Search

Begin New Search Author Donald Kerwin Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Forced Migration, Deterrence, and Solutions to the Non-Natural Disaster of Migrant Deaths Along the US-Mexico Border and Beyond

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Alejandra Agustina Martínez
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The International Organization of Migration has characterized the US-Mexico border as the world’s deadliest land migration route. By August 2024, a minimum of 5,405 persons had died or gone missing along this border since 2014, with record high numbers since 2021. Migrant deaths occur despite decades of: US Border Patrol search and rescue initiatives; public education campaigns targeting potential migrants on the dangers of irregular migration; dozens of academic publications and reports highlighting the root causes of these deaths; efforts by consular officials, local communities, and humanitarian agencies to locate, identify, and repatriate human remains; and desperate attempts by families to learn the fate of their missing loved ones. This paper introduces a special edition of the Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS), which draws on original research and the expertise of medical examiners, forensic anthropologists, social scientists, and humanitarian organizations to examine this persistent human tragedy. Many of the authors investigate migrant deaths in their professional capacities. They identify the dead, return remains to family members, and champion reforms to prevent deaths and better account for the dead and missing. This JMHS special edition represents a collaboration between the University of Arizona’s Binational Migration Institute, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMSNY), and the Working Group on Mapping Migrant Deaths along the US Southwest Border. The Working Group includes scholars and practitioners from California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and New York who have met monthly since October of 2021. The special edition examines in granular detail the causes of migrant deaths, US border enforcement strategies and tactics, migrant death statistics, and the resource and capacity challenges faced by US counties along and leading from the US-Mexico border in investigating these deaths. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and many public officials attribute the deaths to the predations of human smugglers, the victims’ ignorance or assumption of risk, and the harsh “natural” conditions to which migrants finally succumb. This special issue also documents the underlying non-natural causes of this enduring tragedy, and offers both overarching and more targeted solutions to preventing and minimizing migrant deaths. The issue builds upon and extends seminal research on migrant deaths first featured in CMSNY publications more than two decades ago. Section I introduces the issue of migrant deaths by posing the question: Why should we care? Section II describes the genesis of “prevention through deterrence”—a border enforcement theory and strategy—and its evolution through subsequent Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Border Patrol strategic plans. It describes the immense enforcement infrastructure built around this idea by successive administrations and Congresses, and it explains why it has failed to stem irregular migration and how it has contributed to migrant deaths. Section III reviews the main causes of migrant deaths—forced migration, the combined effects of prevention through deterrence and border enforcement tactics, the denial of access to asylum, the border wall, the “naturalization” of migrant deaths, and the dominant vision of the border as a site of danger and exclusion. Section IV reviews the legislative standards for identifying, investigating, and reporting on migrant decedents. It also details the deficiencies of Border Patrol and county-level sources of data on deaths, and it outlines ways to strengthen data collection. Section V discusses the burdens placed on communities along and leading from the border in investigating deaths and their need for greater resources and capacity to address this problem. Section VI outlines the anomalies and challenges related to the Border Patrol’s migrant rescue program. Section VII describes international legal standards to guide the investigation of migrant deaths and two model programs. Section VIII sets forth policy recommendations to prevent migrant deaths and to honor and account for the dead.
Topic:
Borders, Deterrence, Forced Migration, and Irregular Migration
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

2. What Will It Take to Eliminate the Immigration Court Backlog? Assessing “Judge Team” Hiring Needs Based on Changed Conditions and the Need for Broader Reform

Author:
Donald Kerwin
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This paper examines the staffing needs of the US Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), as it seeks to eliminate an immigration court backlog, which approached 2.5 million pending cases at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2023. A previous study by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) attributed the backlog to systemic, long-neglected problems in the broader US immigration system. This paper provides updated estimates of the number of immigration judges (IJs) and “judge teams” (IJ teams) needed to eliminate the backlog over ten and five years based on different case receipt and completion scenarios. It also introduces a data tool that will permit policymakers, administrators and researchers to make their own estimates of IJ team hiring needs based on changing case receipt and completion data. Finally, the paper outlines the pressing need for reform of the US immigration system, including a well-resourced, robust, and independent court system, particularly in light of record “encounters” of migrants at US borders in FY 2022 and 2023.
Topic:
Immigration, Courts, Borders, Asylum, and Department of Homeland Security
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. Ten Years of Democratizing Data: Privileging Facts, Refuting Misconceptions and Examining Missed Opportunities

