research

profileIfe
DeathsintheDesert--TheHumanRightsCrisis.pdf

Deaths in the Desert: The Human Rights Crisis on the U.S.-Mexico Border

David K. Androffand Kyoko Y. Tavassoli

Many would acknowledge that immigration is a major issue in the United States and that immigradon reform should be a priority. However, there is Utde attention to the human rights crisis on the U.S.-Mexican border. As a result of dghtened border security since 1994, it is estimated that over 5,000 migrants have died in the Sonoran desert. The crimi- nalization of immigradon has resulted in a human rights crisis in three areas: (1) the rise of deaths and injuries of migrants crossing the border in hanh and remote locations, (2) the use of mass hearings to prosecute apprehended migrants, and (3) abuses of migrants in immigration detention. These poUcies and practices have serious repercussions for the af- fected vulnerable population. Despite recent legisladon designed to discourage undocu- mented immigration, such as Arizona's Senate Bul 1070, the deterrence strategy has not diminished migration—it has only increased the suffering and deaths of migrants. Human- itarian groups are working to prevent more deaths but also have been targeted for crimi- naUzation. The profession's ethics compel social workers to work with humanitarian organizations to prevent more deaths and to advocate for humane immigration reform.

KEY WORDS: border policy; ethics and values; human rights; immigration; migrants

S panning 120,000 square miles along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Sonoran desert is a hanh and brutal environment. Summer

temperatures reach highs above 120°F, and winter lows faU below 32°F. The lack of natural resources, such as water and plant life, makes it difficult to sustain human Ufe. Many travelen are Ul-prepared for this ferocity and perish. Since 1994, it is esti- mated that more than 5,000 migrants have died in the desert attempting to cross into the United States from Mexico and that one migrant dies every day (Jimenez, 2009). The U.S. Govemment AccountabOity Office (GAO) has estimated that the annual number of migrant deaths has doubled since 1995, more than 75 percent of which oc- curred in the Arizonan desert (GAO, 2006).

As federal, state, and local immigration poUcy and enforcement pattems have increasingly re- stricted immigration and criminaUzed migrants (Androff et al., 2011), the humanitarian situation of migrants crossing the Sonoran desert has deteri- orated (Rubio-Goldsmith, McCormick, Martinez, & Duarte, 2007). Despite efforts to prevent immi- gration into the United States, the dangerous journey north for migrants condnues to result in deaths, tremendous health risks, separation from family memben, and the risk of inhumane

treatment if apprehended and detained. To address this human rights crisis and prevent further loss of Ufe, volunteen have organized to provide humanitarian aid to migrants and have in turn been criminalized.

Undocumented immigrants represented ap- proximately 4 percent (11.9 miUion) of the U.S. population and 5.4 percent (8.3 miUion) of its workforce in 2008, a dramatic increase from a total of 3.5 miUion in 1990 (Passel & Cohen, 2009). Seventy-six percent of undocumented im- migrants are reported to be Hispanic, 59 percent (7 miUion) of whom are fr̂ om Mexico (Passel & Cohen, 2009). Although undocumented im- migrants in the United States come from aU regions around the globe, Mexico has experi- enced unique economic and social chaUenges; the Mexican peso crisis and the North American Free Trade Agreement have increased poverty and in- equaUty in Mexico since the mid-1990s (GaUegos, 2004; Lovett, 1996). The growth of the ülegal drug trade and the Mexican government's crack- down has resulted in widespread corruption and violence (Beer & MitcheU, 2004). Many migrants cross the Sonoran desert after enduring yean of poverty, seeking opportunities to provide for their famiUes (Cleaveland, 2010).

