ArticlePDF Available

Immigration Law Beyond Borders: Externalizing and Internalizing Border Controls in an Era of Securitization

November 2014
Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10(1):353-369

DOI:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030842

Authors:

University of California, Los Angeles

This review focuses on the enactment of borders beyond the physical demarcation of the nation, to encompass the entire migratory process, with particular attention to practices in the United States and the European Union. It addresses the twin processes of the externalization (outsourcing) and internalization (insourcing) of border controls, both of which rest on the securitization of migration management. Outsourcing involves a series of extraterritorial activities in sending and in transit countries at the request of the more powerful receiving state. Insourcing includes the policing of immigrants and enforcement controls within the interior, such as the detection, detention, and deportation of immigrants. This multipronged strategy that extends beyond the edges of a territory highlights the spaciality of enforcement and the buttressing of power imbalances between sending countries, on one hand, and transit and receiving countries, on the other, as well as inequalities within national territories with respect to legal status.

Content uploaded by Cecilia Menjívar

Content may be subject to copyright.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

Immigration Law Beyond

Borders: Externalizing and

Internalizing Border Controls

in an Era of Securitization

Cecilia Menj´

ıvar

Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287;

email: menjivar@asu.edu

Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2014. 10:353–69

The Annual Review of Law and Social Science is

online at lawsocsci.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:

10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030842

2014 by Annual Reviews.

Keywords

borders, enforcement, immigration

Abstract

This review focuses on the enactment of borders beyond the physical de-

marcation of the nation, to encompass the entire migratory process, with

particular attention to practices in the United States and the European

Union. It addresses the twin processes of the externalization (outsourcing)

and internalization (insourcing) of border controls, both of which rest on

the securitization of migration management. Outsourcing involves a series

of extraterritorial activities in sending and in transit countries at the request

of the more powerful receiving state. Insourcing includes the policing of im-

migrants and enforcement controls within the interior, such as the detection,

detention, and deportation of immigrants. This multipronged strategy that

extends beyond the edges of a territory highlights the spaciality of enforce-

ment and the buttressing of power imbalances between sending countries,

on one hand, and transit and receiving countries, on the other, as well as

inequalities within national territories with respect to legal status.

353

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

Click here for quick links to

Annual Reviews content online,

including:

• Other articles in this volume

• Top cited articles

• Top downloaded articles

• Our comprehensive search

Further

ANNUAL

REVIEWS

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

INTRODUCTION

There is a signiﬁcant and growing body of scholarship on borders, with themes, disciplines, and

approaches crisscrossing a wide array of questions around identity, migration, and transnational-

ism, among other themes.1With respect to migration, borders often have been examined as the

physical demarcations that separate national contiguous territories and through which people and

goods traverse, and much attention has been devoted to the increasing signiﬁcance of such borders

in the context of national security, control, and, more recently, securitization (Bigo 2002, Coutin

2010, Inda 2006). Borders also have been examined in the context of restrictive immigration poli-

cies that have resulted in the production of massive “immigrant illegality” in the United States and

Europe (De Genova 2002, Menj´

ıvar & Kanstroom 2014), leading to the erection of a “wall around

the West” (Andreas & Snyder 2000). And as Laia Soto-Bermant notes, issues of securitization and

shifting migratory routes resulting from increased border controls in major receiving countries

have renewed interest in the convergence of state power, technologies of control, and borders

(L. Soto-Bermant, unpublished manuscript titled “Bordering Europe: The Politics of Selective

Permeability at the Spanish-Moroccan Border of Melilla”).

The multifaceted character of the border, as both a physical and a legal demarcation, and the

expansion of border controls have given rise to a growing literature in the ﬁeld of immigration.

Signiﬁcant attention has been paid to the physical border and the effects on individuals and com-

munities of erecting fences, establishing checkpoints, and militarizing areas surrounding borders

(see Andreas 2009; Dunn 1996; Heyman 2001, 2008, 2012; Nevins 2002; Rosas 2012). This

review focuses on the expansion of borders beyond the physical demarcation between two national

territories, and points to some of its effects. The article examines the twin processes of externaliza-

tion (outsourcing) and internalization (insourcing) of border controls, which have accompanied

immigration enforcement in an era of securitization and national security concerns. As “borders

have expanded outwards, they also have expanded inwards” (Hansen & Papademetriou 2014, p. 3),

leading to an omnipresence of borders (Leerkes et al. 2013) in major receiving countries today.

Scholars have called attention to the contradictions of today’s world order (Zolberg 1992)

that migration exposes (Fassin 2011), that is, the seemingly conﬂicting ways in which advanced

industrialized nations have been regulating trade ﬂows and migration, liberalizing the former but

increasing controls on the latter (Bauman 1998, Castells 1989, Falk 1999, Sassen 1988), with some

pointing to the very close nexus between these two trends. Hence, some migratory ﬂows have been

expanded precisely because labor migration is treated as a form of capital, Kretsedemas (2012)

observes. For others, the increasingly punitive turn in the regulation of migration that rests on the

hypercriminalization of immigrants and intensiﬁes migrants’ socioeconomic vulnerabilities is part

of a rebordering in late capitalist societies (De Giorgi 2010). Still others note the concerted efforts

in receiving countries to stimulate the very ﬂows that they say they want to curb, which create

a vulnerable workforce that satisﬁes capital’s need for ﬂexibility in the major receiving countries

(De Genova 2002, De Giorgi 2010, Mart´

ın D´

ıaz et al. 2012, Massey et al. 2002, Menj´

ıvar 2013,

Ngai 1998). From different angles and with varying emphases, all these studies bring attention to

the new forms of control and enforcement measures at the root of immigration policies in major

receiving countries today.

In the current climate of control and securitization—a term that denotes the conﬂuence of

immigration policy with national security concerns and antiterrorism measures (Astor 2009, Bigo

1There is even a journal dedicated to this area, the Journal of Border Studies. See Alvarez (1995) and an unpublished manuscript

by L. Soto-Bermant for an overview of the study of borders; see Lamont & Moln´

ar (2002) for an examination of boundaries

and Fassin (2011) for bringing together approaches of borders and boundaries and the study of policing of borders in the

context of migration.

354 Menj´

ıvar

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

2002, Welch 2002)—policy approaches to curtail the inﬂux of immigrants include, as noted above,

the twin strategies of border outsourcing and insourcing. Outsourcing and insourcing mean the

expansion of border controls beyond the physical border to the exterior, with the assistance of third

countries, as well as toward the interior of the territory, through the strengthening of controls

accompanied by the proliferation of expulsions and/or deportations (Burman 2006, Coutin 2010,

Hing 2006, Waldinger & Fitzgerald 2004, Willen 2010). Both of these processes rely heavily

on increasingly more sophisticated networks of state surveillance technology (Kanstroom 2007,

Pallitto & Heyman 2008); indeed, the integrated use of information technology seems to have

become a hallmark of border security today (Koslowski 2006). Signiﬁcantly, the physical and legal

borders that control the movement of people into the territory of a receiving country as well as

their movement within it are not responses to threats to state power; on the contrary, these twin

processes reﬂect the imbalance of power between the receiving state and the sending and transit

states, as well as the shrinking rights of immigrants already in the territory of the receiving country.

The outsourcing and insourcing of borders also expose the complex and ﬂuctuating nature of

borders, particularly in the case of the European Union (in the contemporary period).2As Raustiala

(2009) observes, these two processes mirror each other: Extraterritoriality mitigates difference

(blurring territorial borders to enhance control), whereas intraterritoriality serves to establish

difference, creating new forms of social stratiﬁcation in receiving societies (Menj´

ıvar & Kanstroom

2014). Thus, Boehm (2012) notes, these processes contribute to a simultaneous blurring and

reassertion of categories of migration that result not in the absolute exclusion of immigrants but

in their subordinate inclusion (see also Chauvin & Garc´

es-Mascare ˜

nas 2014, Espiritu 2003).

Major receiving countries, principally the United States and member states of the European

Union, have relied on different models for immigration control, but in recent years their ap-

proaches have converged. Martin (2007, p. 5) has observed that with regard to enforcement,

countries fall into two main camps: “the ‘island’ model of border enforcement, with a focus on

‘activities on the border’ and countries that ‘follow an interior model, concentrating their en-

forcement activities inside their countries.’” The former model, which the United States followed

until recently, entails weaker internal controls, whereas the latter has been the European Union’s

typical approach to immigration control. However, as Schain (2014, p. 41) notes, the European

Union seems to be moving “toward elements of the ‘island model’ of border control, driven by the

unevenness of frontier controls among the member states, as well as by the mutual dependence that

has always existed in the Schengen system.” At the same time, the United States has been moving

toward more internal enforcement (Kanstroom 2007, 2012; Schain 2014). And even though the

European Union and the United States differ signiﬁcantly in their policy approaches to entry,

integration, and border enforcement, there are similarities in both contexts with regard to the

perception of borders as permeable (see Schain 2014) as well as with regard to the expansion of

borders—externally and internally—and the changing nature of their rigidity and impermeability

as determined by the political climate of the time.

