1. Despain 1
Jeffrey Despain
May 8, 2012
IS 491 Final Paper
Mexican Immigration to the United States:
Unintended Consequences of the Militarization of the Border and Anti-immigration Policy
Abstract:
This paper begins by tracing the history of Mexican immigration to the United States beginning
with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, through the World Wars and Great Depression, up to
NAFTAs influence. I then focus on present day immigration and analyze the impact of several
‘unintended consequences’ the militarization of the US/Mexico border and the suffering US
economy have had on immigration. This includes strict anti-immigration laws in several states
including Arizona and Alabama; the expansion of the Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA)’s private prison industry; wrongful detention and deportation of US citizens, the forced
separation of families; border deaths; human trafficking; and the rise of white-supremacy groups.
Of these the focus will be given to Arizona’s SB 1070 and the Private Prison Industry. This
section also includes several case study examples of US citizens who were wrongfully detained
as a result of both these actions. I then turn to the many positive impacts immigration has on not
only the economy of the US. I will address common anti-immigration sentiments and concerns
within this section. Finally, I will propose suggestions for how to improve immigration policy in
the US.
Introduction:
The 42nd President of the United States, Bill Clinton, said: “America has constantly

2. Despain 2
drawn strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants. . .They have proved to be the
most restless, the most adventurous, the most innovative, the most industrious of people” (Diaz,
Saenz, and Kwan, 301). Not only has the foundation of the United States had direct ties with
immigration but the evolution of the American labor force has, from the beginning, been heavily
influenced by episodes of immigration as well (Wilson, 2007). Out of all immigrants that come
into the US by far the most come from Mexico (Durand, Massey, and Zenteno, 2001). But
despite the influx of innovative spirit and strength immigrants provide there have been periods in
the history of the United States of staunch prejudice towards them as well.
Part I: History of MexicanImmigration to US through NAFTA
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
French stated that ‘a review of US/Mexican history is required to lift the fog of persisting
myths in order to offer a clearer picture of the complexities surrounding the current Mexican
migrant controversy” (French, 4). Perhaps the largest change in American demographics
involved an extension of the US borders which took place at the close of the Mexican-American
War, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1848, almost half of Mexico's
territory passed to its northern neighbor as a result of the Treaty (Fernández-Kelly, 106). An
entire population of Mexicans suddenly changed national status while maintaining kinship and
friendship bonds in their country of origin. In a move which would be repeated for years,
agricultural firms, in search of a low-cost and pliant labor force, turned southward to bring in
workers.
Employment in the agriculture business was not the only source of inspiration however,
the Gold Rush in California attracted many skilled laborers from Mexico as well (Overmyer-
Velázquez, 7). They were among the first to arrive in the area and staked their claim. Over the

3. Despain 3
years miners would bring their friends and family with them to California until the numbers were
in the 10,000s. But race became an issue once the other ‘Gold Rushers’ arrived and found the
skilled wealthy Mexicans and the white people still poor. White supremacy began to be enforced
in the mining camps and many Mexicans were lynched, with 163 documented cases between the
years of 1848 and 1860. The State of California passed the Foreigners Miners’ Tax Law in 1850,
forcing 15,000 to 20,000 Mexicans to abandon their mining claims either because they refused or
could not afford to pay the $30 per month tax. History shows that problems regarding
immigration did not first begin with those from South of the Border, but were focused primarily
on those from Europe and Asian nations.
World War and Great Depression
One of the largest impacts on labor and migration were the labor shortages created by the
first World War and the impact of the 1917 Immigration Act (French, 71). There had been
movement to get rid of the Chinese in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, and was expanded with
the passage of the US Immigration Act of 1917, which extended the exclusion to both Asian and
Pacific Island immigrants (Mendoza, 38; French, 71). During World War I, immigrants from
East and South Europe dropped substantially because of the war in their own land which created
a void in labor supply that Mexican workers would come to fill (Durand, Massey, and Zenteno,
2001; French, 71). The US once again turned to Mexico for new industrial workers (Durand,
Massey, and Zenteno, 2001). This effort became a formal agreement between the US and
Mexico regarding the use of temporary labor from Mexico in the US became known as the first
Bracero Program, bracero meaning ‘strong-armed men’ but came to mean migrant farm laborer
(Overmyer-Velázquez, 79; French, 71).
During the 1920s, immigration from Mexico had reached such massive levels that

4. Despain 4
historians label it a "flood tide" (Fernández-Kelly, 106). Reports show Mexican immigrants
arriving into the United States rising dramatically from 18,000 in 1910 to 87,648 in 1924
(Overmyer-Velázquez, 39). During the 1930s, however, the flood tide of the 1920s was reduced
to a trickle (Fernández-Kelly, 106). The advent of the Great Depression, saw Mexican workers
displaced by unemployed white farmers and sharecroppers from the farm belt areas of the
country (French, 76). It also produced a new round of xenophobia and anti-Mexican hysteria that
led to the deportation or voluntary repatriation of half a million Mexicans (Hoffman 1974). With
U.S. entry into the Second World War, however, labor shortages occurred in the American
Southwest, and in 1942, the two countries signed the Bracero Accord, a bilateral agreement that
arranged for the temporary entry of Mexican workers for agricultural labor (Calavita 1992;
Fernández-Kelly, 106).
Bracero Program
Workers rights was a big portion of the agreement: “Legal written contacts, sanitary
living conditions, adequate wages without any unauthorized deductions, and transportation to the
job sites as well as transportation during repatriation were issues Mexico insisted upon” (French,
76). Over four and a half million ‘strong-armed men’ Mexican workers were involved in the
exchange of labor sanctioned through the official Bracero agreement (French, 78). Although
originally envisioned as a temporary wartime measure, the Bracero Program was extended after
1945 and dramatically expanded in the mid-1950s (Fernández-Kelly, 106). In the mid-1960s
when the ‘‘bracero’’ program ended, five million Mexicans had moved permanently north of the
border (Davies, 380). History shows that every time there's an influx of immigrants, there are
groups of people who feel threatened (Mendoza, 38). Although the Bracero Program did survive
the ‘Red Scare’ controversy associated with McCarthyism, which attempted to identify Socialists

