Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation in the US, post 9/11

Author(s): MATHEW COLEMAN and AUSTIN KOCHER

Source: The Geographical Journal, Vol. 177, No. 3 (September 2011), pp. 228-237
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of
British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41238043
Accessed: 28-01-2017 02:17 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), Wiley are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Geographical Journal

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Geographical Journal, Vol. 177, No. 3, September 2011, pp. 228-237, doi: 1 0.1 111/j. 1475-4959.201 1.00424.x

Detention, deportation, devolution and

immigrant incapacitation in the US, post 9/1 1
MATHEW COLEMAN AND AUSTIN KOCHER
Department of Geography, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1361, USA
E-mail: coleman.373@osu.edu; kocher.51@osu.edu
This paper was accepted for publication on May 201 1

In this paper we examine perhaps the most significant shift in US immigration enforcement since th
militarisation of the US-Mexico border in the late 1980s and early 1990s - the now decade-long
transformation of immigration enforcement from an outwards-looking power, located at the terri-
torial margins of the state, into also an inwards-looking power focused on resident immigrant
everydays. In large measure this shift in the geography of immigration policing is due to an
unprecedented devolution of a once exclusively federal power to regulate immigration to non
federal law enforcement agencies operating in non-border spaces in the post- 9/1 1 environment. W
argue that the result of this shift in the 'where' of immigration enforcement amounts to a spatialise
tactic of immigrant Incapacitation'.

key WORDS: criminalisation, immigration control, detention and deportation, post 9/11

Two sisters attending high school in Wake County, InNorth

August 2010, a 19-year-old was arrested in Raleigh for
Carolina were detained by the school's discipline officer
throwing a soft drink can out of a car window and hitting
a pedestrian. The teenager is currently in deportation
in September 2009 for fighting. A Raleigh Police Depart-
ment officer summoned to the school determined that proceedings
the as a result of the arrest. His mother cannot
file a cancellation of deportation request because she
sisters were born in Mexico, and arrested both on charges
would
of simple assault and disorderly conduct. A third girllikely face deportation if she came before the
court.
involved in the fight, who told the officer that she was
US-born, was not arrested. The sisters were sent to the
Wake County jail. Both were interviewed during the control in the US context is often
booking process by a sheriffs deputy trained by federal
Immigration thought of as primarily a matter of border enforce-
immigration authorities to investigate immigration status.
The sisters were identified as undocumented. The older ment. We can trace this equation between immi-
gration
sister was deported; the younger sister was allowed to
control and border control in part to the
exceptional place that the US-Mexico border occu-
finish high school before being deported.
pies in popular and legislative imaginations in the US.
Exceptional, that is, in terms of the large volume of
In September 2009, a Mexican-born male in his 30s left
unauthorised traffic that crosses it, as well as the threat
his house following an argument with his US citizen
to law and order that such transgressions are said to
partner and sat in his car listening to music. The man was
arrested by a Raleigh Police Department officer for apose (Andreas 2010; Dunn 2010; Marii 2004; Nevins
noise violation, following a complaint from a neighbour.2010). Most recently the US-Mexico border has
During the booking process at the Wake County jail, he emerged as exceptional in relation to homeland secu-
rity and the national security threats posed by unau-
was identified as a deportable non-citizen and placed
into deportation proceedings. thorised entry. Political pundit and erstwhile Fox news
anchor Michelle Malkin (2002, 9), for instance,
In May 2009, a single mother on her way to a hospital inexpresses a widespread post-9/1 1 fear in her claim
Raleigh to care for a friend who was in labour, was pulled that 'bin Laden-funded operatives . . . ride the rails
over at a red light. The officer asked for a valid driver'sundetected from Mexico along with hundreds of thou-
license, and took the driver into custody under a 'no sands of other undocumented workers'. She adds:
operator's license' charge. During the booking process at'We don't have borders. We have the world's longest
the county jail, the driver was determined to be undocu-backdoor welcome ma.
mented. The driver was released on her own recognisance Malkin's description of the border as the 'world's
with a set deportation hearing date before an immigrationlongest backdoor welcome ma - and, crucially, the
judge. way she traces an identity between terrorists and

The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1 201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation 229

'other' undocumented labourers who freely infiltratethis reason that Rosas (2007) refers to the border
the body politic via the US Southwest - is far fromregion as the 'killing deserts'.
original. On the one hand, immigration control at the However, that immigration law and enforcement
border throughout the Cold War period was repeat-has historically played out as border enforcement in
edly the product of densely interwoven national secu-the US context, and lethally, should not force an iden-
rity and domestic policy issues (Tichenor 2002;tity between immigration control and what has been
Zolberg 2006). On the other hand, Malkin's post-9/1 1 called the 'gatekeeper' state (Nevins 2010). Rethink-
reading of the border as under potential siege repeats ing the equation between US immigration control and
a well worn (and contradicted) reading of the borderborder control, particularly in the post-9/1 1 environ-
as a simultaneously pedagogical and performative sitement, is our central interest in this paper. Although US
(Chapn 1998; Doty 2003). Indeed, nearly continu- immigration control is well described as a 'manage-
ously throughout the period of modern immigrationment of territory' (Bigo 2007), in the sense that it is
enforcement, which can be dated from the late nine-principally about border enforcement, the externally
teenth century Chinese Exclusion period, the oriented territorial ity of US immigration enforcement
US-Mexico border has been represented as a given practice has - within the past decade in particular -
and self-evident marker dividing national populationsbeen supplemented with a 'management of popula-
at the same time as its apparent lack of solidity hastions' strategy focused not on stopping territorial entry
authorised numerous technologies and practicesper se but on policing immigrants who have already
which have sought precisely to divide and secure settled in the US. To refer quickly to Michel Foucault's
populations and space territorially, for the most part work on territory and security, immigration control
by surveilling possible entrants in order to impede theimplicates both a sovereign territorial power, which
physical entry of political, economic and socialdivides and encloses social space via state bordering
'undesirables'. In other words, despite its givenness in projects, as well as a superpanoptic mode of govern-
the sense of marking out a space of security on theing (on the superpanoptic, see Puar 2007, 1 14-65),
inside from a space of insecurity without, the border
has been an ongoing birthing ground for the territorial which is no longer that of fixing and demarcating the
organisation of identity and difference, suggesting a territory, but of allowing circulations to take place, of
new reading of the ways in which the words 'undocu- controlling them, sifting the good and the bad, ensuring
mented' and 'labour' are put together there. In this that things are always in movement . . . but in such a way
sense, Mai kin's call for tougher border enforcement, that the inherent dangers of this circulation are canceled
which draws attention to America's ongoing self- out.

