ACE

Author: Jocelyn Boudreau

  • Crisis at the US-Mexico Border

    Crisis at the US-Mexico Border

    This brief was originally published on October 6, 2021 by Jocelyn Boudreau. It was updated and republished by Olivia Schroeder on July 28, 2022.

    Migrants, Refugees, and Asylum Seekers

    In the United States, a refugee is defined as a person “who has fled their country because they are at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution” without their home government being able, or willing, to protect them. Refugees are registered with international agencies and undergo a background check to ensure they meet specified requirements. Asylum seekers apply for asylum at a U.S. port of entry, and are not guaranteed protections or aid until their background is verified and it is confirmed that they fled persecution in their home counties. “Migrant” is an umbrella term used to describe any person who has left their home country. This includes asylum seekers, economic migrants, or those fleeing natural disasters.

    Crisis at the Southern Border

    Statistics on encounters, expulsions, and apprehensions at the border form a holistic impression of the events at the southern border. 

    • Encounters are measured by the number of migrants coming in contact with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at the border. Encounters gauge how many people attempt to cross, but do not reflect successful crossings. According to the Associated Press, border encounters reached about 75,000 in December 2020, the final month of President Trump’s term, and surpassed 172,000 in March 2020 under President Biden. 71 percent of encounters recorded in February 2021 were single-adult encounters, but family encounters are rising: families and minors comprised more than 40 percent of encounters in March. To officially seek asylum, migrants make their claim to the first CBP or ICE official they encounter. Alternatively, they may submit an application for an asylum grant, followed by an employment authorization while they await their hearing. 
    • Apprehensions and expulsions both follow from encounters, but result in different outcomes that project a more complete picture of the border situation. When a migrant(s) is apprehended, they are admitted to the United States to be placed in custody to await their hearing. If a migrant is not apprehended, they are not granted entry into the US and face expulsion. Expulsion involves being sent back to either their home country or the last country of transit by CBP and ICE agents. The percentage of expulsions dropped from 92% in July 2020 to 47% in July 2021. An influx of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers arriving at the Southern border led President Trump to issue a national emergency declaration in 2019. Trump’s executive action allowed about $8 billion in funds from several sources to be allocated towards border security measures. The funding was intended to act as a budget for constructing a border wall between Mexico and the United States. Combining Treasury Department and Department of Defense drug forfeiture funds with military construction and Congressionally-delegated budgets, the Trump administration gathered enough money for 234 miles of border wall. 

    Before the barrier was finished, the emergency declaration was reversed by the Biden administration in January 2021. President Biden halted the construction of the wall and terminated contracts made with private construction agencies. However, there is a question as to whether Biden has the right to redirect the funds for the construction of the border wall as military funds were involved in Trump’s budget. As thousands of migrants attempt to enter the United States from its Southern border, the issue has developed into an argument of whether the crisis lies in the overwhelming amount of immigrant arrivals, or the conditions from which they seek refuge.

    The Biden Administration

    Immigration reform was a major priority for the new Biden administration. So far, Biden has focused on rebuilding the current immigration system. The administration implemented a policy that does not deny any unaccompanied minor when seeking asylum. President Biden blocked the expulsion of unaccompanied minors at the southern border, which was previously in practice under the Trump Administration when Title 42 was put into place. The CDC stated that they recognized the “unique vulnerabilities” of unaccompanied minors and that the expulsion of these migrants isn’t warranted to protect public health standards. Title 42 allowed for the expulsion of migrants when the pandemic began in 2020. However, the policy can still be used to expel single migrants and families of migrants. The Build Back Better Act passed the House in November of 2021 which allows seven million immigrants to apply for protection from deportation, work permits, and drivers licenses. This is a step away from Trump-era policies which focused on securing the border and stricter immigration policies. President Biden has proposed an eight year path to citizenship for immigrants. The policy will allow for the estimated 10.5 million undocumented immigrants who already reside in the US a pathway to legal status. Undocumented migrants would be able to apply for temporary legal status and green cards if/when they pass a criminal background check. According to the White House, the benefits to Biden’s plan are “ [the modernization] of the immigration system, [prioritizing] keeping families together, growing our economy, responsibly managing the border with smart investments, addressing the root causes of migration from Central America, and ensuring that the United States remains a refuge for those fleeing persecution.” However, a benefit of Trump’s plans for immigration is that the US would not need to take all of these steps and documentation wouldn’t be necessary if the border was more secure, unauthorized immigrants were deported, and not given asylum-seeking status.

    Public Health Concerns

    In the months leading up to the coronavirus outbreak, CBP and ICE practices sparked outrage amongst human rights activists. Border police detained migrants outdoors, in a fenced-off area under an El Paso bridge, when facilities became overcrowded. Although CBP officials ended this practice in April 2019, lack of space and supplies continued to be an issue at border facilities. An exposé detailing inadequate conditions in a Clint, Texas CBP facility revealed a trend apparent in many detention centers. Migrants were held in small spaces without proper nutrition or sanitation; lights left on 24 hours a day or no electricity at all; cold temperatures with no blankets, pillows, or beds; no running water and no private restrooms.

