualitative interviews in a major Southwest city during the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, I detail how the majority of 144 politically, racially, and economically diverse interviewees talk about Muslims as a potential "racial threat," using "fear of crime" language indicative of the mass incarceration era. This suggests that criminalization theory should be central to sociological studies of Muslims in the contemporary United States, and that criminal-ization rhetoric remains powerful, despite mainstream enthusiasm for criminal justice reform. I argue that criminalization's power might reside in its ability to mutate in the "post-racial" era. The mechanisms supporting crimmigration, the criminalization of black Americans, and cr-Islamization are related but not identical. Muslims are religiously and racially subjugated, but more economically secure compared to other criminalized groups. This paper's findings should prompt scholars to reexamine the relationships between racialization, criminalization, religious subjugation, and economic exploitation in the twenty-first century United States.

McNeil Island prison was the first federal penitentiary in the U.S. West from its founding in 1875 through the 1930s. Thousands of immigrants were imprisoned there for violations of immigration laws, and also for drug and alcohol charges. It was at McNeil Island that in the late 1880s scores of Chinese were sentenced to six months hard labor for merely being present in the country without authorization, an offense that was not (and still is not) a criminal offense. This article reveals that the overlap between immigration and criminal law, known as crimmigration, began at the dawn of immigration enforcement.

This Article† suggests that the replacement of Secure Communities with the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) did not, and would not have ameliorated the problem of disparate criminal immigration deportation of Latina/o noncitizens. It explores the implications of de-coupling criminal and immigration enforcement and gives theoretical consideration to the value of equality principles in criminal immigration enforcement.

One of Secure Communities’ many critiques was that it resulted in disproportionate removal of minor offenders — minor offenders who were disproportionately Latina/o noncitizens. PEP created procedural fixes, but the latent, deeper substantive problems of Secure Communities, its predecessor remained. Intractable racial disparity persisted within criminal immigration policing, in spite of PEP’s changes. PEP’s failure in addressing this problem in fact shed light on the deeper, more fundamental problem of criminal-immigration enforcement itself. In a time where race-based “stop and frisk” policing may be resurrected, grappling with the failures of the Obama Administration’s changes, namely PEP, illustrate the need for consideration of systemic change.

This Article helps initiate the next generation of criminal immigration enforcement discussion by considering whether PEP’s failure necessitates an equality principles analysis that moves from procedural to deeper, more systemic, substantive considerations. Rather than confining discussion to narrow questions such as preemption, equality principles reach the roots of racially-biased criminal immigration policing. This deeper understanding allows better crafting of methods to prevent and counteract such practices.

The immigrant detention system in the United States is civil, rather than criminal, and therefore nonpunitive. However, in practice, detained immigrants lacking many basic constitutional protections find themselves in facilities that are often indistinguishable from prisons and jails. In this paper, we explore the crisis of immigrant imprisonment at the affective level, focusing on the painful experiences of immigrant detainees, while also emphasizing its systemic and racialized nature. Specifically, we place a review of a growing body of research that draws connections between immigrant detention and mass imprisonment alongside the findings from numerous reports issued by human rights organizations on the conditions of confinement within immigrant detention facilities. Using a " pains of imprisonment " framework, we highlight four particularly prominent " pains " : containment, exploitation, coercion, and legal violence. We suggest the infliction of such pain, especially when contextual-ized within a broader history of Latina/o oppression, demonstrates that immigration prisons are in fact punitive, " lawless spaces " where penal oppression is exercised. We conclude with a call for sociologists to become more attentive to this crisis, and to appreciate the similarities between immigration detention and other forms of racialized social control—namely, mass incarceration.

Criminalizing "Pro-Immigrant" Initiatives: Reducing the Space of Human Action The article addresses the problem of the surveillance, disciplining and criminalization of practices of non-governmental initiatives which offer help to irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in Slovenia and four neighbouring countries. Based on original empirical work-interviews with members of NGOs-it analyses the dynamic of these processes through several stages of the "continuum of criminalization". Five types of crimmigration policies and practices of authorities and other actors were identified which produce cumulative effects and reduce space for both political and human action as well as spontaneity.