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) initiated its “Democratizing Data” project in 2013 to make detailed demographic information widely available on the US undocumented, eligible to naturalize, and other non-citizen populations. The paper begins by outlining top-line findings and themes from the more than 30 CMS studies under this project. It then examines and refutes four persistent misconceptions that have inhibited public understanding and needed policy change: (1) migrants never leave the United States; (2) most undocumented migrants arrive by illegally crossing the US-Mexico border; (3) each Border Patrol apprehension translates into a new undocumented resident; and (4) immigrants are less skilled than US-born workers. The paper then offers new analyses in support of select policy recommendations drawn from a decade of democratizing data. It concludes with a short reflection and a case study on the failure of data, evidence-based policy ideas, and national ideals to translate into necessary reform.
Topic:
Border Control, Democracy, Data, and Migrants
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. Access to Justice, the Rule of Law, and Due Process in the US Immigration System: A Tribute to Juan Osuna

Author:
Donald Kerwin
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This paper introduces a special collection of papers on access to justice, the rule of law, and due process in the US immigration system. The collection honors Juan Osuna, a devoted public servant and former director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which is the agency in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that administers the Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and legal orientation, assistance, and representation programs. The collection consists of five articles published in the Journal on Migration and Human Security and six CMS essays, written by some of Osuna’s close colleagues and friends. Section I provides a brief biography of Juan Osuna’s life, recites his titles and professional accomplishments, and outlines his views on some of the topics covered in the papers. The section draws heavily from two events that book-ended Osuna’s tenure as EOIR Director, which were organized by the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS). The first took place on February 16, 20121 and the second on July 18, 2017,2 just before Osuna’s untimely death at the age of 54 on August 15, 2017. This section also includes remembrances and reflections from Osuna’s colleagues at a November 15, 2018 event in Washington, DC, devoted to honoring his legacy.3 Section II summarizes the 11 papers in this collection, which reflect Juan Osuna’s commitment to humanizing the law and its fair application to all. The papers examine and propose ways to strengthen: • The nation’s response to large-scale migration. • The US asylum system. • The removal adjudication system. • Immigration Court backlog reduction efforts. • The treatment of survivors of human trafficking and modern-day slavery. • Due process for immigrants through legal representation. Section III offers a concluding reflection on the rule of law, and Juan Osuna’s legacy in a time of political division and discord.
Topic:
Immigration, Courts, Rule of Law, Asylum, and Due Process
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. The US Immigration Courts, Dumping Ground for the Nation’s Systemic Immigration Failures: The Causes, Composition, and Politically Difficult Solutions to the Court Backlog

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Richard Millet
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The US immigration court system seeks to “fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly administer and interpret US immigration laws” (DOJ 2022a). It represents the first exposure of many immigrants to due process and the rule of law in the United States, and occupies an integral role in the larger US immigration system. Yet it labors under a massive backlog of pending cases that undermines its core goals and objectives. The backlog reached 1.87 million cases in the first quarter of FY 2023 (Straut-Eppsteiner 2023, 6). This paper attributes the backlog to systemic failures in the broader immigration system that negatively affect the immigration courts, such as: • Visa backlogs, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) application processing delays, and other bottlenecks in legal immigration processes. • The immense disparity in funding between the court system and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that feed cases into the courts. • The failure of Congress to pass broad immigration reform legislation that could ease pressure on the enforcement and court systems. • The lack of standard judicial authorities vested in Immigration Judges (IJs), limiting their ability to close cases; pressure parties to “settle” cases; and manage their dockets. • The absence of a statute of limitations for civil immigration offenses. • Past DHS failures to establish and adhere to enforcement priorities and to exercise prosecutorial discretion (PD) throughout the removal adjudication process, including in initial decisions to prosecute. • The location of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees US immigration courts, within the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ). • The misconception of many policymakers that the court system should primarily serve as an adjunct to DHS. • A past record of temporary judge reassignments and government shutdowns. The paper supports a well-resourced and independent immigration court system devoted to producing the right decisions under the law. Following a short introduction, a long section on “Causes and Solutions to the Backlog” examines the multi-faceted causes of the backlog, and offers an integrated, wide-ranging set of recommendations to reverse and ultimately eliminate the backlog. The “Conclusion” summarizes the paper’s topline findings and policy proposals.
Topic:
Immigration, Courts, Asylum, and Visa
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

