Introduction
It is important to note that the issue of immigration has always been a problematic element, which was the point of many disputes in the political and legislative areas. One of the most common and troublesome manifestations of the notion includes criminalization, data misrepresentation, and racialization with elements of anxiety. The given analysis will focus on the assessment of articles on the subject in order to understand the intricacies of the issue.
Summary
The first article is written by Abrego et al. (2017), and it is titled “Making Immigrants into Criminals: Legal Processes of Criminalization in the Post-IIRIRA Era.” The analysis starts with Donald Trump’s statements in regards to illegal immigrants, where he vastly misrepresented the rate of criminality among undocumented aliens. The key purpose of the article is to analyze how immigrant criminalization began between the late 1980 and the Obama administration. It is stated that “most significant, we argue, are the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)” (Abrego, Coleman, Martínez, Menjívar, & Slack, 2017, p. 695). The latter is followed by an assessment of how immigrant criminalization impacts the overall society, which heavily shapes experience being an immigrant in the United States. The findings indicate that the criminalization of immigrants heavily influenced the US immigration policy, where the year 1996 marked the inception of severe criminalization of undocumented immigrants (Abrego et al., 2017). This trend continued until the public perception of undocumented immigrants was equated to criminality itself.
The second article is written by Provine & Doty (2011), and it is titled “The Criminalization of Immigrants as a Racial Project.” The main purpose of the study is to highlight how the modern policy responses to illegal immigration resulted in public anxiety and racialization. In other words, such an approach racializes immigrants, shifts focus on physical distinctions, institutionalizes racial anxieties, and marginalizes the minority groups (Provine & Doty, 2011). These changes were primarily the result of “three federal enforcement policies: (a) the physical border buildup that began in the 1990s, (b) partnerships with local police, and (c) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiatives to enhance interior enforcement” (Provine & Doty, 2011, p. 261). In other words, it was a gradual process with three key manifestations of racialization.
Discussion and Critique
Methods
In order to properly evaluate the articles, it is critical to compare their methodological differences and similarities. The first article mainly relies on qualitative research projects in regards to Latino migrants in locations such as Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, Phoenix, and Los Angeles (Abrego et al., 2017). In addition, the researchers state that “we draw on data collected through the first two waves of the Migrant Border Crossing Study (MBCS).” (Abrego et al., 2017, p. 699). In other words, the body of evidence comes from two categories of sources. In the case of MBCS, it is comprised of “post-deportation surveys of repatriated Mexican migrants in five cities along Mexico’s northern border and in Mexico City administered between 2007 and 2012” (Abrego et al., 2017, p. 699). Thus, the methods focus on analyzing differential aspects and factors of enforcement of immigration policies in the regions near the US-Mexico border.
However, when it comes to the second article, the focus and methodological frameworks slightly differ. It is reported that the authors “focus on policies directed at the exclusion of unauthorized migrants from Mexico and Central America” (Provine & Doty, 2011, p. 263). The emphasis is put on the racial elements of immigration rather than criminalization. The source utilizes a large body of evidence from a multitude of sources, which means that both articles use appropriate methods for their corresponding topics.
Theories
It should be noted that both articles primarily rely on policies and facts around immigration rather than some theoretical frameworks, but specific theories can be highlighted in order to provide an objective critique. The first article states that “the merger of criminal law and civil immigration law in the United States” resulted in a theoretical lens called ‘crimmigration,’ which facilitates the process of immigrant criminalization (Abrego et al., 2017). However, the second article presents the racialization of immigration from the perspective of critical race theory (Provine & Doty, 2011). For example, it suggested that the law is “implicated in multiple ways in the racialization of these immigrants and in their marginalization. Critical race theorists argue that law creates and sustains race by various means” (Provine & Doty, 2011, p. 263). In other words, the legal ramifications of racial tensions and anxieties manifest themselves in a law directed against certain groups of immigrants, such as Latino migrants.
Evidence
The first article provides structured, systematic, and comprehensive evidence to showcase how undocumented immigrants are criminalized at each step of entry into and presence in the United States. The data is derived from the Migrant Border Crossing Study (MBCS) and “qualitative research projects in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Raleigh-Durham, and Atlanta with Latino migrants of various legal statuses” (Abrego et al., 2017, p. 699). The second article also provides varying and reliable sources of evidence with a heavy focus on policies, and thus, policies themselves and the related analyses of their impact are used as evidence to show the racialization of immigration. Both articles demonstrate comprehensive evidence with a great deal of validity, reliability, and accuracy.