    Under these conditions, even mild contagions spread with ease. Following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, CBP facilities gained attention as catalysts for spreading the virus. Of the nearly 40,000 migrants detained since the beginning of the pandemic, 78 tests were administered, and many were positive for COVID-19. It was also revealed that positive and symptomatic detainees were not isolated from other migrants, exposing thousands to the risk of contracting the virus. Title 42, a Trump-era policy which is still in use, was put into place in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus in holding facilities. The policy will be reviewed every sixty days in regards to the spread of the coronavirus. Under the legislation, anyone suspected of bringing a communicable disease into the US to all land and coastal entry points is prohibited from entering the country.

    The effects of the pandemic have impacted the rates of migration across the US-Mexico border. As the Biden Administration has not taken the same hardline approach to border security, some have raised concerns that migrants are “encouraged” to migrate into the United States.

    Expelled to Danger

    In addition to health concerns, migrants face dangers in the territory surrounding the border. A Trump-era policy, known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, mandated that migrants seeking to enter the United States were to await their court hearings within Mexico, or be sent back to their home country to wait. Previously, the asylum process once took a few months, but now it can take two to five years to complete. The Biden Administration briefly stopped the“Remain in Mexico” policy, but it was reinstated in December of 2021 after a Supreme Court ruling in its favor. 

    Endangerment Under Government Watch

    A 2014 complaint filed on behalf of 116 children detailed accounts of sexual, physical, and verbal abuse in addition to denial of adequate food, water, and sanitation in holding facilities at the border. According to the document, 80 percent of children reported these consistent offenses. The Biden Administration, as mandated by US anti-trafficking laws, has been transferring non-Mexican minors to shelters overseen by the government. This policy has also resulted in minors spending less time in holding facilities than they did during the Trump Administration. 

    These human rights violations have spanned multiple years, and multiple presidential administrations. Today, the Biden administration still manages overcrowded migrant facilities, especially in trying to maintain social distancing measures to minimize spreading COVID-19. 

    The Biden Administration is seeking to send unaccompanied migrant children to live with relatives or sponsor families, and plans to use convention centers near the border for CBP operations in order to decongest the current facilities. This new policy differed from the “Zero Tolerance Policy” of the Trump Administration which did not allow families to reconnect. As of 2021, Biden has reversed this specific process and many, but not all, families have been reunited.

    Politicization of the Crisis

    Among US politicians, there are two lines of thought when assessing the crisis at the Southern border. On one hand, some progressives believe giving any funds to CBP and ICE operations condones the inhumane treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers. Designating money to these agencies permits the continuation of unsafe, unsanitary detention centers. However, removing all, or most, funding does not ensure that conditions will improve. On the other hand, there is the “smart money” group that advocates for strategic designation of funds. This sect sees the issue as an inefficient use of resources that cannot be solved by rescinding the entire budget. In a system that has been suffering from a severe lack of resources, removing any chance of providing necessities to migrants will not solve the problems these agencies face.

    There is also debate surrounding the origins of the crisis at the border. Some believe the issue is the volume of asylum seekers, and seek to increase funding for CBP and ICE operations to address the influxes. Others believe the core of the problem is the environment which produces asylum seekers. They want to designate more funds to aiding Central and South American countries experiencing regime changes and political violence.

  • Disenfranchisement of Convicted Felons and Incarcerated People

    Disenfranchisement of Convicted Felons and Incarcerated People

    Disenfranchisement, or the deprivation of the right to vote, of criminals is a practice adopted from English law which many states integrated into their constitutions after the Civil War. Every state except Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., enforces some restriction on voting for incarcerated persons. The Tenth Amendment gives states jurisdiction over their election and voting laws, so every state has its own policy on felon disenfranchisement.

    Within the range of policies, 20 states restore voting rights upon an inmate’s release, 17 require completion of parole/probation, and 11 states have additional requirements including personal grants of clemency from the governor. To learn about your state’s policy and how it compares to the rest of the nation, see this interactive map designed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

    De Facto Disenfranchisement

    Today, felon disenfranchisement occurs mostly through “de facto disenfranchisement,’’ meaning those impacted could still legally cast a ballot, but are unable to due to other obstacles. Pretrial detention is not legal grounds for disenfranchisement in any state, yet many people held in jails awaiting conviction are not given the chance to vote. Misinformation spreads easily because those working with incarcerated individuals receive limited, if any, training on their state’s felony disenfranchisement laws. Incarcerated individuals are often overlooked during election season, so efforts are not made to register and educate incarcerated individuals. In addition, many of the materials needed to vote, like voter registration forms, mail-in ballot applications, and information regarding candidates and ballot measures, are available online. Inmates often have limited internet access, so they have to submit physical applications through the postal service. This longer process can cause inmates to miss important deadlines for registering with their state and casting their ballots.