6. Durable Displacement and the Protracted Search for Solutions: Promising Programs and Strategies

Author:
Elizabeth Ferris and Donald Kerwin
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
In March 2022, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) released a request for papers (RFP) for a special issue of its Journal on Migration and Human Security (JMHS), devoted to identifying solutions to situations of protracted displacement. The co-editors selected 10 papers for this special issue by authors from a dozen countries, including two refugees. The papers cover several large populations in protracted displacement, as well as other less-publicized groups. The former include: • Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh; • Internally displaced persons (IDPs) living on the outskirts of Baku, Azerbaijan; • Afghans in Pakistan since the 1970s; • Syrians in Turkey since 2011; • Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni, Sudanese, Somali, and Iranian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon; • IDPs and Venezuelan migrants in Colombia; • Somali refugees in Ethiopia and Kenya; • Central Americans seeking protection in Mexico and the United States; and • IDPs in Northern Mexico who have been displaced and stranded due to violence, deportation, and US and Mexican asylum policies. This paper introduces and integrates the themes and recommendations from this special issue. Section 1 provides a short overview of the scope, growth, and consequences of protracted displacement. Section 2 situates this phenomenon in a legal context and examines traditional and complementary solutions to displacement. Section 3 outlines topline findings, recommendations, and cross-cutting themes from the special issue. Section 4 offers conclusions and final reflections.
Topic:
Refugees, Displacement, and Internally Displaced Persons (IDP)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Statelessness in the United States: A Study to Estimate and Profile the US Stateless Population

Author:
Donald Kerwin, Daniela Alulema, Michael Nicholson, and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
In October 2017, the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) initiated a study to map the stateless population in the United States. This study sought to: Develop a methodology to estimate the US stateless population; Provide provisional estimates and profiles of persons who are potentially stateless or potentially at risk of statelessness in the United States; Create a research methodology that encouraged stateless persons to come forward and join a growing network of persons committed to educating the public on and pursuing solutions to this problem; and Establish an empirical basis for public and private stakeholders to develop services, programs, and policy interventions to prevent and reduce statelessness (UNHCR 2014g, 6), and to safeguard the rights of stateless persons (UNHCR 2014d). This report describes a unique methodology to produce estimates and set forth the characteristics of US residents who are potentially stateless or potentially at risk of statelessness. The methodology relies on American Community Survey (ACS) data from the US Census Bureau, supplemented by very limited administrative data on stateless refugees and asylum seekers. [1] As part of the study, CMS developed extensive, well-documented profiles of non–US citizen residents who are potentially stateless or potentially at risk of statelessness. It then used these profiles to query ACS data to develop provisional estimates and determine the characteristics of these populations. The report finds that the population in the United States that is potentially stateless or potentially at risk of statelessness is larger and more diverse than previously assumed, albeit with the caveat that severe data limitations make it impossible to provide precise estimates of this population. Stateless determinations require individual screening, which the study could not undertake. Individuals deemed potentially stateless or potentially at risk of statelessness in this report may in fact have been able to secure nationality in their home countries or in third countries. They may also be on a path to citizenship in the United States, although nobody in CMS’s estimates had yet to obtain US citizenship. According to CMS’s analysis, roughly 218,000 US residents are potentially stateless or potentially at risk of statelessness. These groups live in all 50 states,[2] with the largest populations in California (20,600), New York (18,500), Texas (15,200), Ohio (13,200), Minnesota (11,200), Illinois (8,600), Pennsylvania (8,200), Wisconsin (7,300), Georgia (6,600), and Virginia (6,500). The report recommends ways to improve data collection and, thus, develop better estimates in the future. It also lifts up the voices and challenges of stateless persons, and outlines steps to reduce statelessness and safeguard the rights of stateless persons in the United States. As it stands, the paucity of reliable federal data on the stateless, the lack of a designated path to legal status for them under US law, and the indifference of government agencies contribute to the vulnerability and isolation of these populations.
Topic:
Migration, Citizenship, Humanitarian Crisis, and Stateless Population
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. Fixing What’s Most Broken in the US Immigration System: A Profile of the Family Members of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents Mired in Multiyear Backlogs