making in the borderlands rather than to its concrete- Foucault (2007, 65)
ness, is business as usual.
As a result of this longstanding attempt to controlThis emerging 'management of populations' approach
the movement of populations at and across the border,to immigration enforcement is not historically unprec-
the US Southwest has been transformed, particularlyedented. Nevins and Aizeki (2008; see also Balder-
over the last 40 years, into a densely militarised spacerama and Rodriguez 2006) argue persuasively that the
- literally littered with old and new interdiction tech-active disenfranchisement of undocumented immi-
nologies. These include fences, walls, vehicle barriers,grant communities in the US interior - a form of legal,
vehicle checkpoints, ground sensors, and mostpolitical, and economic apartheid - has always been
recently, electronic surveillance towers. The militari- a strategic element of US immigration enforcement.
sation of the US Southwest, of course, contradicts Nonetheless, the immigrant pacification strategy that
Malkin's portrayal of the border as a space without theNevins and Aizeki articulate in relation to the mass
state and its infrastructures (more generally, see deportations during the 1930s as well as the 1954
Purcell and Nevins 2005). Indeed, claims that the Operation Wetback are now, unlike at any other point
US-Mexico border is an unpoliced landscape andin US history, part of the everyday fabric of immigrant
that non-citizens can enter freely between officiallife in the US interior. In other words, post-9/1 1 deten-
ports of entry stand starkly in contrast to federal appre-tion and deportation have become routinised as a
hension data for the region. For example, of the globalpotential aspect of everyday life for millions of
number of 24 million individuals taken into custodyundocumented immigrant residents in the US (De
by federal immigration authorities between 1991 andGenova 2002).
2009, 22 million (or 90%) were arrested by the Border Before we continue, we want to highlight our agree-
Patrol in the US-Mexico border region (DHS 2010). ment with Eiden (2009) about the oftentimes too-easy
We should also note that the US-Mexico border is a watershed use of '9/11' which ultimately rewrites
decidedly lethal landscape. Due to the growing use worldof historical time in terms of an American-centric
border interdiction technologies such as those noted calendar of pain. However, in the case of US immi-
above, many thousands of would-be labourers have gration enforcement, 9/1 1 needs to be recognised as
died from dehydration and exposure while trying an to important event. Although as noted above US
cross the border on foot (Eschbach e a/. 2003). It is for
immigration policy has long been conditioned by

201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
230 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation

a broad assortment of crimes that would count as

foreign policy considerations, and as such is best
thought of as constitutively 'between' the realms neither
of felonious nor aggravated for citizens - indeed,
any crime with a sentence of a year or more. The
foreign and domestic policy in the sense that it follows
from parallel 'internar and 'external' inscriptions charge
of was also made retroactive, meaning that past
the dangers posed by immigrant bodies, and results convictions
in could, if brought to the attention of immi-
the securitisation of a range of policy areas with gration
no authorities, serve as the basis for deportation.
obvious direct linkages to national security issuesThese developments were accompanied by a parallel
(Coleman 2008). 9/11 did enable a significant esca- move to sequester immigration policing from the
courts. One example of this dejuridicalisation of
lation in interior enforcement. This was largely a result
of the new premium placed on homeland security immigration enforcement was the creation of expe-
after the attacks, as well as the way in which immi- dited removal in 1996. This procedure permitted
gration policy was immediately sutured to the latter. immigration authorities to summarily deport individu-
als apprehended within 100 miles of the US-Mexico
Specifically, as we argue below, the attacks intensified
and US-Canadian borders. The most important
an already operational merger between the civil
immigration and criminal law enforcement appara- example, however, is the way that, in a steady stream
of laws passed after the 1 990 Immigration Act, law-
tuses in the US, such that mundane, everyday policing
makers hacked away at the possibility for court scru-
with no direct relevance to national security by non-
federal authorities can now lead to detention and tiny of deportation hearings. By the end of the 1 990s,
a significant number of deportation cases were by
eventually deportation. This is indeed how we intend
the arrest stories that we opened with, above, to be definition exempted from thorough judicial review
read. These stories, collected during fieldwork inbeyond a basic hearing before an immigration judge
Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina on the mundanewithin the Department of Justice. These include cases
mechanics and outcomes of local immigration involving a criminal deportation order, any expedited
enforcement, show that contact with non-federal removal case, as well as any case in which discretion-
ary relief - such as a waiver or stay of deportation - is
police for a range of reasons - for example, a driver's
license-based traffic stop, a minor infraction such asdenied
a by immigration authorities. In summary, as a
noise violation, or a misdemeanor offense, which his- double-pronged strategy to merge criminal law
torically have not implicated an immigration status enforcement with immigration law enforcement, and
check - is now ground zero for US detention andyet deny non-citizens court protections associated
with the former, the criminalisation and dejuridicali-
deportation strategy in the post-9/1 1 era. Indeed, data
suggest that over the past 10 years hundreds of thou- sation of immigration enforcement literally meant an
sands of individuals have been deported as a result expansion
of of the criminal infractions that could be
these sorts of encounters with local and state police,counted as grounds for deportation. There was also a
in sites far removed from US territorial borders drastic reduction in the ability of individuals detained
(Coleman forthcoming). In what follows we propose as aa result of criminal enforcement to petition their
tentative explanation of how this post- 9/1 1 'manage-deportation.
ment of populations' works and to what effect. Arguably much more important in terms of the shift
to population management is the recent, that is post-
9/1 1, direct involvement of non-federal law enforce-
Non-federal detention and deportation
ment officers in immigration control. For much of the
The growth of immigration enforcement qua popula- twentieth century, only federal immigration authori-
tion management in technically non-border spaces ties had the power to police immigration, as recogn-
can be traced to a suite of federal laws passed in theised by legislators as well as the courts; accordingly,
early to mid 1990s. These expanded the criminal the recent devolution of immigration enforcement to
grounds for removal from the US and created new non-federal proxies is an historical about-face. There
detention and deportation procedures with limited are a number of examples of non-federal immigration
court oversight. We can think of these changes policing,
as including ad hoc local-federal policing
sanctioning, first, the criminalisation of immigrationrelated to anti-gang enforcement, workplace raids,
law, and second, the dejuridicalisation of immigrationfugitive operations (targeting non-citizens who have
enforcement (Coleman 2007). not complied with formal deportation orders), drug
enforcement operations, as well as certain local-
The criminalisation of immigration law - that is, the
treatment of immigration as a criminal problem,federal as information sharing initiatives such as the
well as the infiltration of criminal law statute into recent Secure Communities program, which allows
immigration law (Miller 2005; Stumpf 2006) - dates for local and state police to determine the immigration
most recently to the aggravated felony charge in the status of individuals arrested for a crime and booked
1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. The charge was initially into a non-federal holding facility. In order to make
designed to ensure the detention and deportation ofthe discussion more manageable, however, we will
drug kingpins under various felony charges, but was focus here on a specific devolutionary program
expanded repeatedly during the 1990s to encompass known as 287(g), named after the section of the