5. Despain 5
and Communists and racial minorities as threats to the American way of life, it did however
come to an end in 1964 due in large part to increased mechanization in harvesting agricultural
products, thus reducing the need for labor (French, 78-79).
The demise of the program simply channeled the flow in new directions however, it did
not stem the flow of Mexican workers into the US, whether they had documents or not (Durand,
Massey, and Zenteno, 2001; French, 79). As a result ‘Operation Wetback’ was put into action in
an effort to deport the illegals (French, 83). This led to the eventual mass deportation of 1.3
million Mexicans, who were mostly undocumented but also legal temporary migrants and US
citizens of Mexican descent (Mize, Swords, 25). The negative impact of the operation was “the
portrayal of the Mexican worker, regardless of legal status, as a subhuman, despicable character
who was prone to crime and violence. Unfortunately, many US citizens of Mexican descent were
confronted and forced to prove their citizenship. Those who could not were arrested and
deported to Mexico” (French, 83). This operation proved ineffective as Mexicans continued to
cross the border, ranging from the hundreds of thousands between the 1960s and 1970s to 3
million in the 1980s, including nearly a million undocumented, immigration from Mexico has
boomed (Durand, Massey, and Zenteno, 2001).
Maquiladora
Starting in the late 1960s, tougher environmental restrictions led to the proliferation of
the maquiladoras, or twin manufacturing plan, where plants would be established in Mexico and
the US, just along the border (French, 96). American firms began to relocate manufacturing
operations to this region, in an effort to circumvent high taxes and union pressures for improved
wages and benefits (Fernández-Kelly, 100) .The dirty manufacturing work would be done in
Mexico where little to no environmental restrictions existed and then the goods would be

6. Despain 6
finished on the US side of the plant (French, 96). Between 1970 and 1984, the number of border
maquiladoras grew from 120 to 585, whereas the number of employees rose from 20,327 to
184,400 (Overmyer-Velázquez, 108). The border area between Mexico and the US increased
substantially in population as a result of the increase in maquiladoras. Water and air pollution
also grew rapidly as there were no restrictions on pollution in Mexico (French, 97). Unemployed
and underemployed men followed the women where many crossed the border illegally for work
on farms, ranches, and in construction. Mexican migration to the United States today continues
to serve as an escape valve for the social pressures accrued in the heavily overcrowded and
impoverished cities of northern Mexico, plagued as they are by environmental degradation,
narco-violence, and other forms of crime and social deprivation (Davies, 380).
Two subsequent landmark laws, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of
1986 and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996,
have had the most crucial role in solidifying the presence of Mexican immigrants in the United
States (Davies, 380). The main provisions of IRCA were to grant asylum and the chance of legal
residency to undocumented immigrants, eventually leading to naturalization for those who
desired it; criminalized the hiring of undocumented migrants; and heightened border security,
including expanding the resources, personnel, and power of the U.S. Border Patrol. (Durand,
Massey, and Zenteno, 2001; Davies, 380). Of the 3.2 million persons who were legalized under
the 1986 IRCA, three-quarters came from Mexico (Durand, Massey, and Zenteno, 2001).
NAFTA
By 1996 the total Mexican population in the United States was 7.15 million, of whom
2.35 million (38 percent) were unauthorized (Durand, Massey, and Zenteno, 2001). Just two
years prior, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was passed as a concerted

7. Despain 7
attempt to achieve financial hegemony throughout the hemisphere. From the Mexican
perspective, NAFTA represented an attempt to integrate into the global economy through trade
liberalization and a reconfiguration of Mexico's authoritarian state (Fernández-Kelly, 101).
Having struggled considerably with foreign debt, a main objective of NAFTA was to ensure that
Mexico would have the funds to increase the extension of credit substantially (Fernández-Kelly,
102). From the American point of view, the twin purposes of NAFTA were thus to provide
manufacturers free access to Mexican workers, thereby enabling a new international division of
labor, while at the same time giving investors unhindered access to Mexican property and
financial assets (Fernández-Kelly, 103). In one stroke it codified a twenty-year-long process of
economic liberalization during which manufacturers had relocated much of their production to
Asia and the U.S.-Mexico border.
The purpose of NAFTA was not merely to facilitate trade and open markets, but to
expand opportunities for capital investment (Fernández-Kelly, 99). The treaty paid little attention
to worker rights and mobility, and its U.S. backers instead insisted on the unilateral right to
prevent Mexican workers from migrating through restrictive border policies. This shows the
slanted function of borders that have become permeable for capital but increasingly restrictive
for immigrants (Fernández-Kelly, 98). For Mexico’s small rural farmers NAFTA was a death
sentence (Mize, Swords, 195). In Mexico, NAFTA influenced the deregulation of agriculture, the
selling of land to foreigners, the withdrawal of farm subsidies, and the opening of Mexico's food,
seed, and feed markets to competition from Canada and the United States, which played a large
role in dislocating and forced migration of many agriculture-based workers who were unable to
compete (Fernández-Kelly, 99, 105). Mexico’s population shifted from 35 million inhabitants,
half rural and half urban in 1960, to 24 million in rural areas and 75 million in cities in 2000

8. Despain 8
(Mize, Swords, 194). There are great similarities in the displacement situation with what
America faced in the 1950s when nearly 1.5 million African Americans migrated from the rural
South to the industrial cities of the North (Wilson, 2007). There appears to be a direct correlation
between industrialization and urban development with mass migrations in that as technology
advances and outperforms the rural sector those living in that area have little choice but to move
towards the new competitive environment of the urban setting.
The stated objectives of NAFTA’s economic development in Mexico and balanced
growth throughout North America were from the outset opposite those actually implemented,
which served narrow economic and political interests rather than the welfare of ordinary
Mexicans or Americans (Fernández-Kelly, 106). NAFTA served to accelerate migration to the
United States, especially for small farmers, indigenous and other displaced peoples (Mize,
Swords, 196). Although migrants continued to arrive at the border and cross into the United
States they did not return to Mexico after NAFTA was passed but rather, stayed in US
(Fernández-Kelly, 99). Instead, unauthorized migrants reduced cyclical movements to spare
themselves the greater costs and risks of reentry after 1986. The reduction in return migration
led, in turn, to unprecedented accretions to the Mexican population living north of the border.
This brings us to the next section of the paper which focuses more on current day issues with
mexican immigration to the United States.
Part 2: MexicanImmigration in the 21st Century: Unintended Consequences
Militarization of the US border
September 11
As can be noted from the historical overview of Mexican immigration to the United
States, the perspective of the identity of the Mexican immigrant has changed over the years

9. Despain 9
(Durand, Massey, and Zenteno, 2001). Despite the perception they may have, Latinos are
becoming the fastest growing ethnic group in the US and are estimated to comprise 25 percent of
the total population by 2020 (French, 4). Following a pattern established at the foundation of the
republic, immigrants today are again being used to justify government responses to the economic
and political crises (Lovalo, 15). Much of the post-September 11 government responses have
gone far beyond measures reasonably aimed at perpetrators like the terrorists responsible for the
destruction of the World Trade Center, targeting instead, directly or indirectly, a huge range of
noncitizens, with no faintly plausible connection to any threat of terrorism (Hincapié, 107).
Politicians and scholars called for increased controls of the flow of illegal immigrants as a matter
of national security (Ramanujan, 1037). Despite the fact that more Muslim-terrorists entered the
US from Canada than from Mexico, the majority of the controversy over border security is
focused on nonwhite undocumented aliens who cross the US southern border (French, 3). In
doing so, the government has recklessly encouraged the public to scapegoat immigrants
(Hincapié, 107). A major factor in this process was the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), which was established in November 2002, whose responsibility is the regulation
of immigration (Wilder, 5).
The Department of Homeland Security
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security is the largest, most important
restructuring of the federal government since the end of World War II (Lovalo, 15). The
Immigration and Naturalization Service was soon dismantled and replaced with the Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency under the newly established DHS. The ICE expanded
rapidly, amounting to 16,500-plus employees and a near $5 billion budget, which quickly
transformed it into DHS's largest investigative component, accounting for more than one fifth of

10. Despain 10
the multibillion-dollar DHS budget. ICE is also the second-largest investigative agency in the
federal government, after the FBI, and is arguably the most militarized federal entity after the
Pentagon. Not long after its inception, ICE began to wage what many advocates have called a
"war on immigrants."
Authorities began rounding up immigrants on minor violations, and federal prosecutors
began aggressively prosecuting immigration crimes (Wilder, 5). Immigration surpassed drugs as
the No. 1 federally prosecuted crime in 2004. President Bush laid down the law: “Our goal is
clear: to return every single illegal entrant, with no exceptions." This ambitious goal is laid out in
the ominously titled "Endgame," the 10-year plan for ICE's Office of Detention and Removal
(DRO) to "remove all removable aliens" from the United States by 2012. To this end, "zero
tolerance" programs have been implemented in certain border sectors to register and punish
every wayward border-hopper. Funding for border security has more than doubled, from $4.6
billion in 2001 to $10.4 billion in 2007.
While many can believe that there were ulterior motives behind the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, few consider that there are non-immigration related motives behind ICE's creating
an enemy out of immigrants and immigration policy: building a domestic security apparatus, one
made possible by multibillion-dollar contracts to military-industrial companies like Boeing,
General Electric, and Halliburton for "virtual" border walls, migrant detention centers, drones,
ground-based sensors, and other surveillance technology for use in the Arizona desert that was
originally designed for Middle Eastern war zones (Lovalo, 16). Rather than view the placement
of ICE under DHS as solely about controlling immigrant labor or about political opportunism
disguised as government policy it is important to connect the creation of ICE and its placement
under DHS to the perpetual drive of government to expand its powers, especially its repressive

11. Despain 11
apparatus and other mechanisms of social control (Lovalo, 20). Perhaps the most salient
difference between today's security state and those of the past is this central importance of the
private sector. And unlike the previous periods, the creation of massive bureaucracies superseded
the need to surveil, arrest, and deport migrants. Today, there appears to be a move to make
permanent the capacity of the state to pursue, jail and deport migrants in order to sustain what we
might call the migration-military-industrial complex. Several indicators make clear that we are
well on our way to making the war on immigrants a permanent feature of a government in crisis.
Art of Statecraft
A brief look at historical precedents for this kind of government anti-immigrant action
yields the conclusion that this instrumentalizing of immigrants to build up government policing
and military capabilities is, in fact, a standard practice of the art of statecraft (Lovalo, 17). The
historical record provides ample evidence of how national security experts, politicians, elected
officials, bureaucrats and other managers of the state have used immigrants and anti-immigrant
sentiments and policies as a way of normalizing and advancing militarization within the borders
of the United States. In the face of both popular unrest and competition for political power, and
in an effort to consolidate the state and the globally oriented mercantile and pre-industrial
capitalist economy Alexander Hamilton and then president John Adams did what has, since their
time, become a standard operating procedure in the art of U.S. statecraft: build the state and
insert its control apparatus in the larger populace by scapegoating immigrants as threats to
national security. As previously discussed, during the Great Depression, Mexicans in the United
States were scapegoated for the economic hard times, as public xenophobia for the first time
turned against them, having previously been fixated on the Chinese and "undesirable"
Europeans.

12. Despain 12
The speed with which the militarization of migration policy took place left many
questions. Why, for example, did the Bush administration move the citizenship-processing and
immigration-enforcement functions of government from the more domestic, policing-oriented
Department of Justice to the more militarized, anti-terrorist bureaucracy of the Department of
Homeland Security? (Lovalo, 16) Most explanations view this transfer, and the relentless pursuit
of undocumented immigrants that it enabled, as a response to the continuing pressures of angry,
mostly white, citizens. On one extreme lies a range of anti-immigrant platforms, xenophobia,
fear-mongering, and an increased state apparatus of repression (Davies, 377). It relies on
populist, nativist resentment ranging from hate-mongering fringe groups to mainstream
organizations, politicians, and media outlets, cashing in on the general panic that terrorism
generates. As David Cole put it in his book, Enemy Aliens: Douhk Standards and Constitutional
Freedoms in the War on Terrorism ; "What we are willing to allow our government to do to
immigrants today creates a template for how it will treat citizens tomorrow," Constant reports of
raids on the homes of the undocumented immigrants normalize the idea of government intrusion
into the homes of legal residents (Lovalo, 16).
President Bush later said: "Today we capture many more illegal immigrants than we can
send home. And one of the biggest reasons for that is, we don't have enough bed space in our
detention facilities” (Wilder, 5). Indeed, Homeland Security has already begun taking the fight to
undocumented immigrants settled in the United States. In a series of high-profile raids and
SWAT-like ambushes called Operation Return to Sender, ICE agents have swept up about
14,000 people in dozens of states from June 2006 to June 2007 (Wilder, 6). Nearly all the ICE
facilities are located in the South and Southwest or near major ports, such as Miami and New
York. The private sector operates most of the recently opened facilities for profit, with CCA and

13. Despain 13
GEO Group dominating the market (Wilder, 3).
Unintended Consequences of Militarization of US border
Private Prisons: Anti-immigration based State Laws
Many state prisons are now run by private companies that have powerful lobbyists in
state capitals (Zakaria, 18). The Bush administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants
has been a propitious, and profitable, development for Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA), to the effect of making it a billion-dollar company, the largest private prison company in
the country (Sullivan, 2; Wilder, 3). The executives of the company believed that immigrant
detention was their next big market. They stated that they expect to bring in "a significant portion
of our revenues" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal
immigrants (Sullivan, 3). The more inmates a correctional facility or detention center has the
more money they get from the government (taxpayer funded), currently at 5 billion dollars a year
(Sullivan, 2). NPR made an incredible effort to dig to the bottom of the beginnings of Arizona’s
SB 1070, an anti-immigration policy, and its connection with Arizona’s Senator Pearce, the
CCA, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This effort included sifting
through campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What the evidence
showed was a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by
the private prison industry, the industry that would benefit most from it.
ALEC, or the American Legislative Exchange Council, is the most active private prison
lobbying group and is comprised of state legislators, including Arizona’s Senator Russell Pearce
and corporations like CCA (Sullivan, 2). The model legislation, drafted at a meeting with state
legislatures, ALEC members, and CCA lobbyists, became, almost word for word, Arizona's SB
1070 (Sullivan, 4). Russell Pearce introduced the bill and as soon as it hit the Arizona statehouse

14. Despain 14
floor there were signs of ALEC's influence (Sullivan, 5). Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a
number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of
them either went to that meeting where the legislation was crafted, or are ALEC members. At the
state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear. 30 of the 36 cosponsors received donations
over the ensuing six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies, including the CCA. Not
long after the bill had been introduced it was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk, ready to be signed.
NPR reports that Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying
records show two of her top advisers, her spokesman and her campaign manager, are former
lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill.
Ann Morse, program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures’
Immigrant Policy Project noted that individual states have taken action against immigration
because of the Federal Government’s inaction on the matter (Gorman, 2010). "Until the federal
government acts, states will still see this as an area where they see the need to play a leadership
role." Arizona’s SB 1070 makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona
without carrying the required documents, requires that state law enforcement officers attempt to
determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" when
there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant, bars state or local
officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down
on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens (State of Arizona, 2010).
Since the bill was signed into law, seven lawsuits have been filed to stop implementation
of SB 1070 (IPC, 2012). According to researchers at the Immigration Policy Center, at the end of
February 2011, Arizona had already spent more than $1.5 million in attempting to defend SB
1070. These laws make it more difficult for businesses to operate in the state by means of worker

15. Despain 15
shortages, hassle with the required verification programs, having to spend more on employee
screening, and it also deters investment. The anti-immigration laws have increased substantially
the prejudice towards those of latino roots, many of which are US citizens. Those who are
undocumented face the risk of deportation if they are caught and therefore flee the state, which
leaves countless jobs in the agriculture or industry business empty and unfilled. The state’s
economy has suffered as a result. Arizona is not the only state to have experienced this trend,
several other state economies are floundering because of the anti-immigration laws. But similar
to Arizona, other states are likely to see numerous lawsuits against similar legislation. The law
has prompted lawsuits, protests and boycotts in and outside of the state of Arizona (Gorman,
2010).
An article written in April of 2012 in TIME reported that the US has 760 prisoners per
100,000 citizens (Zakaria, 18). That’s not just many more than in most other developed countries
but seven to 10 times as many. Japan has 63 per 100,000, Germany has 90, France has 96. Even
developing countries that are well known for their crime problems have a third of US numbers.
Mexico has 208 prisoners per 100,000 citizens, and Brazil has 242. The money that states spend
on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education in the past 20 years. In
2011, California spent $9.6 billion on prisons vs $5.7 billion on the UC system and state
colleges. Since 1980, California has built one college campus and 21 prisons. A college student
costs the state $8,667 per year while a prisoner costs it $45,006 a year. These prisons cost the
state a lot of money and private prison industries thrive because of it.
Not only does the anti-immigration legislation negatively affect the state economies but
the conditions in which the immigrants are kept border violations of their human rights. The
reported conditions at some facilities resemble those reported at detention centers for prisoners

16. Despain 16
of the war on terror: Lights are kept on 24 hours a day; there are no windows; the toilets and
showers are open; group punishment is used for minor infractions; and detainees are allowed
outside one hour each day and, until recently, were forced to eat with their hands (Wilder, 4).
They have alleged racism, inadequate medical attention, spoiled food, and non functioning
phones. A jail located in Raymondville is named by immigration rights advocates ‘Ritmo’, after
Gitmo, the nickname for the naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Associate director of the National
Immigration Project of the National Lawyer's Guild Paromita Shah says: "People are suffering
violations that almost amount to constitutional violations of their rights. And when that happens,
detention becomes punitive." In a legal sense, "detention" is not a punitive measure; it is not,
strictly speaking, "incarceration." But for detainees, this is a distinction without a difference.
They are not being charged with a crime yet are still effectively serving time. Depending on their
circumstances, detainees may have little access to immigration court. If they do, they must
represent themselves before a hostile judge from the Justice Department, because they have no
right to a government-paid attorney. The immigrants can be kept detained for quite some time
too, without anyone making a fuss on their behalf due to their undocumented status. The ICE
boasts at $79 a head each day which amounts to up to $4.7 million each month of taxpayers
money for enacting near breaking of human rights violations.
Unintended Consequences:
Wrongful Detention/Deportation
In a spate of recent cases across the country, American citizens have been confined in
local jails after federal immigration agents, acting on flawed information from Department of
Homeland Security databases, instructed the police to hold them for investigation and possible
deportation (Preston, 2011). Americans said their vehement protests that they were citizens went

17. Despain 17
unheard by local police officers and jailers for days, with no communication with federal
immigration agents to clarify the situation. Any case where an American is held, even briefly, for
immigration investigation is a potential wrongful arrest because immigration agents lack legal
authority to detain citizens. This year the immigration agency has been rapidly extending its
leading deportation program, known as Secure Communities, with a goal of covering the whole
country by 2013. Under that program, fingerprints of every person booked at local jails are
checked against Department of Homeland Security immigration databases. If the check results in
a match, federal immigration agents can issue detainers, asking local law enforcement authorities
to hold a suspect for up to 48 hours. Detentions of citizens are part of the widening impact on
Americans, as well as on immigrants, of President Obama’s enforcement strategies, which have
led to more than 1.1 million deportations since the beginning of his term, the highest numbers in
six decades. The following section focuses on specific instances were US citizens were
wrongfully detained and in some cases deported.
Case Study:
Rennison Castillo
Rennison Castillo, 33, came to the United States at age 6 and later became a permanent
lawful resident (Johnson, 2011). He was sworn in as a citizen during his seven-year stint in the
Army, which ended with his honorable discharge in 2003. Rennison Castillo was transferred to
the Northwest Detention Center in 2005 when he finished serving a jail sentence for violating a
protection order and harassment. The native of Belize explained repeatedly that he had become a
naturalized U.S. citizen in 1998 while serving in the Army, but neither Immigration and Customs
Enforcement officials nor an immigration judge believed him. He was finally released after the
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Seattle attorneys took up his case on appeal. Castillo's

18. Despain 18
case was complicated by the fact that his immigration files listed two names and misspelled
versions of his first and last name. He also didn't have immediately family in the area to call for
help. The U.S. government has agreed to pay him $400,000 for being kept locked up for seven
months while immigration officials wrongly tried to deport him. In 2009, The Associated Press
documented cases of 55 U.S. citizens wrongly detained by U.S. immigration officials in the past
decade, including Castillo. Immigration lawyers believe there were hundreds more.
Mr. Montejano
One was Mr. Montejano, when a holiday shopping outing on Nov. 5 to a Los Angeles
mall with his four children ended badly. After his young daughter begged for a $10 bottle of
cologne, Mr. Montejano said, he inadvertently dropped it into a bag of things he had already
bought. As he left the store, he was arrested. With no prior criminal record, Mr. Montejano, 40,
expected to post bond quickly at the Santa Monica police station on the misdemeanor charge and
go home. He had his driver’s license and other legal identification, but because of an
immigration detainer he was denied bail and held even after a criminal court judge canceled his
fine and ordered the police to let him go. Mr. Montejano was freed on Nov. 9 after American
Civil Liberties Union lawyers sent Immigration and Customs Enforcement his United States
passport and birth certificate (Preston, 2011). Mr. Montejano had triggered a positive match in
the Homeland Security Department databases, A.C.L.U. lawyers discovered, because
immigration officials had failed once before to recognize his citizenship, mistakenly deporting
him to Mexico in 1996. His records were not corrected. He said he thought the police did not
believe he was an American because of his appearance. “I look Mexican 100 percent,” he said.
Romy Campos
An American college student, Romy Campos, was also trapped in a California jail last

19. Despain 19
month for four days on an immigration detainer (Preston, 2011). After her Nov. 12 arrest in
Torrance on a minor misdemeanor charge, Ms. Campos, 19, was denied bail and transferred to a
Los Angeles County jail. A public defender assigned to her in state court said there was nothing
he could do to lift a federal detainer. After four days, Ms. Campos was released, soon after
Jennie Pasquarella, an A.C.L.U. lawyer, provided her Florida birth certificate to the immigration
agency. Ms. Campos, a citizen of both the United States and Spain, later learned that she had a
Department of Homeland Security record because she had once entered the United States on her
Spanish passport. United States citizens can also be tagged in a Secure Communities fingerprint
check because of flukes in the department’s databases. Unlike the federal criminal databases
administered by the F.B.I., Homeland Security records include all immigration transactions, not
just violations. An immigrant who has always maintained legal status, including those who
naturalized to become American citizens, can still trigger a fingerprint match.
Mark Lyttle
Mark Lyttle was serving prison time in North Carolina for a misdemeanor offense in
2008 when prison officials say he gave Mexico as his place of birth, drawing the attention of
immigration agents (Associated Press, 2010). His lawyers acknowledge he eventually signed
papers allowing his deportation, but argue he was too mentally disabled to understand what he
was doing. He spent four months in Central America before his family helped him return. The
ordeal began after Lyttle, now 33, was charged with inappropriately touching a female orderly at
a psychiatric hospital. In August 2008, he was sentenced to 100 days in prison. Lyttle is of
Puerto Rican descent and looks Hispanic. Immigration agents “coerced and manipulated” Lyttle
more than once into signing false statements saying he was a citizen of Mexico and agreed to be
deported, the suit says. The lawsuit contends the agents searched databases on Lyttle’s criminal

20. Despain 20
history and repeatedly came up with records showing his Social Security number. Because of his
mental disabilities, “Mr. Lyttle did not understand what he was signing or that he unknowingly
consented to being deported,” the suit says. In October 2008, Lyttle was sent to an immigration
detention facility in south Georgia and interviewed by another agent. That interrogation form
“accurately reflected that Mr. Lyttle was ‘a native of United States and a citizen of United
States,’” but the agent still said Lyttle could be deported because of criminal convictions.
An immigration judge ordered Lyttle deported in December 2008 without letting him
present evidence or deny he was Mexican, the lawsuit says (Associated Press, 2010). His lawyers
say Lyttle was then flown to Texas and “forced to disembark and sent off on foot into Mexico,
still wearing the prison-issued jumpsuit.” Shortly after, he was turned away at a U.S. border
crossing in Texas and spent the next 115 days wandering Central America. He was arrested and
imprisoned in Mexico, Honduras and Nicaragua because he couldn’t prove his identity or
citizenship, the lawsuit says. Meanwhile, his family wondered where he was. Prison officials told
them he’d been released but didn’t say he’d been handed over to immigration agents, David
Lyttle said. Lyttle finally made it to the U.S. embassy in Guatemala, where an employee tracked
down his family. They sent copies of his adoption records, and a passport was issued. His family
wired Lyttle money for a plane ticket. On April 22, 2009, Lyttle landed in Atlanta, where he was
detained by agents who tried to quickly deport him again, the suit says. A lawyer hired by his
family found him in detention and got him released. The Department of Homeland Security filed
a motion on April 28, 2009 to terminate deportation proceedings, stating that he was, in fact, a
U.S. citizen. A parallel federal lawsuit is being filed in North Carolina against immigration and
prison officials there.
John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the agency

21. Despain 21
gave “immediate and close attention” to anyone who claimed to be a citizen (Preston, 2011).
“We don’t have the power to detain citizens. We obviously take any allegation that someone is a
citizen very seriously.” What is obvious, however, is that US citizens are being wrongfully
detained and deported as a result of racial profiling due to stricter anti-immigrant laws. Exact
numbers of Americans erroneously held by immigration authorities are hard to come by, since
they are not systematically recorded. In one study, 82 people who were held for deportation from
2006 to 2008 at two immigration detention centers in Arizona, for periods as long as a year, were
freed after immigration judges determined that they were American citizens (Preston, 2011).
Jacqueline Stevens, a political science professor at Northwestern University, has concluded that a
low but persistent percentage of the nearly 400,000 people held for deportation each year are
citizens. But Stevens cautioned: “It’s sort of like the canary in the mine. If those who have the
full due process rights of U.S. citizens are being detained, it tells us a lot about potentially
unlawful people who do not have those protections.”
Supreme Court Decision 2012
State’s other than Arizona, such as Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah,
have also become frustrated with the country's porous borders and have rejected the long-held
notion that Washington is responsible for confronting illegal immigration (Billeaud, 2012). They
too have passed laws similar to Arizona’s SB 1070. Arizona’s Senate bill currently sits, however,
in the Supreme Court. If the court upholds those parts of Arizona's law, allowing local police to
take an active role in immigration enforcement, the ruling would codify that type of local
enforcement. The Obama administration said the law conflicts with a more nuanced federal
immigration policy that seeks to balance national security, law enforcement, foreign policy,
human rights and the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants. During arguments over the

22. Despain 22
law, liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the administration's argument that the
state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing
suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant. Civil rights groups say Arizona's
and the other states' measures encourage racial profiling and ethnic stereotyping. A decision
based on the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070 is scheduled to be made in the summer of
2012. The ruling will have a significant impact on similar anti-immigration laws in many other
states across the nation and their individual economies as a result.
Other ‘Unintended Consequences’
Private Prisons and human rights violations are not the only unintended consequences of
the militarization of the US border. When immigrants are taken into custody, detained and in
many cases deported, this separates the family of the individual. Many of these undocumented
workers' children have lost their parents, who have either been detained or deported (Wilder, 6).
Reverend Juan Antonio Albaladejo of Cactus, Texas, where ICE arrested 292 workers, said that
in many cases, the children were born here, to undocumented parents, and then the state has to
take the children and put them into foster care, separating families. They haven't taken that into
account. Families of immigrants on the other side of the border must wonder and worry about
their family members who have crossed borders, especially when they don’t hear from them for
long periods of time. Immigrants do die. Unless they are legal and documented immigrants it is
nearly impossible for any records to be kept to show or prove their death. Much of the
US/Mexican border has been restricted and is secured so tightly that undocumented immigrants
must choose to travel the only open space left which is however, made nearly impassable
because of natural causes: desert. Despite extreme conditions, much of the death that occurs
along the border is actually due to an underground shady network of criminal human trafficking

23. Despain 23
(Davies, 377). Those who do escape death by the uncharitable conditions of the desert or being
sold into human or sex slavery face a life of constant fear of being discovered and deported,
which would result in the disjoining of their family, all because of anti-immigrant legislation
proposed by those in the private prison industry.
Anti-immigration based State Laws: White supremacy
But money is not the only motivating element for those involved in the private prison
industry. ALEC is also known for its strong white supremacist sentiments. Referring to the
psychology, generally, individuals in our ingroup generate positive feelings and outgroups may
be viewed as inferior, leading to negative consequences such as ethnocentrism, prejudice, and
discrimination (Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan, 304). Consequently, the American prototype
prominently is known to be “White” and ethnic minorities are less likely to be associated with
being American (Diaz, Saenz, Kwan, 305). Evidence has shown that the backlash against
Mexicans due to media coverage of immigration issues is aiding white-supremacist extremist
groups (Corrigan, 2008). A Missouri-based expert on extremists, cults and gangs Robert F.
Harris as saying that these extremist groups are using the issue to recruit and to go mainstream.
In 2006, in Valley Park near St. Louis, the city passed an ordinance that would seriously penalize
landowners and businesses who rented to and dealt with illegal immigrants, including denial of
business permits for 5 years for any businesses that aids and abets illegal immigrants. This was
not unsimilar to California's 1994 proposed but overturned Proposition 187, which denied public
benefits to undocumented workers and authorized the enforcement of immigration laws by local
police (Wilder, 5). The major difference between the two is that the 2006 ordinance also declared
Valley Park as an English-only city (Corrigan, 2008). The ordinance was voided in the Circuit
Court, as being in violation of State Law. The ordinance, although voided, attracted much

24. Despain 24
attention nation-wide as it was the first instance where a city attempted to control immigration.
White supremacy groups will continue to gain strength as the immigration issue attracts
attention.
Anti-immigration based State Laws: Immigrants as Scapegoats in Suffering US Economy
Hostile stances toward immigrants are also influenced by the state of the economy (Diaz,
Saenz, and Kwan, 304). When economic conditions have not favored increases in population
large-scale U.S. immigration has long been an unsettling issue for many. In times of need and
economic growth, policy has been more permissive and tolerant (Davies, 380). In times of
economic contraction the public mood has produced a backlash of anti-immigrant feeling and the
political climate has consequently responded with more restrictive legislation. The declining
economy signals perceived competition for resources. Perceived zero-sum competition between
groups, or the belief that the outgroup gains at the expense of one’s ingroup, strongly influences
negative attitudes toward immigrants (Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan, 304). The media presentations of
the success of immigrants in a difficult economic market can induce perceptions of competition
with immigrants and, thus, lead to unfavorable immigration attitudes. In recent years, it is
possible that controversial political restrictions have brewed in order to deflect dissatisfaction
from the economic instability of American society (Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan, 301).
Another glance into the history of the United States and the reaction towards certain
groups, those considered less-American during the time period, and how the perception towards
them decreases significantly in the presence of either economic competition or when the
economy overall is suffering (Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan, 302). Between 1882 and 1930, for
example, the number of lynchings in the Deep South increased as the price of cotton decreased,
demonstrating that southern Whites singled out Blacks for the blame when they experienced a

25. Despain 25
decline in financial well-being. The authorities, from federal to state to local, engage in a game
whereby they play off the needs and demands of their business constituents against the fears and
anger of the native anti-immigrant voters. When times are economically prosperous, politicians,
law enforcement agencies, and regulators turn a blind eye to the illegal immigration that feeds
the economy so well. When the economy worsens and unemployment increases, controls are
ratcheted up and the populist ‘‘get tough on immigration’’ strategy is deployed (Davies, 382).
This ebb and flow, the wavering and selective ‘‘we want you/we want you not’’ attitude
toward immigration, is an inevitable outcome of the ambiguities fraught within an economic
system that sees an undeniable need for the efficiencies of a flexible labor pool but is
characterized by a social and political base narrowly focused on fiscal pressures in education,
healthcare, and welfare, and resistant to social and cultural change (Davies, 380). This decreased
positivity was significantly pronounced between the fall of 2008 and the fall of 2009, the latter of
which was related to a marked decline in the economy, generally, and a severe housing crisis in
Arizona, in particular (Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan, 309). As local and national unemployment rates
increased and GDP real growth rate decreased (particularly in 2009), attitudes also increased in
relative negativity.

26. Despain 26
Also noteworthy is the fact that attitudes remained relatively constant as the economy
slowly declined from 2006 to 2008, but a strong shift occurred when a national recession was
declared after fall of 2008 (Diaz, Saenz, and Kwan, 309). These findings illustrate a manner in
which immigrants may become scapegoats of social discontent and thus be seen as potential
usurpers of governmental and private resources.
Another piece of evidence regarding the decreasing attitudes towards immigrants because
of the struggling economy can be found in the dramatic increase in the number of immigration-
related laws and resolutions enacted recently by individual states. Measuring at just 32 in 2005
they surged to 333 in 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (Gorman,
2010). And during the first three months of 2010, lawmakers introduced more than 1,000 bills
and resolutions. Research has not only shown that these laws are not profitable but detrimental,
rather, to the states in which they are implemented. Researchers from the Immigration Policy

27. Despain 27
Center reported that although proponents of harsh immigration bills in Mississippi claim that
passing these laws would save their state money, experience from other states shows these
immigration laws will actually cost the state millions of dollars (IPC, 2012). If unauthorized
immigrants leave, the state loses workers and consumers who earn and spend money in the state.
The implementation of these laws and defending them in court would cost Mississippi’s
taxpayers millions. In short, the loss of taxpayers and consumers would devastate Mississippi’s
economy. The researchers quote Professor Samuel Addy at the Center for Business and
Economic Research at the University of Alabama in saying that the laws will result in “a
shrinking of the state economy and will be seen in lower economic output, personal income, and
fewer jobs than would otherwise have been.” Alabama’s HB 56 could shrink Alabama’s Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) by up to $10.8 billion. Anti-immigration laws have been shown to have
a serious negative impact on the economies of the states which implement them.
Immigrants affect on the Economy
Those who are undocumented do not pay taxes for the services they use but instead rely
on the taxes of citizens, a fact that encourage those in both political parties to push for a tighter
security of the border (Wilson, 2007). Previously cited in the paper was California’s Proposition
187, which would have denied certain publicly funded social and health care services to illegal
aliens (Nicholson-Crotty, 2011). It was never implemented because of Federal Court intervention
but is a concrete example which exemplifies the general negative feeling towards undocumented
immigrants who place a huge financial drain on public services for healthcare, education,
policing, public housing, and other forms of social welfare (Davies, 379). Another claim is that
Latinos in low-end jobs in construction, agriculture, domestic service, and the hotel and
restaurant industries depress wages so that the poor native population is stymied in their attempts

28. Despain 28
to achieve a higher standard of living.
Statistical analysis shows that rather than immigrant competition or substitution forcing
Anglos out of the workforce, there is a high degree of complementarity, with immigrants
supplementing the needs of labor by fulfilling those jobs natives are more reluctant to do
(Davies, 379). Mexicans are the U.S. immigrant group with the greatest industrial participation
and the lowest average income (Wise, Breña, 38). Despite Mexican migrants' contribution to the
reduction of production costs in the U.S. economy, their impact is limited to certain areas of the
labor market and does not affect the majority of U.S. workers (Wise, Breña, 40). In fact, there is
no correlation between the flow of Mexican migration and the unemployment rate in the United
States, which suggests that the migrant workforce has instead helped to satisfy the existing
demand in certain areas of the U.S. labor market. Mexican migrants' contributions to the U.S.
economy exceed the benefits and public services they receive in exchange and thus contribute to
the social security of U.S. workers (Wise, Breña, 40). They provide an energetic, resourceful,
and motivated labor force, and enhance the mosaic of the US culture (Davies, 377).
Conclusion
Another President of the United States, President John F. Kennedy, said: “from the
earliest days of our history, this land has been a refuge for the oppressed, and it is proper that we
now, as descendants of refugees and immigrants, continue our long humanitarian tradition of
helping those who are forced to flee to maintain their lives as individual, self-sufficient human
being in freedom, self-respect, dignity, and health” (LaRosa, 249). Immigrants are here to stay
and in some areas of the country, they are not just a part of the labor force, but they are the labor
force (Davies, 377). Immigrants make positive contributions to the US economy and society.
Immigrants perform jobs that no US worker is willing to do and therefore the economy is

29. Despain 29
significantly negatively impacted when they are removed (Ramanujan, 1041). Illegal
immigration into the United States will persist as long as there are greater opportunities here than
in migrants’ home nations (Nicholson-Crotty, 2011). When the economy is ready for them
immigrants cross the border to fill the jobs, but when the economy slows and the opportunities
dwindle so do the numbers of immigrants entering the country. The effort to stem the tide of
immigration by strict policy is therefore counterproductive as immigration is more fully
controlled by the state of the economy (Davies, 384). Sealing the borders more shuts in than
keeps out the undocumented Latino population and, once here, they grow in numbers and
strengthen as a political force. If the policies regarding immigration were more conducive to both
the country receiving the immigrants and to those immigrating many problems would be solved
(Mendoza, 38). One solution would be a more open border policy involving a controlled
circulation of labor, work permits (even if temporary), regularizing the flow of undocumented
migrants, and using amnesty or guest worker programs as an initial means to control and tax the
estimated 12 million undocumented aliens at large in the United States (Davies, 384). Permanent
residency could potentially follow later. The current anti-immigrant momentum in the USA is
ultimately self-defeating and undermining the USA’s own self-interest. Therein lies the ethical
imperative to work toward the creation of a more tolerant, multi-racial society (Davies, 389).
Through the promotion of a more tolerant immigration policy, which will ensure that the
economy regulates the flows of immigration, the very negative ‘unintended consequences’ that
are associated with anti-immigrant measures will diminish.
Bibliography:
Associated Press, Lawsuit: Mentally ill US citizen wrongly deported, The Raw

30. Despain 30
Story, October 14, 2010, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/14/lawsuit-mentally-ill-
citizen-wrongly-deported/
Billeaud, Jacques, ‘Ariz. migrant case could lead to sweeping changes’, Associated
Press, April 26, 2012, http://www.theolympian.com/2012/04/26/2082909/ariz-migrant-case-
could-lead-to.html#storylink=mirelated#storylink=cpy
Cano, Gustavo and Délano, Alexandra, “The Mexican Government and Organised
Mexican Immigrants in The United States: A Historical Analysis of Political
Transnationalism” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 33, No. 5, July 2007 pgs
695-725
Corrigan, Don, “Immigration Backlash Targets Mexicans”, St Louis Journalism
Review, January 2008
Davies, Ian, “Latino Immigration and Social Change in the United States: Toward
an Ethical Immigration Policy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 88, pgs 377–391, 2009
Diaz, Priscila, Delia S. Saenz, and Virginia S.Y. Kwan, “Economic Dynamics and
Changes in Attitudes: Toward Undocumented Mexican Immigrants in Arizona”, Analyses
of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011, pp. 300--313
Durand, Jorge, Douglas S. Massey, Rene M. Zenteno, “Mexican Immigration to the
United States: Continuities and Changes”, Latin American ResearchReview, Vol. 36, No. 1
(2001), pp. 107-127 The Latin American Studies Association
Fernández-Kelly, Patricia and Douglas S. Massey, Borders for Whom? The Role of
NAFTA in Mexico-U.S. Migration’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, Vol. 610, NAFTA and Beyond: Alternative Perspectives in the Study of
Global Trade and Development Mar., 2007, pp. 98-118
French, Laurence Armand, ‘Running the Border Gauntlet: The Mexican Migrant
Controversy’, Praeger, 2010, 3-100
Gorman, Anna, ‘Arizona's immigration law isn't the only one’, Los Angeles Times,
July 16, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/nation/la-na-immigration-states-
20100717
Hincapié, Marielena, ‘Aqui Estamos y No Nos Vamos: Unintended Consequences of
Current U.S. Immigration Law’, pp 89-128, Edited by: Fran Ansley and Jon Shefner,
“Global Connections and Local Receptions: New Latino Immigration to the Southeastern

31. Despain 31
United States”, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, 2009
Immigration Policy Center, “Bad for Business: How Mississippi’s Proposed Anti-
Immigration Laws Will Stifle the State Economy”, American Immigration Council, Feb 02,
2012
Johnson, Gene, ‘U.S. to pay citizen $400,000 for wrongful detention’, The
Associated Press, February 26, 2011, http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/26/1557821/us-
to-pay-citizen-400000-for-wrongful.html#storylink=cpy
LaRosa, Michael and Lance R. Ingwersen, ‘US Immigration Policies in Historic
Context: A Latin American Case Study’, pp 249-262, Edited by: Michael LaRosa and
Frank O. Mora, “Neighborly Adversaries: Readings in US-Latin American Relations”,
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2007
Lovalo, Roberto, “Building the Homeland Security State”, NACLA Report on the
Americas, Nov/Dec2008, Vol. 41 Issue 6, p15-20
Mendoza, Sylvia. “Mexican Immigration: An Expert Perspective” The Hispanic
Outlook in Higher Education 17. 25 (Sep 24, 2007): 37-38.
Mize, Ronald L. and Alicia C.S. Swords, ‘Consuming Mexican Labor: From the
Bracero Program to NAFTA’, University of Toronto Press, 2011
Nadadur, Ramanujan, “Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to
the United States” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 35, No. 6, July 2009, pp.
1037-1052
Nicholson-Crotty, Jill, Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, “Industry Strength and Immigrant
Policy in the American States” Political ResearchQuarterly, 64(3) 612 –624, University of
Utah, 2011
Overmyer-Velázquez, Mark, “Beyond La Frontera: The History of Mexico-US
Migration”, Oxford University Press, 2011
Preston, Julia, ‘Immigration Crackdown Also Snares Americans’, New York Times,
December 13, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/measures-to-capture-illegal-
aliens-nab-citizens.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23
State of Arizona, ‘Senate Bill 1070’, Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature-Second Regular
Session, 2010, http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

32. Despain 32
Sullivan, Laura, ‘Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law’, NPR,
October 28, 2010
Wilder, Forrest, “Detention Archipelago: Jailing Immigrants for Profit” NACLA
Report on the Americas, May/Jun2007, Vol. 40 Issue 3, p19-24
Wilson, Matthew C., “Immigration: Both Sides of the Fence: The Economic Causes
and Consequences of Mexican Immigration to the United States” Denver University Law
Review Symposium, 2007
Wise, Raúl Delgado, and Mariana Ortega Breña, “Migration and Imperialism: The
Mexican Workforce in the Context of NAFTA” Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 33, No.
2, pp. 33-45
Zakaria, Fareed, ‘Incarceration Nation’, Time, Vol. 179, No. 13, pp 18, April 2, 2012