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.

Between October 2016 and February 2018, DHS reported separating 1,768 children from their parents in what they called “a long-standing policy”. From July 2017 to October 2017, the Trump administration implemented a pilot program in El Paso. Federal prosecutors criminally charged adults who crossed the border from New Mexico to West Texas. Forced family separation has long-lasting consequences on the health of immigrant youth and their families even as they become integrated into US society. In addition, policies like the zero-tolerance policy on illegal criminal entry and practices such as the exclusion and criminalization of immigrants perpetuate the image of an immigrant's subordinate position in the States. <br/>The zero tolerance policy has significant impacts on immigrants’ mental health, educational attainment, legal vulnerability, and physical health. While research typically focuses on the impacts of family separation on the child, the separation affects the entire family unit leading to feelings of helplessness and cultural disruption. Additionally, the topic of family separation during migration is well-studied, there is a lack of literature on forced family separation and long-lasting impacts post-reunification especially through a lens of resiliency.This paper seeks to examine how the zero-tolerance policy impacts Central American immigrant youth and their families and the limited support systems available. The family separation policy ignited protests across the country. Across the nation there was outrage of “kids in cages,” Central American children being taken from their families and placed into overcrowded facilities, left to sleep under tinfoil-like sheets in fenced areas. <br/>I argue that the zero tolerance policy is one of a long line of racist immigration policies that negatively impacts immigrant youth and their families. The effects of family separation seep into various dimensions of immigrants' lives, further complicating their adjustment to life in the US. Continued support for families who have been separated is critical to combat the adverse effects of harmful and racist immigration policies. Because the effects of family separation are multidimensional, I advocate for a holistic approach that addresses the various ways the effects spillover into daily life. This paper relies on the concept of resiliency versus a victim narrative, situating agency with the immigrant, and viewing immigration as an autonomous action. A resiliency framework acknowledges and appreciates immigrant youth's resourcefulness, strategic agency, and ability to subvert dominant norms and overcome barriers.

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

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.

While children and adolescents are the most vulnerable members of society, juvenile offenders face interventions that mirror the punitive and retributive nature of the criminal justice system. These interventions contribute to high recidivism rates, disproportionately impact low-income and minority youth, and result in negative collateral consequences, preventing effective reintegration into their communities. In this thesis, I devise a system based on decriminalization and sociologically-focused rehabilitation that should be applied to the Arizona juvenile justice system and beyond.

Border walls are generally defined as barriers that serve to control the international border by limiting migration, human trafficking, and smuggling. At the US-Mexico border, security also entails situational awareness of the borderlands, which the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the United States Border Patrol (USBP) contend is by making communities aware of what side they are on through their outreach programs, the side of drug and human trafficking or on the side of the “guardians of our nation's borders” as mentioned by a USBP officer in their interview for my project. Additionally, they stated border natives and residents like myself only know half of what their work involves as we “...get all their information out of the news”. I also had to attend these outreach programs since I was in elementary school with officers showing off their canines and reminding me and the rest of the students how much time we would serve by crossing drugs. There is some truth to the agent’s statement, I do believe there is much to learn from the militarization of the borderlands even when you live and experience border security daily for years. However, based on my thesis and my experience as a border native the issue is not if people believe the Department of Homeland Security agencies (DHS) is the nation’s protectors, but if people, news media, and organizations are questioning enough the roles of DHS agencies at the border as shown by their treatment and vilification of migrants and their ability to protect border communities while preserving nature in a time of climate crisis. My thesis brings into question pandemic-era border protocols, such as the Migrant Protection Protocol, and Title 42, as well as CBP and the USBP public messaging and community interactions in the US-Mexico border community in Douglas, Arizona, and Agua Prieta, Sonora. My paper focuses on border history from 1993 impacts and defines present policies, and communities living along the border. As a border resident of Douglas and a previous border resident of Agua Prieta, my thesis is one of few studies to focus on the stories of the border community in both towns, from a Latinx border native of this border community. As will be addressed later in this paper, research in my community is limited, especially in the development of border security that also centers on the communities’ shift in attitudes and perspectives on securitization. Moreso, the documentation and analysis of the researcher are native to the Sonoran borderlands. During my study, I volunteered at the Centro de Recursos de Migrantes next to the Agua Prieta border entry, and conducted interviews with stakeholders in present policies from border residents, non-profit organizations, and government agencies in Agua Prieta and Douglas. My thesis is also meant to discuss the perception and shifts of border securitization along the US-Mexico border according to border residents and non-profit organizations leaders that belong to the border community. During my interview, there was inconsistency about people’s perception of border security and the implementation of protocols at the Douglas border port of entry. My data collection, the extensions of Title 42 and the Supreme Court’s decision on Egbert v. Boule indicate its application was not meant to protect American citizens from Covid-19 by limiting migration but to further extend the power of DHS agencies at the border, while maintaining surveillance and unlimited power over migrants and the border community that is forced to contend with the shifts of the borderlands and the increase of mass migration. I therefore argue that the carceral state enforced and re-produced by state and non-state actors at a local, state, and federal level as shown historically at the border and presently in public health crises shows the continuation of colonial projects by the United States that remain integral to its national sovereignty, capital gain, and legitimacy. During my research, I found that there are multiple academic papers and articles that focus on border fieldwork from the perspectives of researchers who have never actually lived or experienced life at the border, nor have their families been defined by the borderlands. Additionally, the limited border narratives that exist are insufficient in portraying the diversity that exists within the border community and emphasizes a need to decentralize narratives from privileged spaces in the community. Re-conceptualizing the border through the lens of diverse border narratives and re-centering Indigenous and Latinx feminist thinkers that identify, especially queer, trans, and disabled bodies can enable more dialect regarding the effects of border policies that have not only contributed to the militarization and warfare of the border, but the erasure of border history and the disregard to inform the public of current border protocols. Border security confines border communities to normalize militarization and forget its rich and painful history. Migrants and their modes of transportation are portrayed by DHS agencies and government institutions as a large threat to border security as emphasized through outreach programs, DHS agency reports, and political propaganda by government officials that portrays migrants as national threats. A threat that has united white people, who remain tied to the past- believing that Latinx people do not deserve to have rights to seek a better life. Meanwhile these individuals ignore the threat of the current government in the United States that continues to grow in unrestrained power. Despite a desire to portray migrants as “terrorists” at their entrance or attempts to cross to the United States that are not considered “lawful,” migrants are the ones dying at rapid speeds along the border with or without their bodies recovered while DHS agents’ power increases (CBP a,d). We, in my border community, are taught that the direct racial, ethnic, gendered profiling at the border we might face, the tactics applied by officers to slow border crossing, and their cruel treatment, is as an outcome of where we are born. The limit of our rights is a direct consequence of where we chose to live, while the power of CBP and USBP officers only continues to increase. The anger that should be directed to DHS agencies and government officials but is given to vulnerable migrants instead.