doi: 10.1093/SW/5WS034 O 2012 National Association of Social Workers 165

The criminalization of undocumented immi- gration has contributed to a climate of discrimina- tion that negatively affects immigrant communities in the United States and both documented and undocumented immigrants. This criminalization has resulted in human rights violations, including migrant deaths, processing of apprehended mi- grants in "mass hearings," abuses in immigration detention, and inhumane deportation practices. This article reviews federal and academic data on these conditions and data compiled by advocacy groups. Where possible, data from advocacy groups have been verified with other sources; however, often these organizations supply the only data currently available on conditions like abuse of migrants in immigration detention. Al- though such anecdotal evidencs has limitations, it illustrates the conditions faced by migrants. By placing the crisis on the border within the context of human rights and social work ethics, this article aims to stimulate social workers' commitment to social justice by advocating for the welfare of this vulnerable population and a more inclusive society.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL WORK ETHICS Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that everyone has the right to freedom of movement (United Nations, 1948). The United Nations (1990) has recognized the needs of international migrants by adoptkig the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which emphasizes that migrants are not only workers, but also human beings with families, and draws attention to the dehumanization and human rights violations of migrant workers and their fam- Uies. Although the United States is currently not a party to this convention, social workers are ethi- cally obligated to protect the human rights of mi- grants and their family members. Elvira Craig de Suva, former NASW presidents quoting from the NASW poHcy statement on immigrants and refu- gees, expressed that "the plight of refugees and im- migrants [must] be considered on the basis of human values and needs, rathei than on the basis on an ideological struggle related to foreign policy" (NASW, 2006, p. 4). The NASW (2008) Code of Ethics calls social workers to advocate for

noncitizens regardless of immigration status (see section 6.04[d], "Social and Political Action").

CRIMINALIZATION OF MIGRANTS AND HUMANITARIAN AID WORKERS As different ethnic groups have immigrated to the United States, immigrants have been alternately viewed as public menaces or threats to national security and subjected to discriminatory policies (Padüla, Shapiro, Fernandez-Castro, & Faulkner, 2008). This article focuses on the impact of immi- gration policy on undocumented immigrants; however, many policies targeting this population also affect documented immigrants and citizens. The current trend toward controlling undocu- mented immigration began in the 1980s when Congress criminalized the unauthorized hiring of noncitizen workers and using false documents to evade employer sanction laws and increased pen- alties for immigration violations (Chacón, 2009). Immigrants have also been excluded from social welfare benefits; in 1996, welfare reform discour- aged immigrants from accessing benefits, regard- less of legal status (PadiUa, 1997). Even legal permanent residents with green cards face restrict- ed eligibuity for most benefits and are required to meet a minimum of five years' residency with proof of good character (PadiUa, 1997).

State and Local Policies Border states such as Arizona have become central batdegrounds in the criminalization of immigra- tion policies. In 2002, Arizona passed an identity theft law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-2008, 2002) to criminalize the use of "fake" identities. In 2004, Arizona passed Proposition 200 (Arizona Tax- payer and Citizen Protection Act, 2004) to deny public benefits to undocumented migrants; pubHc employees who fail to check the immigration status of clients are subject to fines or jaü time (Furman, Langer, Sanchez, & Negi, 2007). In 2005, the Arizona Smuggling Law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-2319, 2005) made smuggling migrants a felony. The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has prosecuted migrants as coconspirators in their own trafficking by having consented to be trans- ported across the border. Recendy, Arizona passed Senate Bul 1070 (Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010), the most restrictive state immigration

166 Social Work VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2012

poUcy in the United States, which grants local law enforcement unprecedented latitude to detain people if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they may be in the country without documentation. FoUowing a federal injunction that blocked most provisions, this law is currentiy under appeal yet has already contributed to a cUmate of discrimina- tion against undocumented immigrants.