The publication of the annual State Budget is always a significant political event in Norway, and the 2013 budget  (released on 8 October 2012) was no exception. One of the major new developments made public that day was the fact that Kongsvinger prison, until then an unremarkable medium-sized prison with both high-security and low-security wings serving the larger Kongsvinger area, would soon reopen as Norway’s first all-foreign prison. So what actually happened at Kongsvinger prison? Is it still, despite the fact that it is filled with foreign nationals who lack formal rights to many welfare provisions, what one might call a Scandinavian welfare state prison? This chapter will explore the developments that followed the 2012 transformation of Kongsvinger prison. It is based on 4 months of fieldwork about a year after the change happened.  In addition to the discussion of Kongsvinger prison as a specific case, I will also develop the two concepts, ‘crimmigration prison’ and ‘welfare state prison’, further.

The year 2015 saw an unprecedented number of refugees and migrants arriving to Europe through the “Western Balkans migration route”, where the states through which the route passed established the so-called “humanitarian corridor”. The operation of this corridor was outside the European normative framework and was treated by those states as a de facto undeclared “state of exception”. This situation, marked by an exceptionally intensive arrival of refugees and migrants en masse, was governed by ad hoc rules that were changing on a daily basis, creating an extremely unpredictable and uncertain situation for all stakeholders involved, in particular for the migrants and refugees themselves. This article discusses the crimmigration responses to mass migration
management that are prevalent in contemporary law and politics, analyses the corridor within the current crimmigration context and demonstrates how the corridor defied the contemporary crimmigration approach to mass migration.

Based on interviews and fieldwork in a migrant farmworking community in California's Central Valley, this article examines the phenomenon of " identity masking " and its implications for workers' labor conditions. It shows that labor supervisors often take advantage of unauthorized migrants' and minors' legal ineligibility for employment by making their employment contingent upon working a set of loaned identity documents. In doing so, employers render these groups " ghost workers " —that is, they simultaneously obscure their presence from the state and federal governments while benefitting from the wage deductions associated with such prohibited workers' labor. By calling attention to on-the-ground practices of document circulation, this article thus critiques the charges of " identity theft " often levied against unauthorized migrants during worksite raids. Yet the common practice of " identity masking " not only directly benefits supervisors as individuals, but also makes injured " ghost workers " disappear. As employers wield the threat of implicating such workers in " identity theft " to suppress their workers' compensation claims, this article illustrates the implications of the trend towards " governing immigration through crime " (Dowling and Inda 2013) on the migrant labor force.

David Miller's defense of a state's presumptive right to exclude non-refugee immigrants rests on two key distinctions. The first is that immigration controls are "preventative" and not "coercive." In other words, when a state enforces its immigration policy it does not coerce noncitizens into doing something as much as it prevents them from doing a very specific thing (e.g., not entering or remaining within the state), while leaving other options open. Second, he makes a distinction between "denying" people their human rights and "deterring" people from exercising their human rights. On this view, when those assigned to protect or fulfil human rights are also tasked with performing immigration enforcement duties, undocumented immigrants are not being denied their human rights, even when this deters them from exercising those rights. In this article, I argue that Miller's two distinctions have an implication that he might not have foreseen. Specifically, I argue that these distinctions provide ideological cover for what has come to be known as "crimmigration" and that we have strong reasons for wanting our theory of immigration justice to reject this, even when doing so leaves open the possibility for an indirect open-borders argument.

The Decree Law no. 113 of 2018, known as “Decreto Sicurezza”,
transforms in‐depth the domestic regulation on immigration, asylum
and border management, as well as providing rules on urban security
and the mayor’s powers. This essay focuses on the main amendments
concerning the asylum seekers’ detention and pre‐removal detention.
Moreover, it refers to the provision of measures aimed at increasing the
number and types of detention facilities. The author’s approach is aimed
at framing such changes in International Law and European Union Law
framework. As a result of this analysis, the A. identifies a substantial
continuity of the Italian migration policies characterized by a securitiza‐
tion perspective and she raises many doubts about the lawfulness of the
widespread use of detention in this field. Indeed, deprivation of liberty
measures are applied with deterrent and punitive purposes, instead of
representing last resort measures.