At the root of the multidirectional expansion of borders—outward and inward—beyond the

physical frontier rests the turn to securitization (see Bigo 2002, Coutin 2010, Huysmans 2000),

that is, the discourse and creation of various fears that converge on the image of the immigrant

(Ceyhan & Tsoukala 2002), or the “anchoring point of securitarian policies and ﬁerce debates

that gained momentum in the 1990s” (Ceyhan & Tsoukala 2002, p. 22). Thus, even though in

2I use the term European Union to refer to the set of countries that have instituted the set of immigration policies based on

securitization that I discuss in this article, remaining cognizant that European Union (28 member states as of this writing)

overlaps with Eurozone (18 EU member states), Schengen area (20 EU member states plus four European Economic Space

countries), and the Council of Europe (47 member states).

www.annualreviews.org •Immigration Law Beyond Borders 355

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

certain national contexts of the past immigrants were also perceived as a threat to the nation

(see Kanstroom 2007), today immigrants have been turned into “security issues” across national

receiving contexts (d’Appollonia 2012). Although most of these fears are directed at presumed ter-

rorists because they can pose national security threats, today securitization frames extend beyond

these individuals to include all immigrants, even undocumented labor migrants, as presumptive se-

curity threats in one way or another (d’Appollonia 2012, Fouratt 2014). Such fears include losing a

national and cultural identity (Van Houtum & Pijpers 2007) and a collective identity (Ilgit & Klotz

2014), facing crime that immigrants supposedly bring (Alonso-Borrego et al. 2012, Zatz & Smith

2012),3and having to support immigrants who become unemployed and thus a public charge to

society ( Jenks 1995), which can exacerbate economic woes (Colombo 2013). Furthermore, the

framing of immigrants as harmful (or even as persons who migrate with the intention to do harm)

to a wide range of social institutions beyond national security seems to exist across national con-

texts, including the Global South (see Fouratt 2014, Ilgit & Klotz 2014). Importantly, as Longazel

(2013) notes, such fears are based on racialized moral panics that degrade immigrant populations

as local ofﬁcials and the media insist on the immigrants’ criminality and the burden they have been

constructed to represent. And although it is widely known post 9/11 that immigration control,

fears of terrorism, and concerns over national security are all linked, it is important to keep in mind

that immigration and national security were strongly linked well before that (Kanstroom 2007,

Menj´

ıvar & Kanstroom 2014, Rudolph 2006). Indeed, the turn to securitization in immigration

had already started in earnest in the 1990s and was only expanded after 9/11 (d’Appollonia 2012).4

The push to link immigration and securitization today, which has spurred the expansion of

border enforcement intra- and extraterritorially, has led to the transformation of national spaces,

rendering certain locations ambiguous (Coutin 2010), in receiving countries but also in spaces of

transit (see Raphael et al. 2006).5This spaciality of enforcement (Coutin 2010; see also Licona &

Maldonado 2014) is also evident in the emphasis that immigration laws passed in recent years

place on conﬁnement (Richard & Fischer 2008, Welch 2002), creating conditions for immigrants

to feel continuously detained (Klein & Williams 2012; see also Carney 2013). It is worth noting

that the fusing of immigration matters with securitization also leads to a growing tolerance on

the part of the public to the infringement of immigrants’ rights, indeﬁnite detention, and even

racial proﬁling (d’Appollonia 2012). The spatiality of border controls therefore constitutes a key

element in the examination of their outsourcing and insourcing today.

In a review of the sociolegal literature, Calavita (2007) identiﬁes a trend that decenters law,

even when law matters in several ways through various mechanisms, including the dynamics

of ethnicity and identity in tandem with legal processes. This shift is evident in the increasing

3Despite a signiﬁcant body of scholarship that points to the buffering effects of immigration against crime (Zatz & Smith

2012) or to the lack of a connection between immigration and crime (Rumbaut & Ewing 2007), these fears persist and drive

the policies discussed in this article.

4In the mid-1990s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service developed interior enforcement strategies to “control illegal

immigration across the U.S. border and a strategy to address enforcement priorities within the country’s interior. The strategy

called for ‘prevention through deterrence’” (GAO 2002, p. 1). But even earlier, perhaps signaling a trend, in 1976, the US

Supreme Court (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 1976) allowed the US Border Patrol to set up permanent checkpoints on US

territory on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border, deciding this did not constitute a violation of the

Fourth Amendment.

5In her examination of the global regulatory power of the European Union, Scott (2014) differentiates between extraterrito-

riality and the newer term territorial expansion. In her conceptualization, “a measure will be regarded as extraterritorial when

it imposes obligations on persons who do not enjoy a relevant territorial connection with the regulating state. By contrast, a

measure will be regarded as giving rise to territorial extension when its application depends upon the existence of a relevant

territorial connection, but where the relevant regulatory determination will be shaped as a matter of law, by conduct or

circumstances abroad” (pp. 89–90).

356 Menj´

ıvar

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

emphasis on the agentive, the everyday, and consciousness, and less on formal and informal legal

processes (Calavita 2007, p. 2; see also Levitsky 2013). Following this trend, but also addressing

the disconnect between macrolevel factors such as state policy and the microlevel of everyday life

that Levitsky (2013) detects, in addition to identifying the mechanisms through which the border

has expanded beyond the conﬁnes of a physical demarcation between territorial boundaries, this

review highlights some of the consequences of multidirectional border expansion. As Hagan

& Phillips (2008) have correctly observed, immigration enforcement activities that have led to

the unprecedented increase in detention and deportation have had far-reaching and unintended

consequences, both in the receiving countries as well as in those of origin and of transit. These

macro changes have transformed the nature of borders and have shaped the everyday lives of

immigrants, their families, and communities (Sigona 2012), including nonmigrants in origin

countries (Menj´

ıvar & Agadjanian 2007, Rus & Rus 2014, Sandoval 2013), reconstituting

identities and perceptions of the self and others (Su´

arez-Navaz 2006). This review points to some

of these effects, with attention to the violation and the diminishing of migrants’ rights.

OUTSOURCING, OR THE EXTERNALIZATION, OF BORDERS

The externalization of borders involves a series of extraterritorial activities in sending and in

transit countries at the request of the (more powerful) receiving states (e.g., the United States or

the European Union) for the purpose of controlling the movement of potential migrants. These

strategies are akin to remote controls to manipulate migration (Bigo & Guild 2005), as they rely on

geography to restrict access to entry (Hyndman & Mountz 2008, Mountz 2010, Triandafyllidou

2014). The tactics employed comprise the establishment of check points in transit countries as well

as interdiction at the border (Heyman 1999) and at sea. They also include bureaucratic measures to

screen potential migrants through visa requirements before they even leave the sending country.

In practice, Hyndman & Mountz (2008) argue, based on the case of refugees seeking entry to

Europe and Australia, the externalization of controls and asylum screening constitute de facto

nonrefoulement practices.

The externalization (or outsourcing) of borders, or what Bigo & Guild (2005, p. 233) deﬁne as

“bordering-debordering,” creates a situation in which admission decisions, which are normally the

purview of immigration inspectors at ports of entry, or the frontline gatekeepers (Gilboy 1991),

are no longer conﬁned to these spaces or at the physical border (Ryan 2010). Indeed, Bigo &

Guild (2005, p. 233) argue that the “professionals of security” prefer to start the process of border

control abroad, at the point of departure, through visas and requirements that permit screening

(also Bigo & Guild 2010). The outsourcing of borders also rests on the increased emphasis on

preborder surveillance and interception (Rijpma & Cremona 2007), in which programs devised

by the US Department of Homeland Security and the European Union border agency Frontex

(European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the

Member States of the European Union) play a key role. These programs make visa requirements

increasingly more stringent, acting to funnel migration from its very origin.

One strategy to enact extraterritorial immigration policies is through prechecks and preclear-

ance intergovernmental agreements, through which immigration ofﬁcials are deployed outside

the territorial boundaries of the receiving state to meet and screen migrants before they set foot in

the receiving state (see Guiraudon 2006, Ryan 2010). US border inspections at Canadian airports;

US airline carriers charged with checking the passports and visas of the passengers; agreements

between US immigration control with Bermuda, Aruba, and Ireland that permit screening before

immigrants board a ﬂight to the United States; and US policies of interdiction at sea are but a

few examples of how border controls are outsourced today. These strategies are meant to “create

www.annualreviews.org •Immigration Law Beyond Borders 357

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

distance between any attempt to reach the legal borders of a state and the act of reaching the

soil of the country itself ” (Hansen & Papademetriou 2014, p. 3). Of note, policies of interdiction

work unevenly and are implemented dissimilarly, as not all migrants are treated in the same way.

Thus, the US Border Patrol focuses its activities overwhelmingly on the southern US border

to stop Mexican and Central American migrants who travel by land (Heyman 1999), and the

US Coast Guard focuses its activities disproportionately on Haitians, Cubans, Dominicans, and

Chinese who travel across the Caribbean to reach the United States (Ryan 2010). We see a similar

situation in the European Union’s efforts with regard to migration from Africa.

The establishment of international electronic databases (Broeders 2007), exchanges of infor-

mation, and the development of common manuals in the European Union are additional examples

of how the externalization of borders occurs (Bigo & Guild 2005). In a thoughtful examination

of the activities of US foreign service ofﬁcers stationed in Central America, McGuire & Coutin

(2013, p. 698) note that these ofﬁcers “reproduce the ‘national’ in terms of U.S. interests, U.S.

jurisdictions that are transplanted abroad (as in the U.S. Embassy compound) and U.S. identities

as representatives of the United States.”

In today’s strategies of externalizing border controls, transit countries play a fundamental role

for the receiving countries in implementing management strategies to control migratory ﬂows

from the Global South (Adepoju et al. 2010).6Even though the term transit in this context eludes

precise deﬁnition (see Collyer & de Haas 2012, Oelgem ¨

oller 2011) and transit areas might evoke

a loss of control (Collyer & de Haas 2012), it is in these spaces that we ﬁnd, in concentrated form,

some of the most sophisticated mechanisms of the outsourcing of border enforcement.

Often the receiving and transit states engage in negotiations that involve transit states in the

enforcement of extraterritorial controls so as to prevent migrants from getting through these

territories en route to the receiving countries. Such agreements can take the form of cooperation

in repatriation agreements and projects that enhance border controls in transit countries (Djaji´

Michael 2013). They can also involve the training of personnel and transfers of technical and

ﬁnancial assistance (Djaji´

c & Michael 2013), military intervention (Weiner & Munz 1997), and

even coordination of programs to ameliorate the effects of deportation to sending countries (Grifﬁn

2009). Sometimes these agreements include development assistance (Weil 2002), but in general,

the powerful receiving countries offer transit countries various concessions on trade and foreign

assistance while exerting pressure on them to clamp down on transit migration.

One example of such agreements is provided by the close collaboration between the United

States and Mexico in the management and control of migration from Central and South America

through Mexico. In recent years, Mexico has instituted visa requirements for these migrants as

well as checkpoints throughout the Mexican territory (Hurrell 2006). In 2002, the two countries

established the Smart Borders initiative (or the Mexico–U.S. Border Partnership Action Plan),

which included infrastructure and security to control migratory ﬂows and was intended not for

ﬂows between the United States and Mexico but for those from further south, through Mexico, to

the United States. The two countries, along with Canada, also signed the Partnership for Prosper-

ity, which became the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in 2005, to promote

greater economic cooperation in the region (Delano 2012) but also to address security concerns

and border security through information sharing (Villarreal & Lake 2009). More recently, under

pressure from the United States Mexico has increased enforcement at its southern border. As

6D¨

uvell (2012) observes that already in 1994, the International Organization for Migration urged its member states to

recognize transit migration as an important phenomenon in relation to irregular and asylum migration. Triandafyllidou

(2014) and Bernardie-Tahir & Schmoll (2014) examine how islands around the European Union are being used as outposts

in the framework of externalization and in the production of borders.