Federal Apprehensions and Prosecutions of Migrants In 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2009) apprehended 791,568 foreign nationals in the United States without documentation, 88 percent of whom were Mexican nationals. Ninety-one percent of these apprehensions were made by the U.S. Border Patrol, primarily along the southwest border. The Tucson Sector covers 262 mues along Arizona's border with Mexico and is the busiest sector in the country, accounting for almost half of aU ap- prehensions along the southwestern border (DHS, 2009). During the second Bush administration, annual federal criminal prosecutions for inimigra- tion offenses increased by four times; this trend has continued in the Obama administration (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse [TPJVC], 2009), despite a decUne of federal prose- cutions between 2004 and 2009 for nonimmigra- tion crimes such as white collar, civu rights, environmental, and drug-related crimes. The most frequent immigration charges are illegal entry or reentry, accounting for 92 percent of all prosecu- tions (TRAC, 2009). Of the 94 federal districts, the five along the U.S.-Mexico border process 75 percent of aU criminal cases p H S (2009).

Fatalities in Border Crossings Another aspect of the criminalization of immigra- tion poUcy has been what is caUed the "militariza- tion" of the border; in the mid-1990s, the United States implemented a "prevention through deter- rence" strategy of border enforcement (Cornelius, 2001). This has meant a more than doubling of the U.S. Border Patrol budget and personnel, a security wall, and other technologies to deter mi- gration (ComeUus, 2001; Whitaker, 2009). This effectively closed the border at urban centers and created a "funnel effect," resulting in more cross- ings in remote areas and an increase in migrant deaths (Cornelius, 2001; GAO, 2006; Rubio-

Goldsmith et al, 2007). It is difficult to estimate the extent of migrant deaths in the desert, and studies have used different methodologies, data sources, and time frames; estimates in the literature range between 3,861 and 5,607 deaths from 1994 to 2009, or annual averages of from 356 to 529 Qimenez, 2009). AU figures should be used with caution; the avaüable data sources—including county medical examiner records, death certifi- cates in vital registries, and state fataUty review programs—aU have Umitations (Bowen & Mar- shaU, 2008; ComeUus, 2001; GAO, 2006; Jimenez, 2009; Rubio-Goldsmith et al., 2007; Sapkota et al., 2006). Medical examinen can orüy investigate deaths where remains are recovered; as most of the Sonoran desert is an uninhabited, remote wüdemess, the discovery of remains is de- pendent on their identification by U.S. Border Patrol agents or others, and researchers agree that not aU remains are recovered (Bowen & MarshaU, 2008; ComeUus, 2001; GAO, 2006; Jimenez, 2009; Rubio-Goldsmith et al., 2007; Sapkota et al., 2006). In addition to unrecovered bodies in the desert, studies exclude counts of drowning victims whose remains are deposited on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, of cases in which a decedent's country of origin is undeter- mined, and when it cannot be determined if the decedent was an "ülegal entry" (GAO, 2006; Rubio-Goldsmith et al., 2007; Sapkota et al., 2006). In addition to varying methodologies, another explanation for the disparity in estimates may be that, as with other difficult-to-measure social problems Uke human trafficking, govern- ment figures tend to minimize estimates, whereas advocacy groups use higher estimates to draw at- tention to an issue (Androff, 2011). However, U.S. government agencies, academic researchers, and nongovernmental organizations concur that the death count is in the thousands and that estimates based on recovered bodies consistently undercount the actual number of deaths (Bowen & MarshaU, 2008; GAO, 2006; Rubio-Goldsmith et al., 2007; Sapkota et al., 2006; Whitaker, 2009).

There is also consensus on the increase of migrant deaths along the border, despite an in- crease in border security and decreases in estimat- ed undocumented entries and apprehensions, which may suggest a decUning trend in undocu- mented migration due to the recent economic re- cession (GAO, 2006; Jimenez, 2009). The U.S.