Key Findings
The first article examined the impact and effect of criminalization at every stage of the immigration process, which is why the findings are substantive. One such criminalization amplifier is Operation Streamline, which is designed to “‘fast-track’ federal court proceedings that systematically criminalize recent border crossers by charging and convicting them of ‘illegal entry’ or ‘illegal reentry’” (Abrego et al., 2017, p. 700). In other words, the policy made it easy to convict illegal immigrants of being criminals by reducing the time allocated to investigate their cases. The process of criminalization is present in the detention stage as well, where many migrants are incarcerated alongside serious offenders. Such a disregard for detainees’ safety results in immigrants being exposed to drug traffickers, gangs, and other criminals. It was found that “some detainees explore opportunities offered through these new social networks (e.g., human smuggling or drug smuggling), which could lead to further criminalization and stigmatization” (Abrego et al., 2017, p. 702). In other words, initially, non-criminal immigrants can become true criminals, such as drug smugglers or human traffickers, by being put in the same detention as serious offenders.
The policy IIRIRA contains programs that make the issue of immigration spread across the entire nation rather than the border area. For example, it gives power to police officers to incorporate immigration questions into their policing routine, which puts pressure on people of color (Abrego et al., 2017). 287(g) program of IIRIRA enables deportation of immigrants on the basis of the smallest of crimes, such as misdemeanors, which further facilitates criminalization of migrants (Abrego et al., 2017). It leads to hyper-policing of communities of color, and the problem is further “compounded by the fact that even when no criminal charges are brought, individuals can be detained for suspected immigration violations and even removed” (Abrego et al., 2017, p. 703). The criminalization of undocumented immigrants severely reduces their access to proper education, educational opportunities and programs, employment, and various licenses (Abrego et al., 2017). Children of such immigrants are also impacted by the criminalization, even if they are US citizens, because they experience inequality, challenges in mixed-status families, and even the inability to reunite with their families.
The second article primarily examines the racialization of immigration from the perspective of contemporary racism. It is stated that “contemporary racism can occur within structures that make room for differentiated enforcement and also by practices and policies that exclude or target particular groups through force of habit or by rules of thumb” (Provine & Doty, 2011, p. 264). In other words, the current immigration policies are racially driven and unequal, where Latino immigrants and people of color are systematically put under higher pressure of the immigration process than others.
Both articles show that the described aspects of immigration-related pressures exploit poverty. It is also found that Mexican migrants’ “economic vulnerability makes poor migrants from the global South an easy target for policymakers who want to be ‘tough’ on immigration. Skin-color prejudice and xenophobia reinforce the sense of threat as numbers increase” (Provine & Doty, 2011, p. 266). Therefore, imposed policies and legal proceedings are mostly aimed at a specific group of immigrants rather than all of them, which underlines the racialization of immigration. It is stated that “local law enforcement agents racialize Latinos by punishing illegality through their daily, and sometimes mundane, practices” (Armenta, 2017, p. 82). It is shown police officers are more likely to check and question people of color than other groups, which makes it inherently racial.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The core strength of the first article is the fact that the authors systematically evaluate each stage of criminalization. They show how the process starts at the border and continues across the nation and generations. The finding illuminates the comprehensive nature of criminalization, which impacts everyone from border crossers to children of undocumented migrants. However, the major weakness is the lack of evaluation of how each step impacts immigrants because such information would provide practical prioritization for decriminalization.
In the case of the second article, the strongest aspect of the research is manifested in the institutional understanding of racism. The authors directly look at a larger picture of the problem rather than nitpicking individual cases. In other words, it is well-demonstrated how racialization takes place against Mexican migrants. However, the key weakness of the study is a heavy focus on Mexican migrants only, where other migrants of color are not investigated in order to observe the differences in racialization. It would also be useful to see how non-Hispanic white immigrants and Asian immigrants are impacted by these institutionally racial policies.
Conclusion: Takeaways and Contributions
In conclusion, both criminalization and racialization are immigration problems deeply rooted in policies rather than individuals or professionals working with these vulnerable groups. Therefore, solutions should not be targeted at immigration officers or police officers but rather legislators, who are the ones institutionalizing racism and criminalization of immigrants near the southern border. The findings and observations from the articles contributed a great deal to the overall understanding of the criminal justice system.
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 on Migration and Human Security, 5(3), 694–715. Web.
Armenta, A. (2017). Racializing crimmigration: Structural racism, colorblindness, and the institutional production of immigrant criminality. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 3(1), 82–95. Web.
Provine, D. M., & Doty, R. L. (2011). The Criminalization of Immigrants as a Racial Project. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(3), 261–277. Web.