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The US Department of State (DOS) reports that as of November 2018, nearly 3.7 million persons had been found by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to have a close family relationship to a US citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) that qualified them for a visa, but were on “the waiting list in the various numerically-limited immigrant categories” (DOS 2018). These backlogs in family-based “preference” (numerically capped) categories represent one of the most egregious examples of the dysfunction of the US immigration system. They consign family members of US citizens and LPRs that potentially qualify for a visa and that avail themselves of US legal procedures to years of insecurity, frustration, and (often) separation from their families. Often criticized in the public sphere for jumping the visa queue, it would be more accurate to say that this population, in large part, comprises the queue. While they wait for their visa priority date to become current, those without immigration status are subject to removal. In addition, most cannot adjust to LPR status in the United States, but must leave the country for consular processing and, when they do, face three- or 10-year bars on readmission, depending on the duration of their unlawful presence in the United States. This population will also be negatively affected by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) proposed rule to expand the public charge ground of inadmissibility (Kerwin, Warren, and Nicholson 2018). In addition, persons languishing in backlogs enjoy few prospects in the short term for executive or legislative relief, given political gridlock over immigration reform and the Trump administration’s support for reduced family-based immigration. In this paper, the Center for Migration Studies (CMS) offers estimates and a profile based on 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data of a strongly correlated population to the 3.7 million persons in family-based visa backlogs: i.e., the 1.55 million US residents potentially eligible for a visa in a family-based preference category based on a qualifying relationship to a household member. CMS data represents only part of the population in family-based backlogs. In particular, it captures only a small percentage of the 4th preference, brothers and sisters of US citizens.[1] However, everybody in CMS’s data could be petitioned for, if they have not been already. Among this population’s ties and contributions to the United States, the paper finds that: Fifty-nine percent has lived in the United States for 10 years or more, including 23 percent for at least 20 years. Nearly one million US-born children under age 21 live in these households, as well as 111,600 US-born adults (aged 21 and over) who have undocumented parents. 449,500 arrived in the United States at age 15 or younger. 139,100 qualify for the DREAM Act based their age at entry, continuous residence, and graduation from high school or receipt of a GED. Seventy-two percent aged 16 and older are in the labor force, and more than two-thirds (68 percent) are employed; these rates exceed those of the overall US population. Two-thirds of those aged 18 or older have at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, including 25 percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher, and 295,100 aged three and older are enrolled in school. The median income of their households is $63,000, slightly above the US median. More than two-thirds (68 percent) have health insurance, including 51 percent with private health insurance. Nearly one-third (32 percent) live in mortgaged homes, and 12 percent in homes owned free and clear. The paper provides several recommendations to reduce family-based backlogs. In particular, it proposes that Congress pass and the President sign into law legislation to legalize intending family-based immigrants who have been mired in backlogs for two years or more. In addition, this legislation should define the spouses and minor unmarried children of LPRs as immediate relatives (not subject to numerical limits), not count the derivative family members of the principal beneficiary against per country and annual quotas, and raise per country caps. The administration should also re-use the visas of legal immigrants who emigrate each year, particularly those who formally abandon LPR status. This practice would reduce backlogs without increasing visa numbers. Congress should also pass legislation to advance the entry date for eligibility for “registry,” an existing feature of US immigration law designed to legalize long-term residents. In particular, the legislation should move forward the registry cutoff date on an automatic basis to provide a pathway to status for noncitizens who have lived continuously in the United States for at least 15 years, have good moral character, and are not inadmissible on security and other grounds. In fact, Congress advanced the registry date on a regular basis during most of the 20th century, but has not updated this date, which now stands at January 1, 1972, for 33 years.
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Border Control, and Domestic Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