The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1 201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation 231

Immigration and Nationality Act amended to allow forlation of non-citizens subject to deportation had vastly
the delegation of federal immigration enforcement expanded by virtue of the increase in crimes (many
responsibilities to non-federal police (Coleman 2009).non-serious) warranting deportation, and by virtue of
The 287(g) program allows state and local police tothe accelerated, extra-judicial channels through
investigate immigration cases and ultimately makewhich certain criminally classified non-citizens could
immigration arrests on behalf of federal authorities.be removed (Coleman 2007). In the wake of 9/1 1 , the
There are two basic types of 287(g) authority, both deputisation of non-federal police to enforce immigra-
negotiated between the Department of Homeland tion laws in the course of routine criminal policing
Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement was an obvious way in which to further increase this
(ICE) office and the local law enforcement agency inselective crossing of the civil and criminal law
question: the jail enforcement model and the task enforcement systems, such that the discretionary
force model (for an overview, see Seghetti et al. 2006).authority to detain individuals under the criminal law
Under the jail enforcement model, federally trainedsystem and the exemption from significant court over-
local law enforcement agents and/or locally based sight from the civil immigration system could be maxi-
federal immigration officers check for immigrationmised simultaneously, as well as extended from the
status as part of the general booking process. A similarpost-conviction environment to the everyday policing
program known as Secure Communities functions incontext (see below).
much the same way as a the jail enforcement 287(g), More than 70 registered jail model and task force
with the exception that the former does not guaranteemodel 287(g)s are currently active in the US, and at
federal custody of an individual in the event that least as many are thought to be awaiting ratification by
immigration status is found to be in question. TheICE. Many of the currently active 287(g) agreements
second form of 287(g) is the task force program. are located in the so-called 'nuevo New South' (Fink
Unlike the jail model, the task force 287(g) does not2003; Mohl 2003; Smith and Furuseth 2006; Suro and
require a criminal arrest per se in order to determine Singer 2002; Winders 2005), or in municipalities and
immigration status. At least as originally conceived,counties in the US South with historically marginal
the task force model awards non-federal officers Latino/a settlement and with unprecedentedly high
broad discretionary authority to make arrests based rates
on of growth in Latino/a populations over the past
civil immigration status alone during the course of [for a map of current 287(g) agreements which
decade
routine policing. Regardless of the type of 287(g) draws attention to the importance of the US South, see
agreement active in a jurisdiction, once an individual Coleman (2009); see Winders (2007) for an account of
has been identified as deportable, local and interior
state enforcement targeting Latino/a populations in
authorities may hold the individual for as longthe
as it
US South, post 9/11]. In the aggregate, over the
takes to process their deportation, as if they January
were 2006-October 2010 time period for which
formally in federal custody. data are available, the 287(g) program has led to
A quick mention should be made on the impor- the identification of more than 1 85 000 deportable
non-citizens and the removal of more than 125 000
tance of 9/1 1 to 287(g) adoption. The 287(g) program
individuals from the US [ICE 2010; cf Coleman forth-
was available to non-federal police well before 9/11
but taken up only as of 2002. Prior to 9/1 1 therecoming
was on the difficulty of using federally available
statistics to measure the extent and impact of pro-
little interest in the program, in large measure because
it seemed to go against a then prevalent communitygrams like 287(g) on undocumented communities].
policing model, which required close ties between The most important sites for 287(g) enforcement, mea-
immigrant communities and municipal and county sured in terms of total individuals placed into depor-
tation, or otherwise in detention and awaiting
police. After 287(g) was made a possibility in 1996,
deportation, are Arizona (50 000 cases), California
Mayor Giuliani of New York sued the federal govern-
(48 000
ment to overturn aspects of the law on the basis that it cases), North Carolina (18 500 cases), Texas
would create immigrant communities aloof from (15 city000 cases), Georgia (15 000 cases), and Tennes-
police, employers, educators and health workers. seeThe
(8500 cases) (ICE 201 0a). To put these numbers in
dramatic shift away from community policing and historical
in perspective, total 287(g) detentions and
deportations since 2006 exceed all decadal counts of
favour of 287(g) in the aftermath of the 9/1 1 attacks
federal deportations registered before 1970, and are
arguably followed from the new emphasis thereafter
on local-federal law enforcement cooperation asroughly
well on par with total federal deportations effected
as from the way in which immigration enforcement in the 1970s (231 000 cases) and 1980s (212 000
cases)
specifically was made central to the homefront war on by the then federal Immigration and Natural-
terror from almost the minute that the first airliner hit
ization Service (data from INS 1997, Table 58). We
the World Trade Center towers. Moreover, the turn to also note that the 287(g) program is but one of
should
a number of devolved immigration policing practices
287(g) was no doubt heavily influenced by the federal
experimentation with the criminalisation and which
deju- comprise the post-9/1 1 immigration enforce-
ridicalisation of immigration enforcement in ment
the landscape; the Secure Communities program
1 990s, as above. By the end of the 1 990s the popu-
noted above, for example, has produced an additional

