Acknowledgments vii Introduction / Nathalie Peutz and Nicholas De Genova 1 Part One. Theoretical Overview The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement / Nicholas De Genova 33 Part Two. Sovereignty and Space 1. Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens / William Waltes 69 2. Immigration Detention and the Territoriality of Universal Rights / Galina Cornelisse 101 3. Mapping the European Space of Circulation / Serhat Karakayali and Enrica Rigo 123 Part Three. Spaces of Deportability 4. From Exception to Excess: Detention and Deportations across the Mediterranean Space / Rutvica Andrijasevic 147 5. Deportation in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands: Anticipation, Experience, and Memory / Victor Talavera, Guillermina Gina Nunez, and Josiah Heyman 166 6. Engulfed: Indian Guest Workers, Bahraini Citizens, and the Structural Violence of the Kafala System / Andrew M. Gardner 196 7. Deportation at the Limits of "Tolerance": The Juridical, Institutional, and Social Construction of "Illegality" in Switzerland / Hans-Rudolf Wicker 224 8. Deportation Deferred: "Illegality," Visibility, and Recognition in Contemporary Germany / Heide Castaneda 245 9. Citizens, "Real" Others, and "Other" Others: The Biopolitics of Otherness and the Deportation of Unauthorized Migrant Workers from Tel Aviv, Israel / Sarah S. Willen 262 10. Radical Deportation: Alien Tales from Lodi and San Francisco / Sunaina Maira 295 Part Four. Forced Movement 11. Fictions of Law: The Trial of Sulaiman Oladokun, or Reading Kafka in an Immigration Court / Aashti Bhartia 329 12. Exiled by Law: Deportation and the Inviability of Life / Susan Bibler Coutin 351 13. "Criminal Alien" Deportees in Somaliland: An Ethnography of Removal / Nathalie Peutz 371 Part Five. Freedom 14. Abject Cosmopolitanism: The Politics of Protection in the Anti-Deportation Movement / Peter Nyers 413 References 443 Contributors 483 Index 497

The Deportation regime: sovereignty, space, and the freedom of movement

This review of the literature concludes that development studies have paid insufficient attention to labour migration, and makes a plea to integrate analyses of migration within those of agricultural and rural development. It emphasises that population mobility is much more common than is often assumed, and that this has been so throughout human history. In fact, available material suggests that it is as likely that population mobility has decreased as that it has increased. A review of empirical studies shows that it may not be possible to generalise about the characteristics of migrants, or about the effects of migration on broader development, inequality or poverty. The review concludes that, given the importance of migration for the rural livelihoods of many people, policies should be supportive of population mobility, and possibilities should be explored to enhance the positive effects of migration.

Livelihoods and poverty: The role of migration ‐ a critical review of the migration literature

Mexican migration to the US is distinguished by a seeming paradox that is seldom examined: while no other country has supplied nearly as many migrants to the US as Mexico has since 1965, virtually all major changes in US immigration law during this period have created ever more severe restrictions on the conditions of “legal” migration from Mexico. Indeed, this seeming paradox presents itself in a double sense: on the one hand, apparently liberalizing immigration laws have in fact concealed their significantly restrictive features, especially for Mexicans; on the other hand, ostensibly restrictive immigration laws intended to deter migration have nonetheless been instrumental in sustaining Mexican migration, but only by significantly restructuring migrants’ legal status as “undocumented.” Beginning in the 1960s— precisely when Mexican migration escalated dramatically—and ever since, persistent revisions in the law have made it virtually impossible for the great majority who would migrate from Mexico to do so in accord with the law and have thus played an instrumental role in the production of a legally vulnerable, undocumented workforce of “illegal aliens.”

The Legal Production of Mexican/Migrant “Illegality”

The securitisation of migration in Western states has resulted in an array of restrictive laws and policies that raise important questions about the relationship between protection and the political. New technologies of control (such as detention) and strategies of exclusion (such as deportation) are rapidly undermining—indeed, effectively criminalising—national cultures of asylum. This article critically analyses how these measures are being contested and countered by the anti-deportation activism of undocumented non-citizen people in Canada. How are these campaigns re-casting the question of ‘protection’ in the face of deportation efforts by the Canadian state? This is a significant issue because the capacity to decide upon matters of inclusion and exclusion is a key element of sovereign power. In the case of asylum seekers, the ability to decide who will and will not be provided with protection is interpreted in this paper as a focal point where the state (re)founds its claim to monopolise the politica...

Abject Cosmopolitanism: the politics of protection in the anti-deportation movement

Compared with refugee or immigration policy, the historical and political analysis of deportation is poorly developed. This paper suggests some lines along which critical studies of deportation might proceed. First, it argues that we can historicize and denaturalize deportation by setting it within a wider field of political and administrative practices. This is done by comparing modern deportation practice with other historical forms of expulsion. Second, the paper interrogates the forms of governmentality which invest the practice of deportation, and asks what they might tell us about modern citizenship. It argues that deportation can be seen as one key element in the international police of aliens.

Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens

"On September 30, 1996, President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. After an intense lobbying effort by the business community, most provisions relating to legal immigration were omitted from the final bill. Instead, the 1996 Act focuses on illegal immigration reform and includes some of the toughest measures ever taken against illegal immigration." Aspects considered include border enforcement, penalities against alien smuggling and document fraud, deportation and exclusion proceedings, employer sanctions, welfare provisions, and changes to existing refugee and asylum procedures.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996: an overview.

On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal ResponsibUity and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Welfare Act), Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (Aug. 22, 1996); on September 30, he signed an omnibus spending bill that incorporates the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Immigration Reform Act). Together, these bills completely overhaul a welfare system that has been in place since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal was implemented. They not only end the guarantee of cash assistance to the country's poorest chUdren and give states the power to run their own welfare and "workfare" programs with lump sums of federal funds, they severely restrict the benefits for which legal, and illegal, immigrants are currendy eligible. The bills were drafted in response to an anti-immigrant sentiment that has become pervasive over the past several years, inducing congressional leaders to "enact new rules for eligibility and sponsor? ship agreements in order to assure that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy." ? 400(5) of the Welfare Act. It is a widely held belief that aliens, particularly illegal aliens, come to the United States to find work and, if they are not successful, to join the ranks of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens who receive welfare to support them? selves and their families. Congress concluded that restricting the availabdity of public benefits would remove the incentive for illegal immigration. Most federal benefits programs currendy allow access only to lawful permanent residents (LPRs), who are essentially precluded from receiving such benefits for at least three years, and to those aliens who are permanendy residing in the United States "under color of law" (PRUCOL). Under the welfare bill, most future immigrants will be barred from applying for benefits under federal means-tested programs for their first five years in the United States. Since the definition of "federal means-tested" was removed from the final version of the

Welfare Bill Severely Curtails Public Assistance to Noncitizens.

On November 25, 1974 the United States Supreme Court in the case of Saxbe v. Bustos, 43 L.W. 4017 held that permanent resident aliens residing abroad and commuting to work in the United States, on either seasonal or daily basis, are entitled to maintain their status as permanent residents and may be admitted to the United States without further documentation, with the exception of evidence to show their status as permanent resident aliens of the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has for a number of years permitted aliens who have their homes in Canada or Mexico the privilege of commuting daily to places of employment in the United States. Moreover, it has permitted aliens residing abroad to do so on a seasonal basis as well. The question before the Court was whether the practice of permitting aliens to reside abroad and to work in the United States either daily or seasonally conforms with the Immigration & Nationality Act. The essential question was whether or not alien commuters were immigrants who were \"lawfully admitted for permanent residence\" and were \"returning from a temporary visit abroad\" when they entered the United States and were, thus, \"special immigrants\" under the Immigration & Nationality Act. It had long been an administrative construction of the statute in the context of commuter aliens to permit such a practice. Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court in the 5-4 decision. The Court observed that the regulations implemented under the Immigration & Nationality Act by the Immigration and Naturalization Service allowed such immigrants to use a reentry permit, normally called a \"green card\" or \"blue card\" in lieu of an immigrant visa and without regard to numerical limitations if the alien was \"returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence in the United States after temporary absence abroad not exceeding one year.\" Under the Immigration & Nationality Act there is a presumption that an alien is an immigrant \"until he establishes that he is entitled to a lawful nonimmigrant status.\" An immigrant is defined as every alien

Permanent Resident Status Redefined

On November 19, 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a rejection of an application for employment by a private employer because the applicant is an alien is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Company, Inc.. Section 703 of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire an individual because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The facts of the case are essentially uncomplicated. The wife was a permanent resident alien residing in the State of Texas married to a United States citizen. She applied for a job as a seamstress with the Farah Manufacturing Company and her application was rejected on the basis of a company policy prohibiting the employment of non-U.S. citizens. She contended in Court that the Farah Manufacturing Company had discriminated against her because of \"national origin\" in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under the above-cited definition. The District Court, agreeing with her argument, held that refusal to hire her because of lack of U.S. citizenship constituted discrimination on the basis of national origin. The Court of Appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, with Mr. Justice Marshall speaking for the majority. Essentially, the case was decided on the narrow ground of statutory construction-that is, an interpretation of the terminology \"national origin\". The majority pointed out \"the term national origin on its face referred to the country where a person was born, or, more broadly, the country from which his or her ancestors came.\" The Court went on to find that the term \"national origin\" was different than citizenship and, therefore, discrimination on the basis of citizenship was not discrimination on the basis of national origin, and the statute does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship. In further elucidation of its reasoning, the Court pointed out that had the policy of Farah been to deny employment to persons who were Mexicans because of national origin, in spite of their U.S. citizenship, this would have been a violation of the Civil Rights Act. But, since the discrimination was based upon citizenship which is not included in the Act, no violation occurred.

Austin T. Fragomen

Papers

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996: an overview.

Welfare Bill Severely Curtails Public Assistance to Noncitizens.

Permanent Resident Status Redefined

U.S. Supreme Court's Decision on Non-Citizenship.

Regulating the Illegal Aliens