Cet article porte sur la criminalisation et l’enfermement croissants des jeunes des quartiers populaires et des primo-migrants, davantage encore de ceux qui se refusent à la résignation face à leur position de “laissés pour compte”. Il repose sur une pratique de terrain d’une vingtaine d’année et de multiples ethnographies de séjours situées principalement au Burkina Faso, en Belgique et à Malte. Le texte est subdivisé en trois parties. La première, davantage contextuelle, donne quelques éléments clefs qui permettent de documenter l’enferme­ment des précaires. La deuxième met l’accent sur les effets des processus de criminalisation et d’enfermement pour les principaux intéressés, mais aussi à l’échelle sociétale. La troisième partie, en conclusion du propos, interroge les tensions et les accointances entre logiques néolibérales et sécuritaires. Elle propose ainsi une relecture des actes condamnés des jeunes précarisés et des primo-migrants sous l’angle conjoint de l’adhésion au projet néolibéral et de la résistance aux mises au ban qui sont inhérentes à son fonctionnement inégalitaire.

The EU’s responses to migration challenges exceed the territory of its member states. Through externalization of border control they spill over into the countries of the Western Balkans (WB), which is crossed by one of the most important migration routes from the Middle East and Africa to the EU. While the WB countries show indifference towards migrants and consider them an “EU problem”, the latter conditions European integration with the establishment of migration management structures similar to those in the EU. The transposition of the EU acquis also increases the criminalization of migrants, which highlights the problematic role of the EU and national legislators in WB in relation to the fundamental rights of migrants.

This paper theorizes the circulation of violence in the realms of immigration and labor. Through Walter Benjamin, I conceptualize the relationship between racial violence and law and note that while violence can support the authority of law, excessive violence makes law vulnerable to decay. This tension between authority and excess is eased by humanitarianism. I find clues for disrupting this circulation in Benjamin’s twin notions of the real state of exception and the general strike, introduced two decades apart and invested in theorizing how labor and other marginalized groups threaten the stability of law supported by violence. This reconstruction proceeds alongside an examination of the contemporary US regime of immigration enforcement, which combines the excessive violence of detention and deportation with marginal humanitarian adjustments, which ultimately legitimate violence. On the disruptive side, a Benjaminian reading of labor activism by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers offers three dimensions of emancipatory politics: (a) practices of refusal (to engage on the terms of the immigration debate), (b) the establishment of historical constellations (of racial regulation of labor constitutive of law), and (c) divine violence (through exposure of lawful violence in the food production chain).

Moffette, D. and N. Aksin. “Fighting Smuggling or Criminalizing Refugees? Regimes of Justification in and Around R. v. Appulonappa.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 33(1): 21-39.

Abstract

Following the arrival of the MV Ocean Lady in 2009, four men were charged with human smuggling under s. 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for having helped Sri Lankan asylum seekers reach Canada. Section 117 made it a criminal offence to aid and abet the unauthorized entry of asylum seekers, including when this was done for humanitarian reasons, to help family members, or as a matter of mutual aid. The case made its way to the Supreme Court and, in 2015, the court ruled in R v Appulonappa that s. 117 was too broad, potentially criminalizing humanitarian workers and family members who help transport asylum seekers, and should be interpreted in a strict manner. This article draws from pragmatic sociology to study the regimes of justification mobilized by various actors involved in, and around, R v Appulonappa between 2009 and 2015. It focuses on two sites of contestation that crystalized around divergent conceptions of fairness and safety, discussing how competing regimes of justification were used to advance stakeholder’s positions.

La introducción del estatuto jurídico de irregularidad inmutable en la legislación chilena sobre extranjería o la profundización del proceso de criminalización de la inmigración.
RESUMEN
La categoría del "extranjero ilegal" es una construcción social dirigida a la criminalización de la inmigración. Es en función de un propósito utilitario que esta alteridad se construye a través de discursos antiinmigración. La promesa de explotación laboral es a menudo la razón que favorece su emergencia. En el contexto chileno actual es posible afirmar su instalación en el imaginario colectivo, como probada su expresión en la prensa escrita, cuestión que no posee reflejo jurídico. A la luz de la perspectiva teórica de la criminología crítica, se analiza la presencia de este discurso en artículos de diarios, en pleno período de campaña electoral (año 2016), con el que se prepara el terreno para el establecimiento de estatutos jurídicos que no permitan una fácil regularización. Sin embargo, el estudio de la legislación chilena en materia de extranjería sugiere que ésta no prevé un estatuto jurídico diferenciado, específico e inmutable. Observamos por el contrario una normativización del estatuto de legalidad que procura la recuperación del mismo en casos tales como la pérdida de los permisos de estancia o residencia, temporales o permanentes. Una modificación en la legislación tendente a la creación del estatuto de irregularidad administrativa inmutable podría suscitar la profundización del proceso de criminalización de la inmigración.
Palabras clave: Extranjero ilegal; Criminalización de la inmigración; Irregularidad administrativa; Extranjería; Discurso antiinmigración.

