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

Executive Summary This study examines the experiences of international migrants and asylum-seeker families recently released from the custody of the United States Border Patrol (BP) to assess their ability to make phone calls while in BP detention. The focus on phone access is critical to determining whether respondents experience enforced disappearance under international law, given that BP custody is usually incommunicado. To determine whether some BP detainees experience enforced disappearance in custody, authors collected and analyzed data from 117 respondents using a novel questionnaire. Respondents were heads of families. These families consisted of at least one adult and at least one minor child who were released to a non-profit short-term shelter in the United States (U.S.). Findings show that 78 percent of the respondents who were in BP custody experienced an enforced disappearance because they were not able to make phone calls and there was no reliable publicly accessible locator system to otherwise locate them. While this study provides critical context to how one distinct group of individuals released from BP custody (i.e., families released into the U.S.) experienced enforced disappearance, we note the importance of future studies that assess the situation of additional groups, including single adults released from BP into the U.S. and groups and individuals forced back (typically) to Mexico upon release from BP custody. We discuss policy recommendations to mitigate and prevent continued enforced disappearances in BP custody and to prevent additional human rights violations that are facilitated by enforced disappearance, including the right to access counsel, the right to due process, the right to seek asylum, the right of non-refoulment, and that may constitute a grave threat to the right to life.

Enforced Disappearance as a Border Management Tool: The Case of Border Patrol Detentions of Immigrant and Asylum-Seeking Families in the United States¹

Leal,

Cadwalader

2024

“Do Not Come”: The US Root Causes Strategy and the Co-optation of the Right to Stay

de la Torre,

Peralta,

Rivas

2024

Executive Summary In 2021, the United States unveiled the Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America (“Root Causes Strategy” or “the Strategy”) to improve living conditions in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala as a means to prevent future migration to the US-Mexico border. Through a combination of foreign policy tools and public-private investment, the US administration focused on enhancing economic, security, and governance conditions in the region. Although the Root Causes Strategy has received scrutiny in light of broader research on policies to address the root causes of migration, more attention is needed from the perspective of communities that these strategies target. Therefore, this article assesses the Root Causes Strategy’s alignment with Northern Central American communities’ plans to ensure their right to stay and thrive. It explores three areas of inquiry: the Strategy’s provision of formal engagement and participation mechanisms for local communities; the Strategy’s alignment with local communities’ priorities to ensure their right to stay; and the Strategy’s respect for local communities’ right to migrate in relation to their right to stay according to local projects of thriving. Through critical policy analysis, relying on primary governmental sources and secondary sources on the lived experience of communities in the region, the article argues that the Root Causes Strategy co-opted communities’ right to stay for three reasons. First, Northern Central American communities’ notions of their right to stay were sidelined. Communities did not have a formal role in the design and implementation of the Strategy, which lacked transparency and accountability mechanisms. Second, the Root Causes Strategy did not align its tools with communities’ notions of thriving. Private investments lacked sufficient labor, environmental and human rights protection, and oversight mechanisms to ensure they would not result in more displacement. Funding structures and processes failed to significantly expand access by local communities in support of grass-roots community projects. The US targeted sanctions for human rights violations and corruption followed communities’ cues in some countries and occasions while neglecting them in others. Third, the United States used its root causes policy to justify a restricted notion of the right to migrate. The US administration utilized its root causes policy and the widening of some insufficient legal migration pathways to justify and advance US border externalization policies and limit access to asylum at the US-Mexico border. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for the US administration, the US Congress, and civil society in Central America, Mexico, and the United States. It recommends delinking root causes of migration strategies from the goal of reducing migration to the donor country and foregrounding communities’ participation and perspectives before, during, and after the implementation of root causes policies.

The United States, Europe, and the Global Compacts: Honoring the Right to Remain and the Right to Migrate

Appleby

2024

Executive Summary The adoption of the Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees in 2019 by the UN General Assembly marked a significant achievement, providing two essential frameworks from which UN Member States could fashion their future immigration and refugee policies. Since their adoption, however, the number of forcibly displaced in the world has increased significantly, prompting receiving nations, such as the United States and the European countries, to rely more on deterrence-based enforcement initiatives to reduce the number of migrants arriving at their borders. At the same time, the number of migrant deaths, both on sea and land, have increased, as desperate migrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees have attempted to find new homes in industrialized nations. This paper analyzes the migration policies adopted by the United States and Europe in the nearly six years since the Global Compacts were adopted and provides an assessment about how these receiving nations have adapted to the rising number of forcibly displaced in the world, and whether, in doing so, their policies have been consistent with the provision of both Compacts. The paper finds that: • Both the US and Europe have instituted enforcement policies that violate the spirit, if not the intent, of the two Compacts, and, in some cases, undermine international human rights standards; • Both the US and Europe have attempted to balance their enforcement-related approaches with the creation of legal avenues and immigrant integration policies, consistent with the two Compacts, but their efforts, to date, have been insufficient to the need; • The US has made significant strides in introducing policies to protect refugee-like populations, but has failed to protect asylum-seekers in need of protection who arrive at the US-Mexico border; • Europe has relied on bilateral agreements and restrictive laws to deter migrants from reaching European shores, while at the same time supported sending and transit countries with development assistance; • Both the US and Europe have a mixed record with regard to preserving the principles of the right to remain and the right to migrate, a record which must be improved in the years ahead.