358 Menj´

ıvar

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

well, in the European Union, an external dimension of immigration policy, the European Neigh-

bourhood Policy, the Cross-Border Cooperation/S ¨

oderk ¨

oping Process, the Euro-Mediterranean

Partnership, the Barcelona Process, the Western Mediterranean Forum, the Mediterranean Tran-

sit Migration (MTM) Dialogue, the International Organization for Migration’s project on transit

and irregular migration in Libya, and the 2009 agreement between Italy and Libya on joint sea

patrols (D ¨

uvell 2012, Kirchner 2010, Lavenex & Schimmelfennig 2009) provide examples of sim-

ilar programs to control migration in transit countries from further south.

The externalization of borders is a process so deeply intertwined with transit countries today

(and increasingly with sending countries as well; Lavenex 2006; Lavenex & Uc¸arer 2002, 2004) that

the ability of major receiving countries to stem the ﬂow of migrants into their territories depends

on the extent to which their neighbors (Mexico for the United States; Northern African countries,

mostly Morocco but more recently Egypt and Libya, for the European Union) are willing and

able to control their own borders (Djaji´

c & Michael 2013). However, these external controls

include strategies that range from voluntary to constrained for the transit countries (Lavenex &

Uc¸arer 2004), as the imbalance of power between the receiving and transit countries constrains

the transit countries to enforce securitization objectives. For instance, the reinforcement of the

external border around the European Union required the collaboration of southern and eastern

neighbors, some of whom were eager to join the European Union. As potential EU member

states, eastern European countries were turned into a buffer zone, which was required for the

reinforcement of the European Union’s external borders (Andreas 2009). These states were also

compliant with requests to take back irregular migrants, so as to position themselves in a more

favorable light with EU governments. Indeed, Vachudov´

a (2000) observes that this is how several

former Soviet allies were able to prove their “Western” inclinations. However, as the examples

of eastern and southern European countries show, these buffer or transit zones ﬂuctuate with the

political climate at a particular historical moment. Thus, instead of the externalization of borders

to the East with the fall of the Iron Curtain (Lavenex 2006), today the European Union’s border

management strategies have moved south, to manage immigration ﬂows coming from Africa.

The European Union’s creation of the Southern maritime borders and reinforcement of Frontex

reﬂects the European Union’s objective for an integrated response through common external

borders (Carrera 2007), thus lessening differentiation within the European Union while increasing

differentiation between the European Union and sending countries (see Raustiala 2009).7

Given the magnitude of extraterritorial border controls, they have altered socially and eco-

nomically the transit zones in various ways. For instance, with increasing difﬁculties to reach

their destination, migrants end up staying indeﬁnitely in these presumably transit areas; as such,

they are transformed from transit to arrival countries. As Collyer & de Haas (2012) note, there

are probably more sub-Saharan migrants living in North Africa, supposedly a waiting room for

migrants intending to cross to Europe, than in Europe. As well, Mexico is not simply a transit

area but a space where migrants linger for uncertain periods of time (Anguiano-T´

ellez 2008) or

simply end up settling (Rivas Castillo 2012). Thus, the turn to externalization has contributed

to transforming supposedly transit countries, such as Mexico and North African countries, into

countries of emigration, transit, and destination simultaneously (Raphael et al. 2006). This is why

the spaciality of border control becomes a key angle from which to examine these dynamics today.

It is also in these presumably transit areas (Anguiano-T´

ellez 2008, Casillas 2010, Collyer 2007)

that some of the most visible consequences of increased border control (at the physical border

7In a comparative study of the EU’s border externalization to the Baltic States and the Mediterranean, Christiansen et al.

(2000) note that as the European Union exports policies to control its borders to states beyond its membership, its borders

have become increasingly difﬁcult to delineate.

www.annualreviews.org •Immigration Law Beyond Borders 359

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

but also in these buffer zones) are seen in the form of violence against migrants, which also carries

a transformative element for these zones. Examples include the harrowing experiences of African

migrants who cross the Mediterranean Sea and of the Central and South Americans (and migrants

from around the world) who cross Mexico on their way to the United States (Servan-Mori

et al. 2014). Travel through these buffer or transit zones involves Senegalese men taking rickety

boats across the Gibraltar Strait to enter the European Union through Spain; Chinese migrants

undertaking similar voyages to reach the United States; and Central American women and men

crossing Mexico en route to the United States on “The Beast,” as the cargo train on which

they cling to hitch a ride is named (Carling & Hern´

andez-Carretero 2011, Golash-Boza &

Menj´

ıvar 2012, Liang & Ye 2011, Sladkova 2013). The irregular status of these transmigrants

and the increased enforcement and policing in transit countries have made them increasingly

vulnerable to extortion, robbery, rape, and even murder (Collyer 2007, Rivas Castillo 2012).

Detention centers created in the Mediterranean as well as in other third countries also have been

the scene of procedural irregularities and routine human rights violations (Andrijasevic 2010).

These increasingly perilous journeys and the inhumane treatment of migrants en route expose

the consequences of the externalization of border enforcement to transit zones. The security

concerns and strategies to address migratory ﬂows have transformed the nature of migratory

corridors, creating situations of concern over egregious human rights abuses, affecting the

migrants themselves but also entire communities through which they travel (Menj´

ıvar & Abrego

2012). Indeed, the violence that migrants face in these transit zones can undermine the social

fabric of the communities in the transit zones, with long-term consequences (Rivas Castillo 2012).

INSOURCING, OR THE INTERNALIZATION, OF BORDERS

The other side of the coin, the insourcing of borders, is inextricably linked with border outsourc-

ing, as in practice the two strategies are combined when the identiﬁcation, detention, deportation,

and interdiction of migrants are packaged as a multipronged approach to deter, stop, or con-

trol migratory ﬂows (see Legomsky 2006). Sweeping administrative reforms have expanded the

bureaucracy of immigration control inward to unprecedented levels in several major receiving

countries, but they have been especially pronounced in the United States (Ellerman 2009). The

policing of immigrants—or as Rosas (2006) observes, the “policeability” of immigrants in interior

communities—and enforcement controls beyond the territorial boundaries toward the interior

(Coleman 2007, Ryan 2010) have made tactics such as deportation part and parcel of the interna-

tional system that controls the movement of individuals across borders (Walters 2002).

Detection, detention, and deportation strategies implemented across a wide range of

immigrant-receiving countries today (Costello 2012, Kanstroom 2007) are perhaps some of the

more visible forms of internal enforcement today. They work to regulate and enforce national

borders internally, police noncitizens (as well as citizens) (Silverman 2012), and, as such, play a key

role in the reconﬁguration of citizenship and sovereignty in the global context (Pratt 2005). Signif-

icantly, the massive scale of these practices today, which would have been unheard of a few decades

ago, has become the norm in the context of contemporary immigration enforcement (Menj´

ıvar &

Abrego 2012, Peutz 2006), giving rise to millions of migrants removed and expelled from receiving

countries (Menj´

ıvar & Kanstroom 2014). As these interior immigration policies create paths for

the removal and deportation of millions, they also become routine tools to govern and control

immigrant populations (Richard & Fischer 2008, Willen 2010). However, mechanisms of internal

control do not have to lead to an actual removal or deportation, for the threat of deportability, or

the “regime of deportability” (De Genova 2002), alone can serve the same disciplinary purposes.

Thus, as Coutin (2010) notes, these practices have important spatial implications.

360 Menj´

ıvar

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

Given the interconnected lives of migrants and their nonmigrant relatives in the sending coun-

tries, detention and deportation affect families across borders (Boehm 2012), as the experiences of

immigrants in the United States (Dreby 2012, Licona & Maldonado 2014, Schmalzbauer 2014),

Canada (Burman 2006), and the European Union (Reher et al. 2013) show. As the insourcing

and outsourcing of border controls are enmeshed in the same system, the detrimental effects of

current immigration policies of the powerful receiving countries can also be seen in the toll they

have on the nonmigrant family members in the sending countries, as the cases of Cape Verde

˚kesson et al. 2012), Mexico (Echegoy´

en Nava 2013), Honduras (McKenzie & Menj´

ıvar 2011),

and Ecuador and Ukraine (Boccagni 2012, Fedyuk 2012, Leifsen & Tymczuk 2012) demonstrate.

And although family separations have been common among almost all migrants at various

historical periods, immigration regimes today (in the legislative and enforcement sides) keep fam-

ilies separated for longer and for more uncertain periods of time (Menj´

ıvar 2006). These longer

and more uncertain separations have prompted an increase in the migration of unaccompanied

children to reunite with their parents in receiving countries (Chavez & Menj´

ıvar 2010), a ﬂow

that has accelerated in recent years. This may be the only chance these immigrants have at family

reuniﬁcation today. And in the cases of parents who are removed and deported and therefore

separated for uncertain periods of time from their children, scholars have unsurprisingly detected

a link between these separations and increased levels of reported depressive symptoms, feelings

of loss, and sadness in both adults and children (Dreby 2012, 2015; Su´

arez-Orozco et al. 2002).

Furthermore, immigration regulations have made it nearly impossible for migrants to bring

their spouses (N ´

u˜

nez Carrasco 2010, Khanum 2001), giving rise to different family arrangements

and to various practices associated with maintaining split families, sustaining parental obligations,

and remitting (Carling et al. 2012, Giralt & Bailey 2010). Family reuniﬁcation legislation in the

United States has actually contributed to keeping families separated owing to limited visa alloca-

tions and increasingly challenging requirements to petition for family members (Enchautegui &

Menj´

ıvar 2013). Immigration laws also jeopardize immigrant women’s legal and citizenship rights,

creating situations in which these women are excluded from full participation in society and their

labor rights are infringed (Salcido & Menj´

ıvar 2012). Relatedly, in efforts to attract skilled immi-

grants, successive governments in France have tried to reduce the share of family reuniﬁcation visas

(Body-Gendrot 2008), as there is a supposition that these visas do not attract highly skilled workers.