201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
232 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation

180 000 administrative immigration arrests and/orMoreover, our research shows that the chances of
local-federal custody transfers during the October running into a traffic checkpoint where one would
2008-February 2011 period (ICE 2011). The overall have to provide a valid driver's license, and risk arrest
point here is that non-federal custody cases resultingand a status check without a license (which is not
in detention and deportation are now a cornerstone of available without a valid social security number), is
overall US immigration strategy. greater in higher-concentration Latino and lower
Our fieldwork in central North Carolina suggests income neighbourhoods than it is in majority non-
several important qualifications about how 287(g) Latino and higher income neighbourhoods. In
works (discussed in Coleman forthcoming). First,general, this points to perhaps the most important
287(g) is far from a uniform delegation of power. aspect of 287(g) authority, in addition to its site speci-
Although the memorandum of understanding that ficity: its generation of insecurity for immigrant popu-
local and state law enforcement agencies sign as part lations on the move between spaces of labour, social
of the 287(g) delegation process is in theory standar-reproduction, and leisure (see also Nunez and
dised such that all signatories possess the same
Heyman 2007; Stuesse 2010). Finally, 287(g) is in
authority to determine immigration status and detain
many ways the tip of the iceberg in terms of which law
individuals in the event that status is found to be in
enforcement agencies are involved in immigration
question, what happens on the ground in terms ofenforcement. If the 287(g) program is housed at a
how the power to police immigration is taken up iscommon county jail, then any law enforcement
very much conditioned by site-specific legal and agency that books individuals through the jail - which
political contexts (more generally on immigrationin the US South is usually all agencies making an
enforcement as conditioned locally; see Colemanarrest in a county - could in theory be engaged in
2007; Hiemstra 2010; Varsanyi 2008; Wells 2004). Inimmigration enforcement by virtue of knowing that an
some localities, 287(g) authority occasions wide- individual's immigration status will be checked at
some point during the booking process. From this
spread immigration status checks for literally any indi-
vidual who comes into contact with enrolled law perspective whether or not local and/or state police
enforcement agencies. In other localities, in contrast, are formally enrolled in a 287(g) is not necessarily a
287(g) is used very selectively to prosecute serious good indication of the extent of local immigration
felony offenders. In this sense, 287(g) authorityenforcementcan in that area (see also Gladstein era/.
produce radically different categories of deportees 2005).
as Methodologically this means that studying offi-
well as volumes of deportations across sites (incially the enrolled 287(g) agencies may not be the best
North Carolina context, see also Weissman and way to study how immigration enforcement is being
Headen 2009; Gill and Nguyen 2010). Second, anddevolved to non-federal law enforcement agencies
despite this possibility for local-level variation, a and to what effect for undocumented communities.
majority of 287(g) agencies appear to be using their The newly localised powers of detention and depor-
new found authority to focus on minor infraction andtation under the 287(g) program have significantly
misdemeanor offenders than on serious felony offend-restructured the way that the criminal law and civil
ers. Indeed, in the bulk of our case studies we foundimmigration law systems interact, post-9/11. Three
that it was mostly individuals brought into routinemajor differences from the 1 990s deserve to be under-
contact with local and state police that found them-lined. First, the criminalisation and dejuridicalisation
selves in detention and eventually deported from theof immigration enforcement charted in the wake of the
country. For example, aggregate data from the North 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act required some form of
Carolina Sheriffs Association regarding its member criminal prosecution on the part of non-federal
287(g) agencies show that regularly more than 80% of authorities. In other words, there had to be successful
immigration actions result from misdemeanor arrestsfollow through on a criminal charge - be it a minor
(data are discussed in Coleman forthcoming). Third,infraction, a misdemeanor, or a felony - in order for
the growth in 287(g) deportations is not related to an deportation to be effected. Prior to the 2000s, the
increase in worksite enforcement. Rather, 287(g) criminalisation of immigration enforcement was in
implicates immigrant mobility, and specifically auto- large measure a product of the so-called 'institutional
mobility. Regularly 50% of the deportations originat- hearing program', which required that 'criminal
ing from 287(g) agencies across our central North aliens' convicted and/or serving time in state and
Carolina sites started with a minor driving infraction federal jails be deported either while in custody or
(i.e. driving without a license, taillight out, improperimmediately following the end of their sentence. The
lane change, etc.) or with a non-felonious driving more recent delegatory revolution in immigration
while impaired charge. In addition, the high numberenforcement through programs like 287(g) is altering
of non-citizens deported as a result of traffic violationsthis matrix. What we see now is a much looser rela-
in the region correlates with the fact that Latinos spe-tionship between the criminal law and immigration
cifically are overrepresented in almost all traffic law systems. While certainly individuals convicted of
enforcement stops by all law enforcement agencies in crimes are being deported under programs like 287(g),
the region (data available from authors on request). it is also the case that there is no formal requirement