The expulsion of irregular migrants has become a political priority in many (northern) EU member states. In countries such as Germany and the Netherlands this has resulted in a rather puzzling situation in which the capacity for the administrative detention of irregular migrants is increasing, while the number of effective expulsions seems to be decreasing. In this article two theoretical perspectives are used to analyse these developments: a perspective emanating from the criminological framework of the ‘new penology’ and one resulting from the ‘migration control literature’. These perspectives combined offer explanations for this paradoxical situation — by highlighting the importance of identification and the frustration thereof by irregular migrants and countries of origin — and for the apparent irrationality of the use of, sometimes very lengthy, administrative detention of irregular migrants.

Since the closure of the Red Cross refugee reception centre in Sangatte, undocumented migrants in Calais hoping to cross the border to Britain have been forced to take refuge in a number of squatted migrant camps, locally known by all as ‘the jungles.’ Unauthorised shanty-like residences built by the migrants themselves, living conditions in the camps are very poor. In June 2009, European ‘noborder’ activists set up a week-long protest camp in the area with the intention of confronting the authorities over their treatment of undocumented migrants. In this article, we analyse the June 2009 noborder camp as an instance of ‘immigrant protest.’ Drawing on ethnographic materials and Jacques Rancière's work on politics and aesthetics, we construct a typology of forms of border control through which to analyse the different ways in which the politics of the noborder camp were staged, performed and policed. Developing a critique of policing practices which threatened to make immigrant protest ‘impossible’, we highlight moments of protest which, through the affirmation of an ‘axiomatic’ equality, disrupted and disarticulated the borders between citizens and non-citizens, the political and non-political.

The aim of the article is to present one of the facets of the state’s approach towards irregular migration, namely identification of and reaction of the law enforcement and judiciary to the offence of facilitating or enabling unauthorised stay of another person and gaining personal or material profits from it (introduced to the Polish legislation in 2004). Based on the analysis of court files of 243 criminal cases, we indicate forms of facilitation of unauthorised stay (with predominance of document frauds) and analyse the features of the constitutive elements of the offence, i.e. facilitators, persons whose stay is enabled, and profits. We conclude that among convicted facilitators there are those whose intensions were far from enabling the stay of another person and actual facilitators often remained unidentified. We also point to doubtful court decisions, in particular those regarding undetermined profits and recipients or recipients sentenced as facilitators. Thus, we prove that...

En este trabajo presento algunos hallazgos de la investigación doctoral sobre la implementación de la política migratoria argentina a través del poder judicial: los casos de expulsiones por delitos, utilizando como fuente principal los expedientes cuya causa de expulsión fuera penal. Primero, planteo el diferente régimen legal de la expulsión de personas “ingresantes” y de “residentes”; luego, listo los casos encontrados con los elementos (cantidad de años de condena, existencia de familia, año de ingreso, etc.) que permitirán analizar el balance entre la condena penal, la expulsión, y los derechos (ej. a la reunificación familiar). Entre las conclusiones, considero que la expulsión luego de cumplida la condena es una sanción que menoscaba el principio denon bis in idem y que en casi todos los casos la persona fue tratada como “ingresante”, inhabilitando así la revisión judicial.

In this paper I present some doctoral research findings related to the implementation of the argentine migration policy through the Judiciary: the cases of removal by criminal offenses. Thus, I employ the records reviewed for the research, which removal order was based on a criminal offense and I distingue two different regimes for removals: “newcomer” and “resident”. Then, I list the cases founded and certain details (years of incarceration, existence of family, date of entrance, etc.) that allow me to analyze the balance between the criminal sanction and the removal, and the rights of the migrant (e.g. to family reunification, etc.). Finally, I conclude that the removal once the sentence is served is a sanction that undermines the non bis in idemprinciple and that in almost every case the person involved was treated as a “newcomer”, banning this way a judicial revision.