9. The Effects of Immigration Enforcement on Faith-Based Organizations: An Analysis of the FEER Survey

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Mike Nicholson
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
The effects of US immigration enforcement policies on immigrants, US families, and communities have been well-documented. However, less attention has been paid to their impact on faith-based organizations (FBOs). Faith communities provide a spiritual home, and extensive legal, resettlement, social service, health, and educational services for refugees and immigrants. This report presents the findings of the FEER (Federal Enforcement Effect Research) Survey, which explored the effects of US immigration enforcement policies on immigrant-serving Catholic institutions.[1] Many of these institutions arose in response to the needs of previous generations of immigrants and their children (Kerwin and George 2014, 14, 74-75). Most strongly identify with immigrants and have long served as crucial intermediaries between immigrant communities and the broader society (Campos 2014, 149-51).[2] Over its first two years, the Trump administration has consistently characterized immigrants as criminals, security risks, and an economic burden. Among its policy initiatives, the administration has supported major cuts in family-based immigration, attempted to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, reduced refugee admissions to historic lows, instituted admission bars on Muslim-majority countries, attempted to strip Temporary Protection Status (TPS) from all but a fraction of its beneficiaries, erected major new barriers to asylum, and proposed new rules regarding the public charge grounds of inadmissibility that would make it more difficult for poor and working class persons to obtain permanent residence. US immigration enforcement policies have separated children from their parents, criminally prosecuted asylum-seekers, expanded detention, increased arrests of non-citizens without criminal records, and militarized the US-Mexico border. These policies have failed to stem the flow of migrants and asylum-seekers: instead these flows have increased dramatically in recent months. These policies have succeeded, however, in devastating children, instilling fear in immigrant communities, blocking access to the US asylum system, and undermining immigrant integration (Kerwin 2018).[3] The FEER survey points to a paradox. On one hand, US enforcement policies have increased the demand for services such as legal screening, representation, naturalization, assistance to unaccompanied minors, and support to the US families of detainees and deportees. Many Catholic institutions have expanded their services to accommodate the increased demand for their services. On the other hand, their work with immigrants has been impeded by federal immigration policies that effectively prevent immigrants from driving, attending gatherings, applying for benefits, and accessing services for fear that these activities might lead to their deportation or the deportation of a family member. Among other top-line findings, 59 percent of 133 FEER respondents reported that “fear of apprehension or deportation” negatively affected immigrants’ access to their services, and 57 percent of 127 respondents reported that immigrant enforcement very negatively or negatively affected the participation of immigrants in their programs and ministries.
Topic:
Migration, Religion, Border Control, Immigrants, and Catholic Church
Political Geography:
United States, Central America, and North America

10. Putting Americans First: A Statistical Case for Encouraging Rather than Impeding and Devaluing US Citizenship

Author:
Donald Kerwin and Robert Warren
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on Migration and Human Security
Institution:
Center for Migration Studies of New York
Abstract:
This article examines the ability of immigrants to integrate and to become full Americans. Naturalization has long been recognized as a fundamental step in that process and one that contributes to the nation’s strength, cohesion, and well-being. To illustrate the continued salience of citizenship, the article compares selected characteristics of native-born citizens, naturalized citizens, legal noncitizens (most of them lawful permanent residents [LPRs]), and undocumented residents. It finds that the integration, success, and contributions of immigrants increase as they advance toward naturalization, and that naturalized citizens match or exceed the native-born by metrics such as a college education, self-employment, average personal income, and homeownership. It finds that: Naturalized citizens enjoy the same or higher levels of education, employment, work in skilled occupations, personal income, and percentage above the poverty level compared to the native-born population. At least 5.2 million current US citizens — 4.5 million children and 730,000 adults — who are living with at least one undocumented parent obtained US citizenship by birth; eliminating birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of US-born denizens in the future. Requiring medical insurance would negatively affect immigrants seeking admission and undocumented residents who ultimately qualify for a visa. About 51 percent of US undocumented residents older than age 18 lack health insurance. In 2017, about 1.2 million undocumented residents lived with 1.1 million eligible-to-naturalize relatives. If all the members of the latter group naturalized, they could petition for or expedite the adjustment or immigration (as LPRs) of their undocumented family members, including 890,000 “immediate relatives.” Their naturalization could put 11 percent of the US undocumented population on a path to permanent residency. The article also explores a contradiction: that the administration’s “America first” ideology obscures a set of policies that impede the naturalization process, devalue US citizenship, and prioritize denaturalization. The article documents many of the ways that the Trump administration has sought to revoke legal status, block access to permanent residence and naturalization, and deny the rights, entitlements, and benefits of citizenship to certain groups, particularly US citizen children with undocumented parents. It also offers estimates and profiles of the persons affected by these measures, and it rebuts myths that have buttressed the administration’s policies. For example, the Trump administration and restrictionist legislators have criticized the US immigration system’s emphasis on family reunification for its supposed failure to produce skilled workers. Yet the article finds that: The current immigration system, which prioritizes the admission of the nuclear family members of US citizens and LPRs, yields a legal foreign-born population that has occupational skills equal to those of the native-born population. The legal foreign-born population living in 24 US states and Washington, DC, and those from 94 source countries have higher percentages of skilled workers than the overall population of native-born workers.
Topic:
Immigration, Citizenship, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
United States and North America