Migrant Imprisonment in the United States: Rationales, Practices, and Myths

Titolo Rivista MONDI MIGRANTI
Autori/Curatori César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández
Anno di pubblicazione 2024 Fascicolo 2024/1
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 14 P. 101-114 Dimensione file 168 KB
DOI 10.3280/MM2024-001007
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Migrant imprisonment operates robustly in the United States, with thousands of people confined daily under civil and criminal legal authority. This article describes migrant prison practices in the United States, arguing that political explanations and judicial analysis rely on legal myths to permit the normalization of imprison-ment.

: La detenzione degli immigrati opera in modo robusto negli Stati Uniti, con mi-gliaia di persone confinate quotidianamente sotto l’autorità civile e penale. Questo articolo descrive le pratiche di carcerazione degli immigrati negli Stati Uniti, soste-nendo che, per permettere la normalizzazione della detenzione, le spiegazioni poli-tiche e le analisi giudiziarie si basano su miti legali.

Keywords:custodia cautelare del migrante; prigione; esclusione dei cinesi; pe-nalizzazione; crimigrazione.

  1. Brief for the Un.States. Wong Wing v. United States, 168 U.S. 228, 9 (1895).
  2. Burnside R.D. (1963). The Governorship of Coleman Livingston Blease of South Carolina, 1911-1915 (Ph.D. dissertation).
  3. Dávila A. et al. (2002). The Short-Term and Long-Term Deterrence Effects of INS Border and Interior Enforcement on Undocumented Immigration. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 49: 459-460.
  4. Davis J.J. (1922). The Iron Puddler: My Life in the Rolling Mills and What Came of It 61. The Bobbs-Merrill Co.
  5. Dickerson C. (2022). The Secret History of the U.S. Government’s Family-Separation Policy. The Atlantic Monthly.
  6. Fitzpatrick P. (1992). The Mythology of Modern Law, 2.
  7. García Hernández C.C. (2014). Immigration Detention as Punishment, UCLA Law Review, 61: 1346.
  8. Geary Act. 27 Stat. 25, ch. 60, §§ 4, 6 (May 5, 1892).
  9. House of Representatives (2020). Committee on the Judiciary, Majority Staff Report, The Trump Administration’s Family Separation Policy: Trauma, Destruction, and Chaos 13.
  10. Kairys D. (1998). Introduction. In: Kairys D., ed., The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, 1.
  11. Matter of Aguilar-Aquino. 24 I&N Dec. 747, 751-53 (BIA 2009).
  12. Menocal v. GEO Group, Inc., 882 F.3d 905 (10th Cir. 2018).
  13. Miroff N. (2018). A family was separated at the border, and this distraught father took his own life. The Washington Post; -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-family-was-separated-at-the-border-and-this-distraught-father-took-his-own-life/2018/06/08/
  14. Nwauzor v. GEO Group, Inc.,2020 WL 11885864 (W.D. Wash. Jan.21.’20).
  15. Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc., 60 F.4th 437 (9th Cir. 2022).
  16. Representative Johnson A. (1913). Appendix to the Cong. Rec. 260-261.
  17. Ryo E. (2013). Deciding to Cross: Norms and Economics of Unauthorized Migration. American Sociological Review, 78: 574-590 & table 3.
  18. Schriro D. (2009). ICE Immigration Detention Overview and Recomm. 4.
  19. Sessions J. and Attorney General. (2018). Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration. U.S. Department of Justice; https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-discussing-immigration-enforcement-actions.
  20. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2023). Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. Interim Progress Report 7.
  21. Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Flores v. Reno, CV 85-4544-RJK, ¶ 11 (C.D. Cal. 1997); text available at -- https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/flores_v_meese_agreement.pdf.
  22. United States’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, C.M. v. United States, No. 19-cv-05217 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2023).
  23. United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, No. 21-10233, slip op. (9th Cir. May 22, 23).
  24. United States v. Carrillo-López, 555 F. Supp. 3d 996, 1000-1001, 1027 (D. Nev. 2021), rev’d by 2023 WL 3587596 (9th Cir. May 22, 2023).
  25. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 235-38 (1896).
  26. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A).
  27. (1914). Reports and Resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, 3.
  28. (1926). Resolutions of Allied Patriotic Societies on Various Pending Bills, Hearings Before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, 69th Congress, 1st Sess., Hearing No. 69.1.11.
  29. (1929). Presidential Approvals, Congressional Record S5224

César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, Migrant Imprisonment in the United States: Rationales, Practices, and Myths in "MONDI MIGRANTI" 1/2024, pp 101-114, DOI: 10.3280/MM2024-001007