Streszczenie Celem niniejszego artykułu jest przedstawienie pogłębionej analizy współczesnych amerykańskich teorii kry-minalizacji. Rozpoczynając od szczegółowej analizy koncepcji J. Strumpf i teorii członkostwa, autorzy pod-kreślają dylematy etyczne między władztwem i prerogatywami, suwerennością a stratyfikacją społeczeństw i grup społecznych, oraz integracją i dezintegracją społeczeństwa. Autorzy dokładnie badają ewolucję i rozwój oryginalnej koncepcji J. Strumpf, ale także rozwój tej teorii przez kryminologów i socjologów z USA i Europy. Przybliżając koncepcje C.C.G. Henrandez, Y. Vazquez lub D. Massey, autorzy artykułu biorą również pod uwagę kwestie bezpieczeństwa oraz społecznokulturowy i historyczny kontekst USA. Analizie poddano także europejskie próby implementacji teorii krymigracyjnych (zwłaszcza brytyjskie i holenderskie szkoły kry-minologiczne), aby pokazać wdrażanie głównie amerykańskiej koncepcji w dziedzinie europejskiej kryminolo-gii i socjologii oraz problemy związane z bardzo unikalnymi europejskimi politykami migracyjnymi-unijnymi i krajowymi. Przedstawiono również próby dostosowania koncepcji przez polskich kryminologów oraz być może radykalne dla wielu, lecz interesujące koncepcje całkowitego zniesienia ograniczeń migracyjnych, re-prezentowanych przez A. Spenę, S. Benhabiba lub M. Boswortha. Oceniając istniejące dysputy akademickie, autorzy prezentują również własną analizę Globalnego Paktu migracji, pokazując jego wady i zalety i zadając jednocześnie istotne pytania o skuteczność i zasady, jakie umożliwiłyby skuteczne globalne zarządzanie nie-legalnymi przepływami migracyjnymi. Słowa klucze: kryzys, kryminalizacja, sekurytyzacja, rozwarstwienie społeczne, sekurytyzacja migracji, teorie nielegalnej migracji, przepływy migracyjne, globalne porozumienie w sprawie migracji, ochrona granic, znie-sienie migracji, ONZ, UE Za prekursorkę i jednocześnie autorkę koncepcji krymigracji (crimmigration) uwa-ża się J. Strumpf, która w swoim przełomowym artykule pt.: Crimmigration Crisis (Kryzys krymigracyjny) (Strumpf, 2006, s. 367-419) wskazała na postępujący pro-ces stopniowego zespalania się norm prawa karnego z prawem migracyjnym, które przedstawiła jako realizację prerogatyw władzy predystynowanej do tego, aby ka-rać i wyrażać społeczne potępienie dla pojedynczego sprawcy, który narusza usta-nowione przez władzę normy. Zaobserwowane i opisane przez J. Strumpf połączenie prawa karnego i imigracyjnego jest swoistym novum. Skoro bowiem prawo karne ma na celu zapobieganie i zwalczanie szkód na rzecz jednostek i społeczeństwa,

Recent escalations in migration control involve the criminalization of non-citizens. In assessing this punitive turn criminologists have highlighted drastic expansions in state sovereignty and coercion. Focusing on the Australian context, this article examines a less noticed trend: the civilianization of migration policing. To facilitate irregular migrants' removal the government has created tip-lines that encourage private citizens to conduct surveillance and anonymously 'dob-in' or report unlawful non-citizens. Approaching the initiative as a distinct responsibilization strategy that enrolls the entire citizen body as policing agents, this article explores its instrumental and symbolic goals, whether expanding official gazes or restoring an exclusive sense of national citizenship. Assessing the functions and effects of public vigilance reveals important tensions and ambiguities within the responsibilization process. In particular the case of participatory surveillance demonstrates how 'adaptive' approaches to order maintenance are not external to, but potentially promote and perpetuate, punitive forms of sovereign power.

Resumen En este trabajo presento algunos hallazgos de la investigación doctoral sobre la implementación de la política migratoria argentina a través del poder judicial: los casos de expulsiones por delitos, utilizando como fuente principal los expedientes cuya causa de expulsión fuera penal. Primero, planteo el diferente régimen legal de la expulsión de personas “ingresantes” y de “residentes”; luego, listo los casos encontrados con los elementos (cantidad de años de condena, existencia de familia, año de ingreso, etc.) que permitirán analizar el balance entre la condena penal, la expulsión, y los derechos (ej. a la reunificación familiar). Entre las conclusiones, considero que la expulsión luego de cumplida la condena es una sanción que menoscaba el principio denon bis in idem y que en casi todos los casos la persona fue tratada como “ingresante”, inhabilitando así la revisión judicial.