    Felon Disenfranchisement and Socioeconomic Status

    African Americans are disenfranchised due to felony conviction at a rate four times greater than other racial groups. This is partly due to a disproportionate incarceration rate of Black versus white Americans: Black men and women comprise about 13% of the US  population, but account for 35 and 44% of the incarcerated populations, respectively. Hispanic Americans are imprisoned 1.4 times more than whites. Incarceration rates for Latinx/Hispanic Americans is likely understated as some states’ ethnicity reporting includes Hispanic inmates within the white prison population, and four states—Alabama, Maryland, Montana, Vermont—do not record racial/ethnic data at all. 

    Low income Americans are also overrepresented in the nation’s jails and prisons. Some states like Florida and Alabama require payment of LFOs (legal financial obligations) before re-enfranchising a felon, so low economic standing—perpetuated during incarceration periods—leads to the suspension of voting rights. Current policies restricting voting rights of incarcerated people and convicted felons affect people of color and low-income Americans at higher rates than white and high income citizens. The states without felon voting restriction, Maine and Vermont, are overwhelmingly white compared to the rest of the country, meaning their universal suffrage status still favors whites over people of color in their communities. 

    Arguments For and Against Felon Voting Restrictions

    Although it has recently gained momentum as a topic of public discourse, much of the public believes felons should not retain voting rights. A 2019 poll conducted by Hill-HarrisX showed 69% of Americans believe incarcerated felons should not be able to vote. Debates around the four categories of restrictions—de facto, during incarceration, parole/probation, and following the completion of additional requirements—all follow the same logic. 

    Those who believe that felons should not be able to vote often base their arguments on their interpretation of what it means to vote. Proponents for felon voting restrictions argue that voting is a privilege, rather than an absolute right of citizenship. Once a person is incarcerated, they lose that privilege to vote. By committing a crime, a person has chosen not to follow the law, and has no place deciding the nation’s future. Those who support disenfranchisement argue that those who have violated the law in a manner serious enough to warrant arrest, detention, and probation should not have a role in shaping the laws for everyone else, especially citizens who have not violated any laws. It is argued that individuals who have committed serious crimes do not meet the minimum standards of conduct and responsibility required to vote. 

    Opponents of restrictions on incarcerated individuals believe that voting is a fundamental right which can’t be taken away, even if one is convicted of a crime. Especially in cases of de facto disenfranchisement, they see these restrictions as unjust because they prevent people who would normally cast a ballot from participating in elections. They argue that if under the law a person is allowed to vote, they should not face additional obstacles to casting their ballot. In addition, some feel that extra effort should be made to reintegrate felons into society, and participating in the democratic process is an important part of existing in the community.

    In addition to those two black and white perspectives, some believe that incarcerated felons should not be able to vote, but should be allowed after they have paid their debt to society. They view incarceration as a time when the right to vote is limited along with the freedom of movement, but that should only occur for a finite period of time. In 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4 which restored voting rights to felons who had completed their prison sentences (with the exception of those convicted of murder or felony sexual offense). The Florida legislature weakened the amendment by including a provision that all LFOs had to be paid in addition. Many were outraged by this decision, because they felt like the voters of Florida had made a decision about when voting rights should be reinstated and the legislature had reworked it, pushing back the finish line.

    Effects of Disenfranchising Felons

    Preventing felons from voting disproportionately impacts communities of color and can result in misrepresentative election results. This is particularly true for Black Americans, with more than two million being prevented from voting. Advocates for enfranchising felons argue that restricting voting may lead to skewed election results. Local, state, and federal elections can be decided by extremely small margins and the inclusion of citizens who were previously unable to vote could greatly influence these outcomes.
    Beyond deciding elections, disenfranchisement of incarcerated people affects the ways in which communities are afforded representation. The Census Bureau counts incarcerated people as residents of the location of their detention facility. When it comes to redrawing congressional districts or allocating representatives in local weighted voting systems, for example, the incarcerated population is counted towards the population tally but are not able to participate in the decision-making process. That is, incarcerated individuals swell the data upon which representatives are delegated to certain communities without being able to offer their opinions about candidates. This grants a disproportionate amount of influence to citizens living outside of detention centers, undermining the premise that each voice matters equally in a democratic election.

  • Jocelyn Boudreau, Boston College

    Jocelyn Boudreau, Boston College

    Linkedin

    Jocelyn Boudreau (she/her/hers) is a sophomore at Boston College studying Political Science with a double-minor in International Studies (concentrating in Ethics & Social Justice) and Faith, Peace & Justice. Her studies have inspired her to search for ways to build a more just and equitable society, especially in regards to human rights advocacy. On campus, Jocelyn volunteers for Every Vote Counts to educate her peers on the importance of civic engagement, while providing resources essential to the voting process from registration to polling booth. She is also a member of the Volunteer and Activism committees for EcoPledge of Boston College, a sustainability club dedicated to minimizing the impact of climate change both on campus and in the greater Boston area. With ACE, Jocelyn hopes to research policy that secures stable, equal living conditions in the face of environmental crisis, marginalization, and other challenges facing the country today. She is excited to bring ACE’s resources to her university, and to continue fostering a community of well-informed, democratically-engaged citizens.