Commentary: Treating immigrants like criminals has a long history in the United States
After much publicity, the Trump administration did not carry through its plans to detain 2,000 immigrant families and children last weekend. Nevertheless, the planned raids caused fear among immigrant communities, and the threat of more raids remains. These enforcement tactics are just one way in which the Trump administration's immigration policy has created controversy, leading many critics to call it overly punitive and even immoral.
But Trump's policies are not a sharp break with the past. They are the continuation of a longer trend. As my research shows, U.S. policy toward immigrants has become increasingly criminalized, and this has important consequences not only for the immigrants crossing the border now, but arguably for policy even after Trump leaves the White House.
The increasing overlap in criminal justice and immigration systems, or "crimmigration," has its roots nearly 40 years ago. It began in the 1980s when "War on Drugs" rhetoric clashed with Cold War politics off the Florida coast.
In 1981, the Mariel Boatlift brought 100,000 Cubans along with 15,000 Haitians to American shores. The arrival of the refugees compounded already tense racial, class and political tensions among established Cubans, whites and African Americans in Miami.
That same year, as a means to quell the growing conflict, Immigration and Naturalization Service opened the Krome Detention Center just 20 miles from downtown Miami to hold asylum-seekers during their asylum claims process. Krome became a prototype for immigrant detention centers we see today. And just as today, immigrant detainment was based on associations between criminality, drug use and race. Haitians, in particular, have faced negative stereotypes that was compounded by the AIDS crisis of the 1980s — long before Trump gave voice to those stereotypes by calling Haiti a "shithole."
This association between crime and immigration strengthened in the 1990s during the Clinton Administration. The 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act increased the number of crimes requiring mandatory detention. The latter also established the 287(g) program whereby local law enforcement can be deputized to enforce federal immigration policies.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 only accelerated the criminalization of immigration. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2003, were followed by the expansion of the 287(g) program and massive investment in border militarization and detention and deportation capabilities.
Thus, although the Trump Administration has made concrete changes in US immigration policy, its policies also reflect earlier changes too — ones that have increasing linked immigration to the criminal justice system.
This trend towards criminalization of immigration stems from multiple factors.
One is U.S. foreign policy itself, which has helped propel migrants to the U.S. For example, U.S. interventions in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean-including support of authoritarian governments and paramilitaries-helped displace thousands of people.
Free trade agreements are also partly responsible for the mass exodus north. The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement was linked to the crash of the Mexican peso. It also sharply reduced Mexican wages and collapsed the market for corn, a primary staple crop for Mexican farmers. NAFTA's more recent counterpart, the Dominican Republic and Central American Free Trade Agreement, has produced similar results in that region.
This stream of immigrants and asylum-seekers helped motiate a second factor: a more intense nativist discourse. Nativism has long been part of American history but the 1980s and 1990s saw its renewal — visible, for example, in the "English only" campaigns that curbed bilingual education programs in states like California.
Finally, interest groups benefit from criminalized immigration. For example, private corporations that run immigrant detention facilities, like CoreCivic and GEO Group, have lobbied for criminalizing policies, even during periods when apprehensions of immigrants entering the country declined.
Moreover, White House administrations can use the location of detention facilities as a possible reward for areas that support them, much as they do with other kinds of federal spending. Like prisoners, immigrant detainees are counted where they are held. And so, as with the phenomenon of prison gerrymandering, these detention centers can increase the population counts of the districts where they sit.
As controversies about the Trump administration's immigration policies continue to rage, it's important to put those policies in context. Although many Democratic presidential candidates have promised to undo four years of Trump policies, the bigger question is whether they will seek to unwind 40 years of the trend toward "crimmigration." Doing so would mean deep changes not only to how immigrants are discussed in American politics and culture but to many facets of American foreign and domestic policy.
- - -
This article was written by Melina Juárez Pérez, who is an instructor of political science and women, gender, and sexuality studies at Western Washington University, specializing in immigration and intersectional Latinx politics.