The appetite for migrant labor in wealthier countries does not mean that immigrant workers

are received with open arms; indeed, high-income countries restrict the rights of migrant workers

as part of their labor immigration policies (Longazel & Fleury-Steiner 2011, Ruhs 2013). Thus,

in spite of much recognition of migrants’ rights (Battistella 1995, Ruhs 2013), the internalization

of border enforcement has transformed immigrant workers into deportable migrants (or even

criminals), often with tenuous claims to rights, a situation we see in the United States (De Genova

2002), Canada (Ellerman 2009), and Europe (Calavita 2005), as well as in Israel (Willen 2010).

In creating internal borders, receiving nations also resort to mechanisms that are not as visible

as deportations and detention but that in effect delink territorial presence and citizenship, as states

can also exclude through redeﬁning laws that govern citizenship. This is the case for thousands of

permanent legal residents who have been deported from the United States (Golash-Boza 2014,

Kanstroom 2007). It is also the case for the Dominican Republic’s Constitutional Tribunal’s

decision to deny citizenship to Haitian descendants (all those born after 1929), thus overnight

turning several generations of Dominican-born Haitians into stateless people within Dominican

territory (see Duany 2013), potentially subject to deportation. Another instance comes from US

policy makers who advocate for the repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution

to remove birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants (Chavez 2014).

Controls within the territory, or the “borders within” (Espiritu 2003), also include the use of secret

www.annualreviews.org •Immigration Law Beyond Borders 361

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

evidence, racial proﬁling, and the general criminalization and hypercriminalization of immigrants

today (Colombo 2013, Inda 2006, Inda & Dowling 2013, Miller 2005, Morris 1997, Palidda 2011,

Simon 1998, Welch 2002).

An expanding form of immigration control inside receiving countries’ territory is exem-

pliﬁed by a shift toward a “paradigm of temporary legality” (Kretsedemas 2012, p. e12; also

Chauvin et al. 2013), a strategy that has dramatically transformed migratory ﬂows to the United

States and other major receiving countries (Calavita 2005) and on which today’s enforcement-

heavy system rests (Delano 2012, Hennebry & Preibisch 2012, Kretsedemas 2012). As a form of

immigration control that presumably prevents long-term immigrant settlement, such programs

grant immigrants only temporary legality with no paths for permanent settlement, placing them

in a legal limbo or “liminal legality” (Menj´

ıvar 2006) for uncertain periods of time. Immigrants in

these temporary spaces of legality have a higher likelihood of being separated from their families

for indeﬁnite periods of time because they are not eligible to petition for their families to join

them but at the same time they cannot travel easily to be with their families.

These situations create a paradox in major immigrant-receiving countries, such as the United

States, Canada, and Australia, which consider themselves to be countries of immigration. Interna-

tional conventions, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, include language to afﬁrm and pro-

tect family unity. The United Nations’ International Convention on the Protection of the Rights

of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families recognizes the family as the natural and

fundamental unit of society and requires that the unity of migrant workers’ families be protected.

It further speciﬁes that when family members are separated, states must take appropriate measures

to facilitate prompt reuniﬁcation (Menj´

ıvar & Rumbaut 2008). However, the principles enshrined

in these documents do not automatically entitle migrants to a right to reuniﬁcation (see Battistella

1995) because none of the major receiving countries have ratiﬁed the Convention. To the con-

trary, they make it increasingly difﬁcult for immigrants to reunite with their families. Thus, far

from upholding these principles, major receiving countries continue to enact policies that separate

immigrants from their families and jeopardize immigrants’ long-term membership in society.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

As the powerful receiving countries deploy programs and strategies that envelop contiguous ter-

ritories in their securitization campaigns, images of physical borders as ﬂexible and movable are

constructed; this seeming ﬂexibility often gives a sense of a “loss of control” (Collyer & de Haas

2012). However, the expansion of borders has led to a reinforcement of borders, a revaluation of

citizenship, and a reconceptualization of spaces and geographies of state power (see also Licona &

Maldonado 2014). As such, the outward and inward expansion of borders highlights the enduring

power of the state and its spaciality, or as Torpey (2000) observes, the state’s monopoly over

legitimate means of movement. This expansion also exposes important contradictions, such as the

“functionality of the state’s apparent dysfunctions” (Fassin 2011, p. 217). A great deal of what is

happening on the ground regarding the securitization–migration nexus is occurring both inside

the territory of receiving countries as well as outside their borders, in transit countries but in

sending countries as well. Far from deteriorating, weakening, or losing signiﬁcance in the face of

increased ﬂows of capital, information, and commodities (see Anderson & O’Dowd 1999, Kearney

1991), the borders of a nation are reafﬁrmed as they expand inward and outward, away from the

physical demarcation between national territories.

The securitization turn at the root of the multidirectional border enforcement expansion to-

day has contributed to transform spaces, blurring the lines between national territories through

362 Menj´

ıvar

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

extraterritorial activities of control while at the same time increasing differentiation internally (see

Coutin 2010, Raustiala 2009) through detention and deportation practices. Border expansion has

created “spaces of exception” as well. As McGuire & Coutin (2013) observe, foreign service workers

stationed extraterritorially in sending countries exist in an “exceptional space,” by necessity outside

of the national territory, to represent the nation. This is how borders are enforced and migratory

movements are controlled today, above and beyond the physical lines that separate countries.

As they lessen national territorial demarcations and enhance internal differentiation, the twin

processes of externalizing and internalizing border controls also create new subjectivities and

forms of subordination (Chauvin & Garc´

es-Mascare ˜

nas 2014). For instance, the construction of

immigrant “illegality” (De Genova 2002, Menj´

ıvar & Kanstroom 2014) is no longer conﬁned to

the territorial borders of the receiving country; it is a process that starts before immigrants arrive

at the physical border, in transit areas and, in some cases, even at the point of departure. Fur-

thermore, the various internal and external techniques of control, including the visible strategies

of deportation and detention as well as the less visible measures that make family reuniﬁcation

nearly impossible, are all based on hypersurveillance, detention without cause, and a host of prob-

lematic encounters between law enforcement and immigrants (Provine & Sanchez 2011). Such

approaches are based on and also sustain the hypercriminalization of immigrants, which encour-

ages ethnoracial proﬁling. This multipronged approach—inside, outside, and at the edges of the

territory—Legomsky (2006) argues, is more lethal than the sum of its parts.

The processes to which this review calls attention give rise to new forms of social stratiﬁca-

tion inside national territories along lines of legal status and alienage (Chavez 2014, Menj´

ıvar &

Kanstroom 2014) and through the regulation of internal mechanisms leading to citizenship and le-

gal residence (Waldinger & Fitzgerald 2004). They are also based on a history of institutionalized

racism and discrimination (Hing 2009, Johnson 2009). The policing of migrants on a global scale,

together with the disciplining of migrants internally (Walters 2002), enhances the divide between

citizens and aliens in the receiving countries (Peutz 2006) and augments the power imbalances

between sending and receiving countries. Together these processes exacerbate global inequalities

and internal divisions, in material and symbolic ways (see also Van Houtum & Pijpers 2007). As a

result, the outsourcing and insourcing of border controls ultimately bolster the power of receiving

states on a global scale.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any afﬁliations, memberships, funding, or ﬁnancial holdings that might

be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Laia Soto-Bermant and Megan Carney for thoughtful suggestions and stimulating con-

versations and William McDonald for ﬁrst-rate research assistantship.

LITERATURE CITED

Adepoju A, Van Noorloos F, Zoomers A. 2010. Europe’s migration agreements with migrant-sending coun-

tries in the Global South: a critical review. Int. Migr. 48(3):42–75

˚kesson L, Carling J, Drotbohm H. 2012. Mobility, moralities and motherhood: navigating the contingencies

of Cape Verdean lives. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 38(2):237–60

Alonso-Borrego C, Garoupa N, V´

azquez P. 2012. Does immigration cause crime? Evidence from Spain. Am.

Law Econ. Rev. 14(1):165–91

Alvarez RR. 1995. The Mexican-US border: the making of an anthropology of the borderlands. Annu. Rev.

Anthropol. 24:447–70

www.annualreviews.org •Immigration Law Beyond Borders 363

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

Anderson J, O’Dowd L. 1999. Borders, border regions and territoriality: contradictory meanings, changing

signiﬁcance. Reg. Stud. 33(7):593–604

Andreas P. 2009. Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico Divide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press. 2nd ed.

Andreas P, Snyder T, eds. 2000. The Wall Around the West: State Borders and Immigration Controls in North

America and Europe. New York: Rowman & Littleﬁeld

Andrijasevic R. 2010. From exception to excess: detention and deportation across the Mediterranean space. In

The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement, ed. by N De Genova, N Peutz,

pp. 147–65. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Anguiano-T´

ellez ME. 2008. Chiapas: territorio de inmigraci ´

on, emigraci ´

on, y tr´

ansito migratorio. Pap. Poblac.

14(56):215–32

Astor A. 2009. Unauthorized immigration, securitization and the making of Operation Wetback. Latino Stud.

7(1):5–29

Battistella G. 1995. Family reuniﬁcation: policies and issues. Asian Pac. Migr. J. 4(2/3):233–50

Bauman Z. 1998. Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Bernardie-Tahir N, Schmoll C. 2014. The uses of islands in the production of the southern European migration

border. Isl. Stud. J. 9(1):3–6

Bigo D. 2002. Security and immigration: toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Altern.: Glob.

Local Polit. 27(1):63–92

Bigo D, Guild E. 2005. Policing at a distance: Schengen visa policies. In Controlling Frontiers: Free Movement

Into and Within Europe, ed. D Bigo, E Guild, pp. 233–63. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate

Bigo D, Guild E. 2010. The transformation of European border controls. In Extraterritorial Immigration

Control: Legal Challenges, ed. B Ryan, V Mitsilegas, pp. 257–79. Leiden, Neth.: Koninklijke Brill

Boccagni P. 2012. Practising motherhood at a distance: retention and loss in Ecuadorian transnational families.

J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 38(2):261–77

Body-Gendrot S. 2008. Muslims: citizenship, security and social justice in France. Int. J. Law Crime Justice

36(4):247–56

Boehm D. 2012. Intimate Migrations: Gender, Family, and Illegality Among Transnational Mexicans. New York:

NYU Press

Broeders D. 2007. The new digital borders of Europe: EU databases and the surveillance of irregular migrants.