The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1 201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation 233

under 287(g) for successful criminal prosecution in1987, on how similar 'social objects' are translated
order for the deportation process to kick in (see over-into different 'legal objects' depending on context).
view of 287(g) agreements in GAO 2009a 2009b).Indeed, 287(g) policing, made possible by the wide-
This is well signalled by the fact that immigrationspread use of identification and database technologies
detainers identifying individuals as deportable are at the scale of routine policing, is a form of legal
assigned during the booking process and before anyassessment that is contingent and shifting rather than
charges have been adjudicated in the courts (Capps guaranteed. In this sense, 287(g) is not a legal power
era/. 2011). Given the elasticity of the criminal lawin crude opposition to 'illegality' qua undocumented
enforcement system, as well as the significant amountresidence. Rather, 287(g) authority is about an admin-
of control that local 287(g) agencies can exercise overistration of immigrant 'illegalisms' applied selectively
the detention and deportation process, the fact thatacross space and incompletely in reference to its
individuals are identified as deportable before they target immigrant populations.
are convicted greatly amplifies the possibility that the Third, even in the case where select law enforcement
immigration and criminal law systems will come agencies in the mid 1990s (in Arizona, California,
unglued. During our fieldwork in North Carolina, for Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas) could access
example, we encountered a number of cases (andfederal immigration databases to determine the immi-
heard of many more during interviews with lawyersgration status of arrested individuals prior to sentenc-
and immigrant rights advocates) in which individualsing, this very rarely guaranteed federal custody. Getting
held on minor infractions such as driving charges individuals from local to federal custody was in general
were not selected for prosecution by local authoritiesa problem because relatively few federal resources
before they were deported, or alternatively were were dedicated to interior enforcement (relative to
deported after they had posted bail and/or before theyborder enforcement), and because immigration status
had a chance to defend themselves in court for the checks at the federal scale depended upon the use of
arresting offense. In other words, a major differencesurnames and dates of birth data and oftentimes pro-
from a past era of deporting 'criminal aliens' is thatduced an unmanageable number of hits. In contrast,
they may now be deported as 'criminals' without the recent delegation of immigration authority to non-
having been tried or convicted in the criminal lawfederal agencies has in many instances created a more
system. This absence of a required conviction tocertain custody chain between local, state and federal
deport raises the disquieting possibility that theauthorities. The now greater chance of transferring
general investigatory powers that police possess toindividuals from local to federal custody is due to the
stop and question individuals on criminal law use of biometrie data (such as fingerprints) to determine
enforcement grounds can be used for immigrationidentity during the booking process, as well as federal
status inquiries under the guise of public safety - aauthorities' now methodical use of local and state jail
possibility that we suggest requires much more in thefacilities to hold individuals continuously until they
way of in-depth research. Importantly, this meanscan be deported. The last point is of crucial signifi-
moving beyond an analysis of federally available datacance. Programs like 287(g) allow local law enforce-
regarding deportation cases and criminal convic-ment agencies to continue to hold individuals even
tions1. In order to examine the relative priority of thewhen the criminal grounds for detention have been
criminal and immigration law systems, in line withresolved by virtue of their power to detain on civil
our conclusions above about the site specificity of immigration grounds without a criminal charge. This
programs like 287(g), researchers will have to scruti-does not mean that individuals cannot either be
nise the administration of due process in situ and on areleased on their own recognisance or bond out of
case-by-case basis relative to localities' specificlocal custody pending the outcome of a criminal
deployments of 287(g) authority. charge, particularly if it is a lesser minor infraction.
Second, the crossing of criminal law enforcementHowever, on the whole the delegatory trend in immi-
with immigration law enforcement in the form ofgration enforcement in the post-9/1 1 environment
287(g) authority does not produce a uniform field ofmeans that non-federal detention is now much more
policing in terms of who gets asked for immigrationlikely to result in uninterrupted transfer to federal
status and who does not. Putting aside the question of custody and deportation than in years past.
which jurisdictions are subject to 287(g) authority and
which are not, an important question in terms of
Immigration enforcement as immigrant
coming to grips with the spatial unevenness of immi-
incapacitation
gration enforcement, within 287(g) jurisdictions immi-
gration law will be brought to bear unevenly. ThisHow might we conceptualise the growth of non-
selective (rather than systematic) enforcement of federal immigration enforcement away from US state
287(g) is, of course, a product of the fact that criminalborders, for example in the form of a delegatory
law enforcement is itself a spatially fractured andpower like 287(g)? One possible explanation would
incomplete logic of control (Herbert 2006; see also be to refuse any easy distinction between the 'man-
early legal pluralism research, i.e. de Sousa Santos agement of territories' and the 'management of popu-

201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
234 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation

lations' by virtue of the way that detention and An interesting example of this is a leaked 2003
deportation practice 'on the inside' by non-federalDepartment of Homeland Security strategic plan titled
officials nonetheless works to regulate and (redistrib- Endgame. Endgame reads very much like a police
ute populations on a specifically territorial basis. document: it outlines a comprehensive, multi-agency
Walters (2002, 277) provides an insightful account ofand multi-jurisdictional program to deport all deport-
deportation from this perspective. Walters argues thatable non-citizens - at the time the document was
deportation follows from the 'sovereign right of stateswritten the total was roughly 1 1 million individuals -
to control their territories and the discretion they have as well as eliminate the then several hundred thou-
regarding the admittance and residence of aliens'. sand 'final orders of deportation' backlog before the
That deportation is inescapably about state authoritycourts, all within a 10-year window. Endgame does
and territory, however, does not mean that deportationhelp to make sense of the significant increase in
is a neatly sovereign-juridical form of authority. deportations over the past several years. However, it is
Rather, Walters sees deportation, by virtue of its his-also important that Endgame's '100% rate of removal'
torically consistent deployment against shifting state-strategy - and the array of federal through local law
based categories of political and social enemies, as a enforcement practices the report details - is a 'regu-
territorialising security practice which works throughlation mania' only on paper. Despite the significant
an exhaustive, detail-oriented policing of populations.increase in deportations over the past decade, there
The term police is not used here in the sense of crimehas been less than a double digit decrease in the
prevention, as above, but in reference to Polizeiwis-number of undocumented residents in the US; current
senschaft, or the 'science of police' of mercantilistestimates put the undocumented populations at 1 1 .1
and/or cameral ist states (for more on police, see million people, down from a high of 12 million in
Gordon 1991). Walters argues that deportation is the2007. Moreover, certain specific populations of
'routine administration [of the population] with expul-undocumented residents have actually increased sub-
sion as an instrument to perpetuate sovereign power'stantially over the past decade. For example, estimates
(2002, 282). Moreover, Walters argues that deporta- suggest that there are 2.1 million more undocumented
tion is an international police power insofar as it oper-Mexican nationals resident in the US in 2009 than in
ates according to a 'logic of dividing and allocating2000 (data from Passei and Cohn 2010). This trend
populations to the territorial authorities deemed prop-can be explained via the militarisation of border
erly responsible for them' (2002, 283). enforcement - individuals are less likely to chance
Walters' key point, borrowing from Foucault's Theadditional border crossings and more likely to stay put
history of sexuality (1979, 136), is that deportation is - but is nonetheless at odds with the detention and
at its heart an appropriate 'right of seizure' levieddeportation strategy put forth in Endgame.
over specific non-citizen populations as well as a If we consider Endgame performative of the US
territorialising 'mechanism of subtraction' (literally, astate as a potentiality rather than an actuality per se,
power to exclude) which finds its authority in a base-the question thus arises as to how to best understand
line spatial assumption that all peoples across the current US detention and deportation policies strate-
globe can be identified with specific national state-gically. If the ramping up of detention and deporta-
territorial spaces. This is a provocative take on depor- tion, especially via non-federal law enforcement
tation by virtue of its undoing of the identity betweenofficials historically precluded from administering
border control and immigration control (see alsofederal immigration law, is not appreciably altering
Walters 2006). Walters' conceptualisation of deporta-the size of the undocumented population as an aggre-
tion is moreover a significant challenge to the oftengate, what is the goal of such a policy? What we have
too-easy characterisation of the present as biopoliti-in mind here is detention and deportation practice as
cal. Indeed, with respect to this last point, Walters'a 'management of populations' that is not tethered
analysis reminds us that the link between security andexplicitly to a 'management of territory' in terms of
population is not always about the more liberalphysically removing non-citizen individuals to their
problem of biopower, as Foucault discussed in The countries of origin. Obviously the US-Mexico border
history of sexuality Lastly, Walters' argument drawsis a primary site where the 'management of popula-
much needed attention to immigration enforcementtions' is still very much coincident with a 'manage-
as the proving grounds for states' territorial integrity,ment of territory', as noted above. Away from the
that is, as a form of population management intendedterritorial margins of the state, however, we see the
to signal to domestic as well as other audiences that thepost- 9/1 1 amplification of interior detention and
state is in fact an ongoing territorial concern (see alsodeportation as a policy of migrant 'incapacitation'.
Dauvergne 2008). Nonetheless, a possible critique ofWe are indebted to Gilbert (2009) for this term; she
the 'regulation mania' of police power approach to uses it in her analysis of the localisation of immigra-
deportation is that, at least in the US context, it argu-tion enforcement in the US (and Canada) to move
ably dovetails more with what the state says 'i is doingbeyond debates about assimilation as the basis of
in the realm of detention and deportation rather thanimmigration policy (see also Nagel 2002 2009 for
what is actually happening on the ground. a geopolitical account of assimilation which

The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1 201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation 235

approximates Gilbert's concept of incapacitation). singled out by various local arms of the state in a move
From an incapacitation standpoint, the localisation of which both performs state power as well as the
immigration enforcement can be understood as an alleged dangers and disturbances posed by undocu-
exclusionary moment of 'civic stratification' rather mented aliens (see Bigo 2002 for deportation policy as
a 'governmental ity of unease' directed at citizen
than a corrective, levelling politics of incorporation or
sameness (Kofman 2002; McGregor 2008; Morris populations). On the other hand, this is not simply a
2001; Varsanyi 2008). But incapacitation, we wouldperformance of state potentiality to a domestic audi-
argue, is more than the deliberate sorting of immigrantence of citizens; it is not simply a tactic designed to
populations into various strata of precarious legal, 'worry' citizens about the dangers posed by migrant
social, political, and economic exceptions relative to others and then 'reassure' them about state compe-
tencies. Such acts of literally inter-national physical
the rights and freedoms enjoyed - at least theoretically
- by full citizens. Incapacitation suggests something relocation, exercised unevenly across space as well as
more inherently geographical. As Gilmore (2007, 14) populations, are the conditions of possibility for a
explains in her own discussion of the term, incapaci- differently spatialised but no less tangible social
control project which encourages the disappearance
tation is a spatial fix which 'doesn't pretend to change
anything about people except where they are'. of immigrant bodies from the public sphere. Specifi-
Gilmore's discussion of incapacitation is in reference cally, we propose that programs like 287(g), which
to the growth in racialised prison populations in the bring the threat of detention and deportation into the
post-industrial US city, and as such is not exactlymost intimate recesses of immigrant life by virtue of
analogous to the question of interior immigrationthe possibility of contact with non-federal police,
enforcement we are discussing here. However, wethreaten to scatter immigrant subjects into territorially
feel that Gilmore's emphasis on incapacitaron as present, yet increasingly invisibilised, 'shadow popu-
'extensively and repeatedly removing people fromlations'. We take this phrase from US legislative
disordered, deindustrialised milieus and depositing debates in the late 1 970 and early 1 980s leading up to
them somewhere else' is worthy of consideration in the 1 986 legalisation bill, in order to draw attention to
the immigration context (Gilmore 2007). immigrant communities who are increasingly invis-
Understanding incapacitation as a spatial fix to ible on the social landscape, and who as such are
undocumented migration entails thinking through the forced to engage in increasingly tenuous underground
difference between territorial presence and legal pres-means of social reproduction in a society in which
ence, and specifically how immigration enforcement they nonetheless labour openly. We also use this
phrase to signal the contradictions of state immigra-
is not necessarily about policing territorial presence in
an absolute, inside/outside sense. Although all
tion policy. In its initial usage, for example, 'shadow
undocumented immigrants are de jure subject topopulations' was used by lawmakers to underscore
deportation on account of their extra-legal territorialhow it was that ham-fisted state policies designed to
presence or 'undocumentedness', in practice immi- deport undocumented migrants had created large
gration enforcement plays out very differently. By communities of individuals who were literally unde-
portable by virtue of their location 'outside the law'
virtue of the enormously difficult task of locating and
deporting all undocumented migrants, de facto immi- (see critical commentary in Coleman 2008). Now we
gration enforcement is about selective policing and would point out that despite being driven in important
the subsequent production of a population of 'territo-ways by the post-9/1 1 devolution of immigration
rially present', yet not legal, residents who live andauthority to non-federal police, the production of
labour under the ongoing threat of deportation. We 'shadow populations' contradicts the state's interest in
propose, then, that interior, everyday immigration making immigrant populations legible to practitioners
enforcement works through the production of an of statecraft, which in many ways is the overarching
exemplary migrant precarity: socio-economic andaim of the homeland security state.
legal insecurities are visited upon select immigrantWe conclude by referencing briefly Butler and Spi-
bodies (as with Nevins and Aizeki 2008 above) but vak's Who sings the nation state (2007), a provocative
reverberate more widely through familial and other examination of the politics of nation and state in the
social networks (Martin forthcoming), and as such post- 9/1 1 period. In the book Butler specifically sug-
contribute to the indirect regulation of a broader gests that deportation is no longer adequately concep-
population of unauthorised immigrant subjects. tualised only as a mode of expulsion qua removal
Now we are in a better position to see de facto from one state space to another. As she explains, the
immigration enforcement as a two-step spatial strat- nation-state as a 'political formation . . . requires peri-
egy of migrant incapacitation, borrowing from odic expulsion and dispossession of its national
Gilmore, as above. On the one hand, via a very public minorities in order to gain a legitimating ground for
process of physical detention and removal to their itself but that the expulsion per se does not require
countries of origin, sensationalised immigrant bodies extra-territorial removal (2007, 33). As Butler explains
(even if the conditions of their arrest are less than it, expulsion is a highly differential process of informal
sensational, as noted in the opening vignettes) are territorial inclusion coupled with formal legal exclu-