ANDROFF AND TAVASSOLI / The Human Rights Crisis on the U.S.-Mexico Border 167

Border Patrol estimates a 29.1 percent increase in migrant deaths from 1998 tc 2004 (Jimenez, 2009). The GAO (2006) estimated that deaths doubled from 1995 to 2005. Rubio-Goldsmith et al. (2007) found a 20-fold increase in recovered bodies from 1990 to 2005 in tne Tucson Sector alone. ComeHus (2001) estimated a 474 percent increase in deaths along the southwest border from 1996 to 2000. The number of deaths among migrants who are women and children has also increased (Bowen & Marshall, 2008; Jimenez, 2009). Sapkota et al. (2006) found that migrant deaths are largely preventable. Environmental ex- posure, the leading cause of deaths of migrants, has increased even though migrant deaths due to other causes (such as traffic accidents and homi- cides) have declined (Rubio-Goldsmith et al., 2007; Sapkota et al., 2006). Migrants unprepared for the harsh terrain lack basic food and water to survive. Any reason for migrants to be left behind can make them susceptible to death; a blister can be fatal. Death by exposure is slow and agonizing; physical detetioration and organ failure are ac- companied by confusion and disotientation. In addition to the common tisks of snakebites and getting lost, ctiminal gangs prey on migrants, robbing, raping, and killing them.

Responses to the Crisis Several prevention measures have been imple- mented, such as pubHc health campaigns to dis- courage migrants in Mexico, warning signs in the desert stating the tisk of death and encouraging migrants to turn back, and search-and-rescue operations by the U.S. Border Patrol for migrants in distress (Sapkota et al., 2006; Whitaker, 2009). However, these efforts have not stopped the overall increase in the rate of deaths (Guerette, 2007), so Atizona citizens have organized a re- sponse based on human tights, humanitatianism, and religious faith. Believing the deaths to be pre- ventable, the grassroots groups Humane Borders, Samatitans, and No Más Muettes (NMM) (No More Deaths) provide rehef by meeting migrants' basic needs for hydmtion and health. Since 2000, Humane Borders (n.d.) has managed 100 water stations with over 200 members and 1,500 volun- teers. Since 2002, Samatitans (n.d.) has provided emergency medical aid to hundreds of migrants through daily patrols. A coalition of interfaith and community groups formed NMM in 2004 and

has helped over 250,000 migrants through water stations, desert aid camps, and relief camps for de- ported migrants who are left on the Mexican side of the border without resources (NMM, 2008).

However, these groups have also been ctimi- nalized. In 2005, two NMM volunteers were ar- rested for transporting a migrant to a hospital (NMM, n.d.). In 2008, Dan Millis, another vol- unteer, found the body of a 14-year-old girl from El Salvador in the desert (NMM, 2010). This girl and her 10-year-old brother were crossing the border with a group of migrants when she became very iU and could not keep up. Urging her brother to continue with the group to be re- united with their mother in California, she was left behind and died of exposure. Two days later, Millis was issued a Htteting ticket by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for placing water jugs along migrant trails, despite having collected five crates of trash. MOHs refused to pay the $175 fine, arguing that providing humanitatian aid is not a crime. In 2010, an appellate court overturned the conviction (NMM, 2010). In 2009, Walt Staton was sentenced to 300 hours of community service for leaving water for migrants (Whitaker, 2009). In 2009, 13 more NMM volunteers were ticketed for Htteting; their case has been dropped (NMM, n.d.). Ctitics contend that providing humanitatian relief encourages migrants, yet volunteers post warning signs and disttibute information on the tisks of death and injury, and such aid has not been shown to influence migrants' decisions to cross the border (Whitaker, 2009).

OPERATION STREAMLINE

Operation Streamline, established in 2005, enforc- es a federal zero-tolerance border policy by ctimi- nally prosecuting all people caught crossing the border without documentation (WUHams, 2008). To cope with the number of defendants, the courts have combined initial appearances, arraign- ments, pleas, and sentencing into a single day and one "mass heating." Up to 80 people are chosen from a larger group of apprehended migrants for the daily court docket and given less than 30 minutes with an attorney (WOHams, 2008). Ques- tions are posed to the migrants en masse and answers, such as pleas, are taken in unison. Most migrants admit that they are not citizens and plead guilty to enteting the United States without in- spection at a port of entry. If they do not have a

168 Social Work VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2012

criminal history, they are sentenced to time served and deported; migrants with a history of criminal or immigration violations face longer detention.