Int. Sociol. 22(1):71–92

Burman J. 2006. Absence, “removal,” and everyday life in the diasporic city: antidetention/antideportation

activism in Montr´

eal. Space Cult. 9(3):279–93

Calavita K. 2005. Immigrants at the Margins: Law, Race, and Exclusion in Southern Europe. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Univ. Press

Calavita K. 2007. Immigration law, race, and identity. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3:1–20

Carling J, Hern´

andez-Carretero M. 2011. Protecting Europe and protecting migrants? Strategies for man-

aging unauthorized migration from Africa. Br.J.Polit.Int.Relat.13(1):42–58

Carling J, Menj´

ıvar C, Schmalzbauer L. 2012. Central themes in the study of transnational parenthood.

J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 38(2):191–217

Carney MA. 2013. Border meals: detention center feeding practices, migrant subjectivity, and questions on

trauma. Gastronomica 13(4):32–46

Carrera S. 2007. The EU border management strategy: FRONTEX and the challenges of irregular immigration in

the Canary Islands. CEPS Work. Doc. 261, Cent. Eur. Policy Stud., Brussels

Casillas R. 2010. Migraci ´

on centroamericana y trata de migrantes en Chiapas, M´

exico. Revista Frontera Sur de

M´exico,LecturasB

asicas de Inteligencia No. 3, ESISEN, pp. 177–202

Castells M. 1989. The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban-Regional

Process. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Ceyhan A, Tsoukala A. 2002. The securitization of migration in Western societies: ambivalent discourses and

policies. Altern.: Glob. Local Polit. 27(1):21–39

Chauvin S, Garc´

es-Mascare ˜

nas B. 2014. Becoming less illegal: deservingness frames and undocumented mi-

grant incorporation. Sociol. Compass 8(4):422–32

ChauvinS,Garc

es-Mascare ˜

nas B, Kraler A. 2013. Working for legality: employment and migrant regulariza-

tion in Europe. Int. Migr. 51(6):118–31

364 Menj´

ıvar

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

Chavez L, Menj´

ıvar C. 2010. Children without borders: a mapping of the literature on unaccompanied migrant

children to the United States. Migr. Int. 5(3):71–111

Chavez LR. 2014. “Illegality” across generations: public discourse and the children of undocumented immi-

grants. See Menj´

ıvar & Kanstroom 2014, pp. 84–110

Christiansen T, Petito F, Tonra B. 2000. Fuzzy politics around fuzzy borders: the European Union’s ‘near

abroad.’ Coop. Conﬂ. 35(4):389–415

Coleman M. 2007. Immigration geopolitics beyond the Mexico-U.S. border. Antipode 39(1):54–76

Collyer M. 2007. In between places: trans-Saharan transit migrants in Morocco and the fragmented journey

to Europe. Antipode 39:620–35

Collyer M, de Haas H. 2012. Developing dynamic categorisations of transit migration. Popul. Space Place

18(4):468–81

Colombo M. 2013. Discourse and politics of migration in Italy: the production and reproduction of ethnic

dominance and exclusion. J. Lang. Polit. 12(2):157–79

Costello C. 2012. Human rights and the elusive universal subject: immigration detention under international

human rights and EU Law. Indiana J. Glob. Leg. Stud. 19(1):257–303

Coutin SB. 2010. Conﬁned within: national territories as zones of conﬁnement. Polit. Geogr. 29(4):200–8

d’Appollonia AC. 2012. Frontiers of Fear: Immigration and Insecurity in the United States and Europe. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell Univ. Press

De Genova N. 2002. Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 31:419–47

De Giorgi A. 2010. Immigration control, post-Fordism, and less eligibility: a materialist critique of the crim-

inalization of immigration across Europe. Punishm. Soc. 12(2):147–67

Delano A. 2012. From “shared responsibility” to a migration agreement? The limits for cooperation in the

Mexico-United States case (2000–2008). Int. Migr. 50(s1):e41–50

Djaji´

c S, Michael MS. 2013. Controlling illegal immigration: on the scope for cooperation with a transit country.

Presented at ETSG2013 (Pap. 244), Annu. Conf. Eur. Trade Study Group, 15th, Univ. Birmingham,

Sept. 14, Birmingham, UK. http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2013/Papers/244.pdf

Dreby J. 2012. The burden of deportation on children in Mexican immigrant families. J. Marriage Fam.

74(4):829–45

Dreby J. 2015. Everyday Illegal: When Policies Undermine Immigrant Families. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. In

press

Duany J. 2013. Gente sin estado. El Nuevo D´ıa,Oct.9.http://www.elnuevodia.com/voz-gentesinestado-

1614761.html

Dunn TJ. 1996. The Militarization of the U.S.-Mexico Border, 1978–1992: low-intensity conﬂict doctrine comes

home. Austin: CMAS Bord. Migr. Ser./Univ. Tex. Press

D¨

uvell F. 2012. Transit migration: a blurred and politicised concept. Popul. Space Place 18(4):415–27

Echegoy´

en Nava G. 2013. That’s how life is over there, isn’t it? Family life changes among Mexican non-

migrants who stayed behind. Migr. Int. 7(1):9–33

Ellerman A. 2009. States Against Migrants: Deportation in Germany and the United States. New York:

Cambridge Univ. Press

Enchautegui M, Menj´

ıvar C. 2013. Family separation and reorganization under current immigration laws.Pre-

sented at APPAM Annu. Fall Conf., Nov. 9, Washington, DC

Espiritu YL. 2003. Home Bound: Filipino American Lives Across Cultures, Communities, and Countries.Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. Press

Falk R. 1999. Predatory Globalization: A Critique. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Fassin D. 2011. Policing borders, producing boundaries: the governmentality of immigration in dark times.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40:213–26

Fedyuk O. 2012. Images of transnational motherhood: the role of photographs in measuring time and main-

taining connections between Ukraine and Italy. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 38(2):279–300

Fouratt CE. 2014. “Those who come to do harm”: the framings of immigration problems in Costa Rican

immigration law. Int. Migr. Rev. 48(1):144–80

GAO (US Gen. Account. Off.). 2002. Immigration enforcement: challenges to implementing the INS Interior

Enforcement Strategy. GAO-02-861T, Testimony Subcomm. Immigr. Claims, Comm. Judic., US House,

accessed Apr. 21, 2014. http://www.gao.gov/assets/110/109419.pdf

www.annualreviews.org •Immigration Law Beyond Borders 365

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

Gilboy JA. 1991. Deciding who gets in: decisionmaking by immigration inspectors. Law Soc. Rev. 25(3):571–

600

Giralt RM, Bailey AJ. 2010. Transnational familyhood and the liquid life paths of South Americans in the UK.

Glob. Netw. 10(3):383–400

Golash-Boza T. 2014. From legal to “illegal”: the deportation of legal permanent residents from the United

States. See Menj´

ıvar & Kanstroom 2014, pp. 203–22

Golash-Boza T, Menj´

ıvar C. 2012. Causes and consequences of international migration: sociological evidence

for the right to mobility. Int. J. Hum. Rights 16(8):1213–27

Grifﬁn CE. 2009. Deportation and reintegration in the Caribbean and Latin America: addressing the

development-security paradox. Sociol. Crime Law Deviance 13:279–96

Guiraudon V. 2006. Enlisting third parties in border control: a comparative study of its causes and conse-

quences. In Borders and Security Governance: Managing Borders in a Globalized World, ed. M. Caparini,

O Marenin, pp. 79–97. Geneva: Geneva Cent. Democr. Control Armed Forces/Zurich: LIT

Hagan J, Phillips S. 2008. Border blunders: the unanticipated human and economic costs of the U.S. approach

to immigration control, 1986–2007. Criminol. Public Policy 7(1):83–94

Hansen R, Papademetriou DG. 2014. Securing Borders: The Intended, Unintended, and Perverse Consequences.

Washington, DC: Migr. Policy Inst.

Hennebry JL, Preibisch K. 2012. A model for managed migration? Re-examining best practices in Canada’s

Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program. Int. Migr. 50(s1):e19–40

Heyman JM. 1999. Why interdiction? Immigration control at the United States-Mexico border. Reg. Stud.

33(7):619–30

Heyman JM. 2001. Class and classiﬁcation on the U.S.-Mexico border. Hum. Organ. 60(2):128–40

Heyman JM. 2008. Constructing a virtual wall: race and citizenship in U.S.-Mexico border policing. J. South-

west 50(3):305–34

Heyman JM. 2012. Political economy and social justice in the US-Mexico border region. In Social Justice in

the U.S.-Mexico Border Region, ed. M Lusk, K Staudt, E Moya, pp. 41–59. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer

Hing BO. 2006. Deporting Our Souls: Values, Morality, and Immigration Policy. New York: Cambridge Univ.

Press

Hing BO. 2009. Institutional racism, ICE raids, and immigration reform. Univ. San Franc. Law Rev. 44:1–49

Hurrell A. 2006. Hegemony in a region that dares not speak its name. Int. J. 61(3):545–66

Huysmans J. 2000. The European Union and the securitization of migration. J. Common Market Stud.

38(5):751–77

Hyndman J, Mountz A. 2008. Another brick in the wall? Neo-refoulement and the externalization of asylum

by Australia and Europe. Gov. Oppos.: Int. J. Comp. Polit. 43(2):249–69

Ilgit A, Klotz A. 2014. How far does “societal security” travel? Securitization in South African immigration

policies. Secur. Dialogue 45(2):137–55

Inda JX. 2006. Targeting Immigrants: Government, Technology, and Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Inda JX, Dowling JA. 2013. Introduction: governing migrant illegality. In Governing Immigration Through

Crime: A Reader, ed. JA Dowling, JX Inda, pp. 1–35. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Jenks R. 1995. Immigration reform in U.S. and Europe. Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 10(3):58–64

Johnson K. 2009. The intersection of race and class in U.S. immigration law and enforcement. Law Contemp.

Probl. 72:1–35

Kanstroom D. 2007. Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Kanstroom D. 2012. Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora. New York: Oxford Univ.

Press

Kearney M. 1991. Borders and boundaries of state and self at the end of empire. J. Hist. Sociol. 4(1):52–74

Khanum SM. 2001. The household patterns of a “Bangladeshi village” in England. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud.

27(3):489–504

Kirchner A. 2010. The “external dimension” of the EU’s immigration policy and Morocco’s capacity to man-

age migration. Bachelor Thesis, Eur. Stud., Univ. Twente, Enschede, Neth., accessed Oct. 8, 2013.

http://essay.utwente.nl/60300/1/BSc_A_Kirchner.pdf

Klein A, Williams L. 2012. Immigration detention in the community: research on the experiences of migrants

released from detention centres in the UK. Popul. Space Place 18(6):741–53

366 Menj´

ıvar

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

Koslowski R. 2006. Information technology and integrated border management. In Borders and Security Gov-

ernance: Managing Borders in a Globalized World, ed. M Caparini, O Marenin, pp. 59–78. Geneva: Geneva

Cent. Democr. Control Armed Forces/Zurich: LIT

Kretsedemas P. 2012. The limits of control: neo-liberal policy priorities and the US non-immigrant ﬂow. Int.

Migr. 50(s1):e1–18

Lamont M, Moln´

ar V. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28:167–95

Lavenex S. 2006. Shifting up and out: the foreign policy of European immigration control. West Eur. Polit.

29(2):329–50

Lavenex S, Schimmelfennig F. 2009. EU rules beyond EU borders: theorizing external governance in European

politics. J. Eur. Public Policy 16(6):791–812

Lavenex S, Uc¸arer EM. 2002. Migration and the Externalities of European Integration.Lanham,MD:Lexington

Books

Lavenex S, Uc¸arer EM, eds. 2004. The external dimension of Europeanisation: the case of immigration

policies. Coop. Conﬂict 39(4):417–43

Leerkes A, Bachmeier JD, Leach MA. 2013. When the border is “everywhere”: state-level variation in migra-

tion control and changing settlement patterns of the unauthorized immigrant population in the United

States. Int. Migr. Rev. 47(4):910–43

Legomsky SH. 2006. The USA and the Caribbean interdiction program. Int. J. Refug. Law 18(3/4):677–95

Leifsen E, Tymczuk A. 2012. Care at a distance: Ukrainian and Ecuadorian transnational parenthood from

Spain. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 38(2):219–36

Levitsky S. 2013. Integrating law and health policy. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9:33–50

Liang Z, Ye W. 2011. From Fujian to New York: understanding new Chinese migration. In Global Human

Smuggling: Comparative Perspectives, ed. D Kyle, R Koslowski, pp. 187–215. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

Univ. Press. 2nd ed.

Licona AC, Maldonado MM. 2014. The social production of Latin@visibilities and invisibilities: geographies

of power in small town America. Antipode 46(2):517–36

Longazel J. 2013. Moral panic as racial degradation ceremony: racial stratiﬁcation and the local-level backlash

against Latino/a immigrants. Punishm. Soc. 15(1):96–119

Longazel J, Fleury-Steiner B. 2011. Exploiting borders: the political economy of local backlash against un-

documented immigrants. Chicano-Latina/o Law Rev. 30:43–63

Martin SF. 2007. Unauthorized Migration: US Policy Responses in Comparative Perspective. Washington, DC:

Walsh Sch. Foreign Serv., Inst. Study Int. Migr., Georgetown Univ.

Mart´

ın D´

ıaz E, Cuberos Gallardo F, Castellani S. 2012. Latin American migration to Spain: discourses and

practices from “la madre patria.” Cult. Stud. 26(6):814–41

Massey DS, Durand J, Malone NJ. 2002. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic

Integration. New York: Russell Sage Found.

McGuire C, Coutin SB. 2013. Transnational alienage and foreignness: deportees and foreign service ofﬁcers

in Central America. Identities: Glob. Stud. Cult. Power 20(6):689–704

McKenzie S, Menj´

ıvar C. 2011. The meanings of migration, remittances, and gifts: the views of Honduran

women who stay. Glob. Netw.: J. Transnatl. Aff. 11(1):63–81

Menj´

ıvar C. 2006. Liminal legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants’ lives in the United States. Am.

J. Sociol. 111(4):999–1037

Menj´

ıvar C. 2013. Central American immigrant workers and legal violence in Phoenix, Arizona. Latino Stud.

11(2):228–52

Menj´

ıvar C, Abrego L. 2012. Legal violence: immigration law and the lives of Central American immigrants.

Am. J. Sociol. 117(5):1380–421

Menj´

ıvar C, Agadjanian V. 2007. Men’s migration and women’s lives: views from rural Armenia and Guatemala.

Soc. Sci. Q. 88(5):1243–62

Menj´

ıvar C, Kanstroom D, eds. 2014. Constructing Immigrant “Illegality”: Critiques, Experiences, and Responses.

New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Menj´

ıvar C, Rumbaut RG. 2008. Rights of migrants. In The Leading Rogue State: The United States and Human

Rights, ed. J Blau, DL Brunsma, A Moncada, C Zimmer, pp. 60–74. Boulder, CO/London: Paradigm

www.annualreviews.org •Immigration Law Beyond Borders 367

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

Miller T. 2005. Blurring the boundaries between immigration and crime control after September 11th. Boston

Coll. Third World Law J. 25:4

Morris H. 1997. Zero tolerance: the increasing criminalization of immigration law. Interpret. Releases 74:1317–

Mountz A. 2010. Seeking Asylum: Human Smuggling and Bureaucracy at the Border. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.

Press

Nevins J. 2002. Operation Gatekeeper: The Rise of the “Illegal Alien” and the Making of the U.S.-Mexico Boundary.

New York: Routledge

Ngai MM. 1998. Legacies of exclusion: illegal Chinese immigration during the Cold War years. J. Am. Ethn.

Hist. 18(1):3–35

N´

u˜

nez Carrasco L. 2010. Transnational family life among Peruvian migrants in Chile: multiple commitments

and the role of social remittances. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 41(2):187–204

Oelgem ¨

oller C. 2011. “Transit” and “suspension”: migration management or the metamorphosis of asylum-

seekers into “illegal” immigrants. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 37(3):407–24

Palidda S, ed. 2011. Racial Criminalization of Migrants in the 21st Century. Farnham, UK: Ashgate

Pallitto R, Heyman JM. 2008. Theorizing cross-border mobility: surveillance, security and identity. Surveill.

Soc. 5(3):315–33

Peutz N. 2006. Embarking on an anthropology of removal. Curr. Anthropol. 47(2):217–41

Pratt A. 2005. Securing Borders: Detention and Deportation in Canada. Vancouver, Can.: Univ. B.C. Press

Provine DM, Sanchez G. 2011. Suspecting immigrants: exploring links between racialized anxieties and ex-

panded police powers in Arizona. Polic. Soc.: Int. J. Res. Policy 21(4):468–79

Raphael AC, Gonz´

alez del Cojo MJ, Mej´

ıa S´

anchez M. 2006. Migraci´on y repatriaciones: M´exico en la Encrucijada

Norte Sur.M

exico, DF: Rosa Ma. Porr ´

Raustiala K. 2009. Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? The Evolution of Territoriality in American Law.New

York: Oxford Univ. Press

Reher D, Requena M, S´

anchez-Dom´

ınguez M. 2013. Divided families among Latin American immigrants in

Spain: Just how level is the playing ﬁeld? Hist. Fam. 18(1):26–43

Richard C, Fischer N. 2008. A legal disgrace? The retention of deported migrants in contemporary France.

Soc. Sci. Inf. 47(4):581–603

Rijpma JJ, Cremona M. 2007. The extra-territorialisation of EU migration policies and the rule of law.EUIWork.

Pap. LAW No. 2007/01, Dep. Law, Eur. Univ. Inst., accessed Oct. 8, 2013. http://cadmus.eui.eu/

handle/1814/6690

Rivas Castillo J R. 2012. Los que se quedan en el camino: Immigrantes salvadore ˜nos en Puerto Madero, Chiapas.PhD

Thesis, CIESAS-Occidente/CONACyT, Guadalajara, Mex.

Rosas G. 2006. The managed violences of the borderlands: treacherous geographies, policeability, and the

politics of race. Latino Stud. 4(4):401–18

Rosas G. 2012. Barrio Libre: Criminalizing States and Delinquent Refusals of the New Frontier.Durham,NC:

Duke Univ. Press

Rudolph C. 2006. National Security and Immigration: Policy Development in the United States and Western Europe

Since 1945. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Ruhs M. 2013. The Price of Rights: Regulating International Labor Migration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.

Press

Rumbaut RG, Ewing WA. 2007. The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation.

Washington, DC: Immigr. Policy Cent., accessed Jan. 3, 2014. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/

special-reports/myth-immigrant-criminality-and-paradox-assimilation

Rus DL, Rus J. 2014. Trapped behind the lines: the impact of undocumented migration, debt, and recession

on a Tsotsil community of Chiapas, Mexico, 2002–2012. Latin Am. Perspect. 41(3):154–77

Ryan B. 2010. Extraterritorial immigration control: what role for legal guarantees? In Extraterritorial Immi-

gration Control: Legal Challenges, ed. B Ryan, V Mitsilegas, pp. 3–38. Leiden, Neth.: Koninklijke Brill

Salcido O, Menj´

ıvar C. 2012. Gendered paths to legal citizenship: the case of Latin-American immigrants in

Phoenix, Arizona. Law Soc. Rev. 46(2):335–68

Sandoval GF. 2013. Shadow transnationalism: cross-border networks and planning challenges of transnational

unauthorized immigrant communities. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 33(2):176–93

368 Menj´

ıvar

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10CH20-Menjivar ARI 7 October 2014 8:53

Sassen S. 1988. The Mobility of Labor and Capital: A Study in International Investment and Labor Flow. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Schain MA. 2014. Policies and politics of immigration in the United States and the European Union. In

Reporting at the Southern Borders: Journalism and Public Debates on Immigration in the US and the EU,ed.

G Dell’Orto, VL Birchﬁeld, pp. 32–46. New York: Routledge

Schmalzbauer L. 2014. The Last Best Place? Gender, Family, and Migration in the New West. Stanford, CA:

Stanford Univ. Press

Scott J. 2014. Extraterritoriality and territorial extension in EU law. Am. J. Comp. Law 62:87–126

Servan-Mori E, Leyva-Flores R, Infante Xibille C, Torres-Pereda P, Garcia-Cerde R. 2014. Migrants suffering

violence while in transit through Mexico: factors associated with the decision to continue or turn back.

J. Immigr. Minor. Health 16(1):53–59

Sigona N. 2012. “I have too much baggage”: the impacts of legal status on the social worlds of irregular

migrants. Soc. Anthropol./Anthropol. Soc. 20(1):50–65

Silverman SJ. 2012. “Regrettable but necessary?” A historical and theoretical study of the rise of the UK

immigration detention estate and its opposition. Polit. Policy 40(6):1131–57

Simon J. 1998. Refugees in a carceral age: the rebirth of immigration prisons in the United States. Public Cult.