201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
236 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation

sion, or a mode of social and juridical containmentColeman M forthcoming The 'local' migration state: the site-
'within the polis as its interiorised outside' (2007, 16). specific devolution of immigration enforcement in the US
This process of juridical and social deportation South Law & Policv

without formal territorial expulsion is, we argue, Dauvergne 2008 Making people illegal: what globalization
exactly the strategic spatial logic behind the post-9/1 1 means for migration and law Cambridge University Press,
amplification of detention and deportation policy in Cambridge
the US via delegatory programs like 287(g). De Genova N P 2002 Migrant 'illegality' and deportability in
everyday life Annual Review of Anthropology 31 419-47
de Sousa Santos 1987 Law: a map of misreading, toward a
Note postmodern conception of law Journal of Law and Society 14
279-302

1 General federal data on deportations do show that officially DHS 2010 2009 Yearbook of immigration statistics Department
convicted individuals, although increasing in share, make up a of Homeland Security, Washington DC
minority of total so-called 'enforcement and removal opera- Doty R L 2003 Anti-immigrantism in western democracies: state-
tions' cases. For example, over the October 2007-September craft, desire, and the politics of exclusion Routledge, London
201 0 period, in excess of 60% of removal cases were classifiedDunn T J 2010 Blockading the border University of Texas Press,
as non-criminal (91 9 780 of 1 497 320 cases). Moreover, of the Austin
total number of criminal conviction cases, a slim percentage of Eiden S 2009 Terror and territory University of Minnesota Press,
individuals were deported following serious so-called 'level 1 ' Minneapolis
offenses. Using disaggregated 2010 data, only 16% of totalEschbach , Hagan J and Rodrguez N 2003 Deaths during
removal cases followed from successful conviction for 'aggra- undocumented migration: trends and policy implications in
vated felony' charges (cf Coleman 2007 on aggravated felonies the new era of homeland security In Defense of the Alien 26
as including less serious, non-felonious, as well as non-violent 37-52
offenses); an additional 22% and 12% respectively were forFink L 2003 The Maya of Morganton: work and community in
'level 2' charges (misdemeanors) and 'level 3' charges (minor the Nuevo New South University of North Carolina Press,
infractions) (data from ICE 2010b). Durham

Foucault M 1979 The history of sexuality: an introduction

Vintage Books, New York
References Foucault M 2007 Security, territory, population: lectures at the
Collge de France 1977-78 Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Andreas P 2010 Border games: policing the US-Mexico divideGAO 2009a Immigration enforcement: better controls needed
Cornell University Press, Ithaca over program authorizing state and local enforcement of
Balderrama F E and Rodrguez R 2006 Decade of betrayal: federal immigration laws US Government Accountability
Mexican repatriation in the 1930s University of New Mexico Office, Washington DC
Press, Albuquerque GAO 2009b Immigration enforcement: controls over program
Bigo D 2002 Security and immigration: toward a critique of the authorizing state and local enforcement of federal laws should
governmental ity of unease Alternatives 27 63-92 be strengthened US Government Accountability Office, Wash-
Bigo D 2007 Detention of foreigners, states of exception and the ington DC
social practices of control of the Banopticon in Rajaram P Gilbert
L 2009 Immigration as local politics: re-bordering immi-
and Grundy-Warr eds Borderscapes: hidden geographies gration and multiculturalism through deterrence and incapaci-
and politics at territory's edge University of Minnesota Press, tation International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33
Minneapolis 26-42

Butler J and Spivak G C 2007 Who sings the nation state? Seagull Gill H and Nguyen M T 201 0 The 287 (g) program: the costs and
Books, Calcutta consequences of local immigration enforcement in North
Capps R, Rosenblum M R, Rodrguez C and Chishti M A 201 1 Carolina communities University of North Carolina Latino
Delegation and divergence: a study of 287 (g) state and local Migration Project, Chapel Hill
immigration enforcement Migration Policy Institute, Washing-
Gilmore R W 2007 Golden Gulag: prisons, surplus, and opposi-
ton DC tion in globalizing California University of California Press,
Chapin J 1 998 Closing America's 'back door' GLQ: A Journal ofBerkeley
Lesbian and Gay Studies 4 403-22 Gladstein H, Lai A, Wagner J and Wishnie M J 2005 Blurring
Coleman M 2007 Immigration geopolitics beyond the
the lines: a profile of state and local police enforcement of
Mexico-US border Antipode 38 54-76 immigration law using the National Crime Information Center
Coleman M 2008 Between public and foreign policy: US immi- Database, 2002-2004 Migration Policy Institute, Washington
gration law reform and the undocumented migrant Urban DC
Geography 29 4-28 Gordon 1991 Governmental rationality in Burchell G, Gordon
Coleman M 2009 What counts as the politics and practice of and Miller P eds The Foucault effect: studies in governmen-
tality University of Chicago Press, Chicago
security, and where? Devolution and immigrant insecurity after
9/1 1 Annals of the Association of American GeographersHerbert
99 S 2006 Citizens, cops and power University of Chicago
904-13
Press, Chicago

