Filtering by
- All Subjects: Immigration
- Creators: Department of English
- Creators: Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
- Status: Published
In recent years, immigration, especially concerning those individuals immigrating from Central America and Mexico, has become increasingly controversial. Within the last five presidents, policies concerning immigration have shifted. Under President Bill Clinton in 1997, the Flores Settlement, an agreement between immigration activist organizations and the government that created standards for detaining accompanied and unaccompanied minors was made. Following 9/11, in 2005, President George W. Bush increased the amount of money spent on immigration enforcement in an effort to deport more immigrants. President Barack Obama increased the number of deportations from President Bush during his first term. However, in 2014, an already imperfect immigration system was disrupted by an influx of child immigrants. As a result, detention centers were at capacity and unable to accommodate the increasing numbers of immigrants. Child migrants were placed in caged-areas, immigration lawyers and courts quickly became overwhelmed with cases, and children were alone and could barely communicate. This thesis explores the various relationships between accompanied and unaccompanied minors from Central America, the American legal system, and the media and broadcast news outlets’ rhetoric concerning child migrants. Focusing on the ways in which immigrant minors are objectified by the legal system and the framing of immigrants in the media, it is evident that their complex interaction allows for the oppression of the child migrants. Since the American legal system and the media influence and respond to each other, the responsibility of the child migrants’ dehumanization is on both the legal system and the rhetoric of the media and broadcast news outlets.
A successful asylum case is extremely rare in the United States legal system, particularly for Black migrants entering from Haiti who are subject to multiple layers of racism throughout each step of the process. Recent policies, such as Title 42 and Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), have further restricted migrants from initiating this process by blocking their entry and expediting their removals. Title 42, a public health code issued to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, has accelerated the deportation of Haitian migrants, while MPP has forced many migrants to stay in Mexico during their asylum proceedings. Both of these policies have had a punitive effect on migrants attempting to enter the country through “legal manners,” yet they are ineffective ways of stopping migration. Instead, migrants are now crossing through a weaponized southern border due to Border Patrol’s strategy of Prevention through Deterrence. Though there is extensive research on the racism that non-Black migrants face when interacting with enforcement agencies in the Borderlands, there is no research centering the experiences of Black migrants. In this paper, I argue that in spite of this dangerous route, migrants find ways to survive through community-based strategies, including transnational networks. Additionally, I examine local efforts in Mexicali, B.C. to provide support to migrants. This case-study is critical for the understanding of the borderlands as it highlights the detrimental consequences of colonial occupation, racism, and late-stage capitalism. Key words: Black migration, immigration, border enforcement, asylum process