10(3):577–607

Sladkova J. 2013. Stratiﬁcation of undocumented migrant journeys: Honduran case. Int. Migr. In press. doi:

10.1111/imig.12141

Su´

arez-Navaz L. 2006. Rebordering the Mediterranean: Boundaries and Citizenship in Southern Europe. New York:

Berghahn

Su´

arez-Orozco C, Todorova ILG, Louie J. 2002. Making up for lost time: the experience of separation and

reuniﬁcation among immigrant families. Fam. Process 41(4):625–43

Torpey J. 2000. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship, and the State. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Univ. Press

Triandafyllidou A. 2014. Multi-leveling and externalizing migration and asylum: lessons from the southern

European islands. Isl. Stud. J. 9(1):7–22

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

Vachudov´

a MA. 2000. Eastern Europe as gatekeeper: the immigration and asylum policies of an enlarging

European Union. See Andreas & Snyder 2000, pp. 153–72

Van Houtum H, Pijpers R. 2007. The European Union as a gated community: the two-faced border and

immigration regime of the EU. Antipode 39(2):291–309

Villarreal MA, Lake JE. 2009. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: an overview and se-

lected issues. Rep. 7-5700, RS22701, Congr. Res. Serv., accessed Apr. 12, 2014. https://www.fas.org/

sgp/crs/row/RS22701.pdf

Waldinger R, Fitzgerald D. 2004. The transnationalism question. Am. J. Sociol. 109(5):1177–95

Walters W. 2002. Deportation, expulsion, and the international police of aliens. Citizsh. Stud. 6(3):265–92

Weil P. 2002. Towards a coherent policy of co-development. Int. Migr. 40(3):41–55

Weiner M, M ¨

unz R. 1997. Migrants, refugees and foreign policy: prevention and intervention strategies. Third

World Q. 18(1):25–51

Welch M. 2002. Detained: Immigration Laws and the Expanding I.N.S. Jail Complex. Philadelphia: Temple Univ.

Press

Willen SS. 2010. Citizens, “real” others, and “other” others: the biopolitics of otherness and the deportation

of unauthorized migrant workers from Tel Aviv, Israel. In The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and

the Freedom of Movement, ed. N De Genova, N Peutz, pp. 262–94. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Zatz MS, Smith H. 2012. Immigration, crime, and victimization: rhetoric and reality. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci.

8:141–59

Zolberg A. 1992. Labour migration and international economic regimes: Bretton Woods and after. In Inter-

national Migration Systems: A Global Approach, ed. MM Kritz, LL Lim, H Zlotnik, pp. 315–34. Oxford,

UK: Clarendon

www.annualreviews.org •Immigration Law Beyond Borders 369

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10-FrontMatter ARI 17 September 2014 15:8

Annual Review of

Law and Social

Science

Volume 10, 2014

Contents

In Praise of Tents: Regulatory Studies and Transformative

Social Science

John Braithwaite ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1

Legal Education in the Corporate University

Margaret Thornton ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp19

Legal Indicators: The Power of Quantitative Measures of Law

Kevin E. Davis pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp37

Field Experimentation and the Study of Law and Policy

Donald P. Green and Dane R. Thorley pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp53

Interviewing Children

Thomas D. Lyon ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp73

Law and Society in Brazil at the Crossroads: A Review

Jos´e Reinaldo de Lima Lopes and Roberto Freitas Filho ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp91

The Dispute Tree and the Legal Forest

Catherine R. Albiston, Lauren B. Edelman, and Joy Milligan ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp105

Disentangling Law: The Practice of Bracketing

Nicholas Blomley ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp133

Critical Race Theory Meets Social Science

Devon W. Carbado and Daria Roithmayr ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp149

Language-and-Law Scholarship: An Interdisciplinary Conversation

and a Post-9/11 Example

Elizabeth Mertz and Jothie Rajah pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp169

Judicial Independence as an Organizing Principle

Charles Gardner Geyh pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp185

The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Conventional Wisdoms

and Recent Challenges Thereto

James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp201

Human Trafﬁcking and the New Slavery

Lauren A. McCarthy pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp221

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

LS10-FrontMatter ARI 17 September 2014 15:8

Public Disorders: Theory and Practice

Sophie Body-Gendrot pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp243

Crime, Law, and Regime Change

Joachim J. Savelsberg and Suzy McElrath pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp259

Law and Courts in Authoritarian Regimes

Tamir Moustafa ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp281

Cause Lawyering

Anna-Maria Marshall and Daniel Crocker Hale ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp301

Construction of Justice at the Street Level

Shannon Portillo and Danielle S. Rudes ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp321

The Law and Social Science of Stop and Frisk

Tracey L. Meares pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp335

Immigration Law Beyond Borders: Externalizing and Internalizing

Border Controls in an Era of Securitization

Cecilia Menj´ıvar ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp353

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 1–10 pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp371

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 1–10 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp374

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Law and Social Science articles may be

found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/lawsocsci

vi Contents

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

ANNUAL REVIEWS

It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

ANNUAL REVIEWS |

Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: service@annualreviews.org

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 1 • March 2014 • Online & In Print • http://orgpsych.annualreviews.org

Editor: Frederick P. Morgeson, The Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University

The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is devoted to publishing reviews of

the industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior literature.

Topics for review include motivation, selection, teams, training and development, leadership, job performance,

strategic HR, cross-cultural issues, work attitudes, entrepreneurship, aect and emotion, organizational change

and development, gender and diversity, statistics and research methodologies, and other emerging topics.

Complimentary online access to the rst volume will be available until March 2015.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

•An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving

Research Quality Before Data Collection, Herman Aguinis,

Robert J. Vandenberg

•Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach,

Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti,

Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel

•Compassion at Work, Jane E. Dutton, Kristina M. Workman,

Ashley E. Hardin

•ConstructivelyManagingConictinOrganizations,

Dean Tjosvold, Alfred S.H. Wong, Nancy Yi Feng Chen

•Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant

Behavior upon Individual Employees, Sandra L. Robinson,

Wei Wang, Christian Kiewitz

•Delineating and Reviewing the Role of Newcomer Capital in

Organizational Socialization, Talya N. Bauer, Berrin Erdogan

•Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Stéphane Côté

•Employee Voice and Silence, Elizabeth W. Morrison

•Intercultural Competence, Kwok Leung, Soon Ang,

Mei Ling Tan

•Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace,

Raymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, Howard J. Klein

•Pay Dispersion, Jason D. Shaw

•Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective

Performance at Work, Neal Schmitt

•Perspectives on Power in Organizations, Cameron Anderson,

Sebastien Brion

•Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future

of an Interpersonal Construct, Amy C. Edmondson, Zhike Lei

•Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection,

Jing Zhou, Inga J. Hoever

•Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical

Challenges, Peter Cappelli, JR Keller

•The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective,

Jerey H. Greenhaus, Ellen Ernst Kossek

•The Fascinating Psychological Microfoundations of Strategy

and Competitive Advantage, Robert E. Ployhart,

Donald Hale, Jr.

•The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Michael Frese,

Michael M. Gielnik

•The Story of Why We Stay: A Review of Job Embeddedness,

Thomas William Lee, Tyler C. Burch, Terence R. Mitchell

•What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OB,

Lyman W. Porter, Benjamin Schneider

•Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining

the Intersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century

Teams, Cristina B. Gibson, Laura Huang, Bradley L. Kirkman,

Debra L. Shapiro

•Work–Family Boundary Dynamics, Tammy D. Allen,

Eunae Cho, Laurenz L. Meier

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

ANNUAL REVIEWS

It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

ANNUAL REVIEWS |

Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: service@annualreviews.org

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application

Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto

Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago

The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as

well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that

allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the eld of statistics, including theoretical statistical

underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specic application domains such as biostatistics

and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.

Complimentary online access to the rst volume will be available until January 2015.

table of contents:

•What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg

•A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence

from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang,

Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage,

Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema,

Patrick B. Ryan

•The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson,

David A. van Dyk

•Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman

•Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp

•Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,

Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein

•Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,

Matthias Katzfuss

•Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert

•Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,

Radu V. Craiu, Jerey S. Rosenthal

•Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent

Variable Models, David M. Blei

•Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:

Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright

•High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications

in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier

•Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization,

and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange,

Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel

•Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis

in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond,

Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca

•Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding

•StatisticalEvaluationofForensicDNAProleEvidence,

Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding

•Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:

Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein

•Statistical Ecology, Ruth King

•Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity

Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh

•Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,

Susan A. Murphy

•Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,

Hong Qian, S.C. Kou

•Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking

and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci. 2014.10:353-369. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Cecilia Menjivar on 11/13/14. For personal use only.

Penalizing migration and a culture of impunity: The case of Turkey's unwanted noncitizens

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2025

This chapter unpacks the notion of bordered penalty in the Turkish context, one of the major refugee-receiving countries in the world in the last decade. We take stock of and examine the social and political forces behind, on the one hand, the increasing border enforcement and forced return, and on the other hand, discrimination, hate speech and attacks on "unwanted" noncitizens that have become more mundane, even overtly nurtured by politicians. We argue that this is highly related to the history of injustices and concomitant impunity for the crimes against ethnic and religious minorities that the nation building process has repeatedly marked and excluded as national Others. The prevailing culture of impunity for crimes against unwanted citizens makes the country a fertile ground for such atrocities against today's unwanted noncitizens. Turkish case helps us think through the notion of the bordered penalty against the background of impunity, a key aspect that leads to a Janus-faced criminal justice system, which both criminalizes noncitizens and gives leeway to parallel justice-seeking practices by de-criminalizing citizen or state-led violence. Based on this analysis, we suggest expanding our analytical gaze on bordered penalty to include historical-structural interlinkages between nationalism, religion and citizenship. 2

Wall of visas: how race impacts the externalization of (forced) migration control in south-south migration corridors

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025
ETHNIC RACIAL STUD

Refugee Policies and Border Regime in Southern Mexico

Article

Feb 2025

María Dolores París Pombo

Based on a critical geopolitical analysis, this paper addresses the convergence of refugee policies and migration control policies in southern Mexico within the framework of border externalization and internalization. I posit that the border process in this region responds to both political and military interests espoused by the U.S. as well as Mexican governments. The refugee system is an instrument though which mobility is controlled, and the militarization and securitization of Mexico’s southern border can be legitimized. One consequence of this process is the indefinite blocking of migrants and asylum seekers in the city of Tapachula, Chiapas, and its current transformation into a “city-prison.” A partir de un análisis geopolítico crítico, este artículo aborda la convergencia de las políticas de refugiados y de control migratorio en el sur de México en el marco de la externalización e internalización de las fronteras. Postulo que el proceso fronterizo en esta región responde a intereses tanto políticos como militares propugnados por los gobiernos de Estados Unidos y México. El sistema de refugiados es un dispositivo mediante el cual se controla la movilidad y se puede legitimar la militarización y securitización de la frontera sur de México. Una consecuencia de este proceso es el bloqueo indefinido de personas migrantes y solicitantes de asilo en la ciudad de Tapachula, Chiapas, y su actual transformación en una “ciudad-prisión.”