The Geographical Journal Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1 201 1 The Authors. The Geographical Journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Detention, deportation, devolution and immigrant incapacitation 237

Hiemstra N 2010 Immigrant 'illegality' as neoliberal governmen-Passei J A and Cohn D V 2010 US unauthorized immigration
tality in Leadville, Colorado Antipode 42 74-102 flows are down sharply since mid-decade Pew Hispanic
ICE 2010a 287(g)-ldentified aliens for removal Department of Center, Washington DC
Homeland Security, Washington DC (www. ice.gov/doclib/ Puar | 2007 Terrorist assemblages: homonationalism in queer
foia/reports/287g-masterstats201 Ooct31.pdf) Accessed 7 May times Duke University Press, Durham
2011 Purcell M and Nevins ) 2005 Pushing the boundary: state restruc-
ICE 2010b ICE total removals as of December 7 2010 Depart-turing, state theory, and the case of US-Mexico border
ment of Homeland Security, Washington DC (www.ice.gov/enforcement in the 1 990s Political Geography 24 21 1-35
doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/ero-removals.pdf) AccessedRosas
7 G 2007 The fragile ends of war: forging the United States-
May 201 1 Mexico border and borderlands consciousness Social Text 25
ICE 2011 Secure communities: IDENT/IAFIS interoperability 81-102

monthly statistics through February 28 2011 Department of Seghetti L M, Via S R and Ister 2006 Enforcing immigration
Homeland Security, Washington DC (http://ndlon.org/pdf/ law: the role of the state arid local enforcement CRS Report for
scommfeb/nationwidestats201 12.pdf) Accessed 7 Mav 201 1 Congress Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,
INS 1997 /996 Yearbook of immigration statistics Immigration Washington DC
and Naturalization Service, Washington DC Smith H A and Furuseth J 2006 Latinos in the new South:
Kofman E 2002 Contemporary European migrations, civic strati- transformations of place A$hgate, Burlington
fication and citizenship Political Geography 21 1035-54 Stuesse 2010 Challenging the border patrol, human rights
Malkin M 2002 Invasion: how America still welcomes terrorists, and persistent inequalities: an ethnography of struggle in South
criminals, and other foreign menaces to our shores Regency, Texas Latino Studies 8 23-47
Washington DC Stumpf J 2006 The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime
Marii R L 2004 Patrolling chaos: the U.S. border patrol in deep and sovereign power Anierican University Law Review 56
South Texas Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, TX 367-419

Martn L forthcoming The geopolitics of vulnerability: children'sSuro R and Singer A 2002 Latino growth in metropolitan America:
legal subjectivity, immigrant family detention, and US immigra- changing patterns, new locations Center on Urban and Metro-
tion law and enforcement policy Gender Place and Culture 1 8 politan Policy and the Pewi Hispanic Center, Washington DC
McGregor J 2008 Abject spaces, transnational calculations: Zim- Tichenor D 2002 Dividing lines: the politics of immigration
babweans in Britain navigating work, class and the law Trans- control in America Princeton University Press, Princeton
actions of the Institute of British Geographers 33 466-82 Varsanyi M W 2008 Reseating the 'alien/ rescaling person hood:
Miller T 2005 Blurring the boundaries between immigration and neoliberalism, immigration, and the state Annals of the Asso-
crime control after September 11th Boston College Third ciation of American Geographers 98 877-96
World Law Journal 25 81-124 Walters W 2002 Deportation, expulsion, and the international
Mohl RA 2003 Globalization, Latinization, and the nuevo New police of aliens Citizenship Studies 6 265-92
South Journal of American Ethnic History 22 31-66 Walters W 2006 Border/control European Journal of Social
Morris L 2001 The ambiguous terrain of rights: civic stratification Theory 9 187-203
in Italy's emergent immigration regime International Journal of Weissman D and Headen R C 2009 The policies and politics of
Urban and Regional Research 25 497-516 local immigration enforcement laws: 287 (g) program in North
Nagel R 2002 Geopolitics by another name: immigration and Carolina ACLU and the UNC Immigration and Human Rights
the politics of assimilation Political Geography 21 971-87 Policy Clinic, Raleigh
Nagel R 2009 Rethinking geographies of assimilation Profes-Wells M J 2004 The grassroots reconfiguration of US immigration
sional Geographer 61 400-7 policy International Migration Review 38 1308-47
Nevins J 2010 Operation gatekeeper and beyond Routledge,Winders J 2005 Changing politics of race and region: Latino
New York migration to the US South Progress in Human Geography 29
Nevins J and Aizeki M 2008 Dying to live: a story of US immi- 683-99

gration in an age of global apartheid Open Media/City LightsWinders J 2007 Bringing back the (B)order: post-9/1 1 politics of
Books, San Francisco immigration, borders, and belonging in the contemporary US
Nunez G and Heyman J M 2007 Entrapment processes and South Antipode 39 920-42
immigrant communities in a time of heightened border vigi- Zolberg A 2006 A nation by design Harvard University Press,
lance Human Organization 66 354-65 Cambridge

201 1 The Authors. The Geographical journal 201 1 Royal Geographical Society The Geographical tournai Vol. 1 77 No. 3, pp. 228-237, 201 1
(with the Institute of British Geographers)

This content downloaded from 137.110.37.40 on Sat, 28 Jan 2017 02:17:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms