Policy trends show that pregnant women have been detained in ICE facilities since as early as 2015. As the laws and policies have continued to shift, pregnant women have become more exposed to being detained. Executive Order 13768 made by former President Donald Trump effectively removed all protections against being detained for pregnant women. While the previous policy exempted pregnant women from being detained aside from in extraordinary cases, this executive order puts women at increased risk of being detained while pregnant. The Trump Administration's goal of protecting the American people and promoting national security puts women in a position in which their health status is no longer seen as a detention exemption. There is almost no published work on this topic. It is extremely under-researched and there is an urgent need for more academic, legal, and medical research on the impacts of detaining pregnant women. This paper functions to fill a very pressing research gap in order to highlight the experiences of pregnant women in detention centers and the health outcomes they face as a result of their status as detainees. I argue that detaining pregnant women is a form of gendered violence as it puts them at increased risk of maternal health complications, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, and more. While more women migrate to the United States, the laws and policies regarding detaining pregnant women are often contradictory and it is difficult to ascertain the true number of pregnant women in detention centers. In this paper, I examine the preceding factors to female migration, the climate of detention in the United States, the policies regarding pregnancy, and the outcomes that women experience.

The deadly shipwrecks of migrant boats in the Mediterranean brought international attention to the plight of migrants in the mid-2010s but the focus soon shifted from humanitarian assistance to capturing smugglers and preventing migrants from reaching the shores of Europe. The step towards a humane migration policy was a short-lived diversion from the project of “Fortress Europe” undertaken since the passing of the Schengen Convention. This project seeks to harden the external borders of Europe and prevent refugees from accessing the asylum system by enlisting neighboring non-European states to prevent migration at the point of departure. Deals such as the EU-Turkey deal of 2016 and the Spanish-Moroccan deals have resulted in migrants being funneled into increasingly dangerous corridors, such as Libya, as the safest and shortest paths are cut off. Although these deals are problematic in their own right, they pale in comparison to the egregious Italy-Libya Memorandum of 2017, which in practice enables Libyan militias to enforce Italy’s migration policy within the Libyan “rescue zone.” The human rights abuses perpetrated by these Libyan mercenaries in makeshift detention centers and on the Mediterranean are well documented, yet the Italian government continues to renew the deal and continue supplying these criminal groups. This literature review examines the issue of European border externalization in the Mediterranean and its impact on the internationally recognized rights of migrants and the stability of African governments. Using a systematic review of existing research, I analyze the key themes and trends that have emerged in the literature on this topic, including the legal and ethical implications of border externalization policies, the impact on African economies and governments, and the human rights implications for migrants. The review concludes that international courts are becoming increasingly ineffective in enforcing the rights of refugees and recommends a reform of the international refugee protection regime to favor autonomous movement.

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