References

Chapter

Mar 2025

Daniel K. Thompson

For a century, the Ethiopian city Jigjiga was known as a dusty hub of cross-border smuggling and a hotbed of rebellion on Ethiopia's eastern frontier. After 2010, it transformed into a post-conflict boomtown, becoming one of Africa's fastest-growing cities and attracting Somali return-migrants from across the globe. This study examines Jigjiga's astonishing transformation through the eyes of its cross-border traders, urban businesspeople, and officials. Daniel K. Thompson follows traders and return-migrants across borders to where their lives collide in the city. Analysing their strategies of mobility and exchange, this study reveals how Ethiopia's federal politics, Euro-American concerns about terrorism, and local business aspirations have intertwined to reshape links between border-making and city-making in the Horn of Africa. To understand this distinctive brand of urbanism, Thompson follows globalized connections and reveals how urbanites in Africa and beyond participate in the “urban borderwork” of constructing, as well as contesting, today's border management regimes.

Beyond left-right cleavages: making sense of refugees within the fields of struggle

Article

Feb 2025
ETHNIC RACIAL STUD

Pelin Gül

Border Solidarity

Article

Dec 2024

Marianna Poyares

This essay investigates how border solidarity—that is, grassroots coalitions against the current state of migration and border governance—allows for a radical articulation of traditional theories concerning the foundations of solidarity. Drawing on four years of activism and participatory fieldwork with the New Sanctuary Movement in the United States, the author looks at specific coalitions within migrants’ rights social movements to argue against traditional or otherwise familiar conceptions of the normative foundations of solidarity, such as a common social membership, a shared moral feeling, or a shared experience of oppression. Rather, the author argues, border solidarity as a praxis of contesting border regimes clearly shows the conceptual insufficiency of methodological nationalism, implicit in all three familiar conceptions, for articulating the meaning of solidarity. Taking a cue from materialist feminists bell hooks, Beatriz Nascimento, and Verónica Gago, the author argues that border solidarity as praxis is grounded in differential interdependence and heterogeneous transversal alliances that forge new territories (and constituencies) in opposition to hegemonic ones.

Beyond presentism in border externalization studies: Upcycled spatio-cultural geographies of imperial times

Article

Feb 2025
GEOFORUM

3 E-Terrify: Securitized Immigration and Biometric Surveillance in the Workplace

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2018

Deterrence for whom? Public information campaigns as border internalization in Australia

Article

Dec 2024

Kate Coddington

Public information campaigns, advertising conducted by destination countries to dissuade migrants and asylum seekers from leaving their countries of origin, have primarily been studied as examples of border externalization and deterrence. Australian campaigns such “No way: you will not make Australia home” plastered across billboards, radio advertisements, graphic novels, street theater, and feature films have been deployed throughout the Asia-Pacific region since the late 1990s, targeting would-be migrants from Afghanistan to Vietnam. However, in contrast to public information campaigns in other parts of the world, Australia has consistently deployed information campaigns not only externally, but also to internal audiences, including migrant diaspora communities and the wider Australian public. In this paper, I explore deterrence messaging as a form of border internalization: why were these campaigns deployed domestically? Through interviews with former campaign producers, it became clear that domestic deterrence campaigns were beneficial in multiple ways: border internalization contributed towards externalized enforcement, took advantage of existing relationships and ties, gained earned media, and contributed towards swaying domestic public opinion. Yet in addition to these stated goals, I argue that the border internalization strategies here also reflect wider understandings of national belonging anchored in the racialized colonial context of Australia.

Managing Migration Through Foreign Aid in Mexico and Central America: The Role of U.S. Conditionality on Mexico’s Migration Policies

Article

Jan 2025

Ana Martín Gil

Exploiting Borders: The Political Economy of Local Backlash against Undocumented Immigrants

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2011

Frontiers of Fear: Immigration and Insecurity in the United States and Europe

Book

Mar 2012

Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia

On both sides of the Atlantic, restrictive immigration policies have been framed as security imperatives since the 1990s. This trend accelerated in the aftermath of 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in Europe. This book raises two central questions with profound consequences for national security and immigration policy: First, does the securitization of immigration issues actually contribute to the enhancement of internal security? Second, does the use of counterterrorism measures address such immigration issues as the increasing number of illegal immigrants, the resilience of ethnic tensions, and the emergence of home-grown radicalization? This book questions the main assumptions that inform political agendas in the United States and throughout Europe, analyzing implementation and evaluating the effectiveness of policies in terms of their stated objectives. It argues that the new security-based immigration regime has proven ineffective in achieving its prescribed goals and even aggravated the problems it was supposed to solve: A security/insecurity cycle has been created that results in less security and less democracy. The excesses of securitization have harmed both immigration and counterterrorist policies and seriously damaged the delicate balance between security and respect for civil liberties.

National Security and Immigration: Policy Development in the United States and Western Europe Since 1945

Book

Jun 2006

Christopher Rudolph

Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History

Book

Dec 2007

Daniel Kanstroom

Does the Constitution Follow the Flag?: The Evolution of Territoriality in American LawThe Evolution of Territoriality in American Law

Book

Oct 2009

Kal Raustiala

The Bush Administration has notoriously argued that detainees at Guantanamo do not enjoy constitutional rights because they are held outside American borders. But where do rules about territorial legal limits such as this one come from? Why does geography make a difference for what legal rules apply? Most people intuitively understand that location affects constitutional rights, but the legal and political basis for territorial jurisdiction is poorly understood. In this novel and accessible treatment of territoriality in American law and foreign policy, Kal Raustiala begins by tracing the history of the subject from its origins in post-revolutionary America to the Indian wars and overseas imperialism of the 19th century. He then takes the reader through the Cold War and the globalization era before closing with a powerful explanation of America's attempt to increase its extraterritorial power in the post-9/11 world. As American power has grown, our understanding of extraterritorial legal rights has expanded too, and Raustiala illuminates why America's assumptions about sovereignty and territory have changed. Throughout, he focuses on how the legal limits of territorial sovereignty have diminished to accommodate the expanding American empire, and addresses how such limits ought to look in the wake of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror. A timely and engaging narrative, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? will change how we think about American territory, American law, and-ultimately-the changing nature of American power.

Immigrants at the Margins: Law, Race, and Exclusion in Southern Europe

Book

Feb 2005

Kitty Calavita

Spain and Italy have recently become countries of large-scale immigration. This provocative book explores immigration law and the immigrant experience in these southern European nations, and exposes the tension between the temporary and contingent legal status of most immigrants, and the government emphasis on integration. This book reveals that while law and the rhetoric of policymakers stress the urgency of integration, not only are they failing in that effort, but law itself plays a role in that failure. In addressing this paradox, the author combines theoretical insights and extensive data from myriad sources collected over more than a decade to demonstrate the connections among immigrants' role as cheap labor - carefully inscribed in law - and their social exclusion, criminalization, and racialization. Extrapolating from this economics of alterité, this book engages more general questions of citizenship, belonging, race and community in this global era.

Home Bound: Filipino American Lives across Cultures, Communities, and Countries

Book

May 2003

Yen Le Espiritu

Everyday Illegal: When Policies Undermine Immigrant Families

Book

Dec 2019

Joanna Dreby

Transnational Family Life among Peruvian Migrants in Chile: Multiple Commitments and the Role of Social Remittances

Article

Apr 2010

Lorena Núñez Carrasco

By looking at the case of Peruvian migration to Chile, this article explores some of the characteristics of the social reproduction of transnational families between two neighboring countries in the South. This article examines the role played by structural socio-economic conditions migrants live by in Chile in shaping their transnational family lives. It discusses how the labor and housing segmentations of migrants in Chile make family reunifications difficult so that geographical proximity between the two countries is not an enabling factor for the encounter of these families. It also examines some of the characteristics of this community of migrants in Chile, and how their class origin and gender help to understand the particular dynamics of these transnational families and the conjugal relationships migrants maintain in Peru and in Chile. The article focuses on the emotional experiences of Peruvian migrants in Chile and the efforts they invest in keeping their place within their families in Peru, through the material contributions to family livelihoods. The emotional significance of remittances are discussed, highlighting their role in filling the void in the sense of self of migrants which results from the painful distance between family members.

Immigration reform in US and Europe

Article

Jan 1995
Forum Appl Res Publ Pol

R. Jenks

Between 1981 and 1992, the US granted permanent resident status to an average of 845 000 immigrants each year, more than twice the annual level of the previous decade. In 1991, the US Congress enacted legislation that expanded legal immigration by about 35%. The combination of unsurpassed immigration and numerous economic challenges has sparked a heated national debate. Western Europe has been plagued with similar economic problems and still has managed to cope with immigration pressures. A look at the European response could provide valuable insight into the potential effectiveness of US reform options. As immigration pressures have increased, European countries have tightened their traditional entry regulations and streamlined asylum procedures. And, as joblessness has risen, employment-based immigration policies in Europe have become more restrictive. The European immigration experience demonstrates that many measures can be implemented at the national level to control immigration. The US has recently explored some of these options, but it has yet to grasp the magnitude of its immigration problem. -from Author

Immigration Law Beyond Borders: Externalizing and Internalizing Border Controls in an Era of Securitization

Abstract

Recommended publications

Changes in Swedish Labour Immigration Policy: A Slight Revolution?

States, Nations and Governments

Local Immigration Laws and their Impact on Hispanic/Latino Health

Recovering the Face-to-Face in American Immigration Law