This assembly-line processing of migrants de- prives them of due process (Chacón, 2009; Jimenez, 2009; Lydgate, 2010; National Network for Immigrants and Refugee Rights [NNIRR], 2009; Williams, 2008). Mass hearings diminish the ability of defense attorneys to provide effective as- sistance of counsel. Potential defenses like deriva- tive citizenship, immigration relief, and midgating information cannot be fully explored, limiting the ability of counsel to provide advice. Claims of in- competency due to mental illness, lack of educa- tion, intoxication (the rate of processing may not allow time for detoxification), physical iUness, in- adequate nourishment or sleep, and migrants' primary language not being English or Spanish go unaddressed (Williams, 2008). Migrants may not understand their rights, the pleas they are enter- ing, or what it means to be charged with a crime in a federal court of law that jeopardizes their ability to obtain future legal residency or citizen- ship. During mass hearings, individuals may be discouraged from speaking up, and questions about procedures or plea agreements may remain unanswered. Streamlining has resulted in sky- rocketing numbers of cases in border districts; immigration offenses grew more than 330 percent from 2002 to 2008. Previously, migrants, especial- ly fint-time border crossers, were voluntarily returned to Mexico. Streamlining has diminished judicial and prosecutorial discretion, and it diverts resources from the investigation and prose- cution of trafficking and smuggling cases (Lydgate, 2010).

DETENTION AND DEPORTATION

Immigration detention is the fastest growing form of incarceration in the United States, and immi- grants are the fastest growing population in federal prisons (Lopez & Light, 2009). U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained a record 378,582 individuals in 2008, up 22 percent from 2007. Forty-nine percent of detainees were Mexican nationals (DHS, 2009). As of 2009, there were 32,000 people in immigration detention on any given day in over 300 facilities around the country, almost four times the 8,279 in 1996 (ICE, 2008). People held in ICE custody for over 72 hours are considered to be in long-term

detention; the average detention is 30 days, al- though such detentions may last months or years. Human rights abuses such as physical and verbal abuse, lack of medical care and legal counsel, and inhumane conditions have been documented in long-temi detention (DHS 2006; Phillips, Hagan, & Rodriguez, 2006; Southwest Institute for Re- search on Women, 2009). A total of 110 detainees have died in immigration detention since 2003 (ICE, 2008); research has suggested that some of these deaths were the preventable result of inade- quate and substandard medical care (Venters, Dasch-Goldberg, Rasmussen, & Keller, 2009).

On apprehension, migrants are held for 72 hours or less in service processing centers, await- ing a court appearance to determine their status. This short-term custody is unregulated and lacks oversight (NMM, 2008; NNIRR, 2009). Between 2006 and 2008, NMM (2008) docu- mented 345 cases of substantiated human rights abuses of migrants in short-term custody, such as the denial of food, water, and medical care; physi- cal, sexual, and verbal abuse; and the separation of families, including parents and children. For example, when held ovemight without food or water, one woman begged for water for her chil- dren, ages six and nine; Border Patrol officen drank in front of them and refused to provide any water (NMM, 2008). Migrants often receive no medical attention for injuries suffered prior to or during apprehension, such as blisters, sunbum, dehydration, and lacerations (NMM, 2008). Preg- nant women have been denied medical care, and othen have had medication confiscated (NMM, 2008). Conditions in short-term custody can be inhumane, including the denial of bathroom facil- ities, extreme temperatures in cells, and refusals to provide blankets to women and children, even infants (NMM, 2008).

Removal refers to deportation, when people receive formal deportation orders by a judge, and repatriation refers to when people are voluntarily returned to their country of origin. A total of 356,739 people were removed in 2008, over three times more than the 116,464 removed in 2001 (ICE, 2008). Mexican nationals accounted for 69 percent of all removals in 2008 P H S 2009). More than 1,000 such "expulsions" occur daily along the southwest border, at all hours of the day and night (NMM, 2008). Women and children are particularly vulnerable to crime at the border

ANDROFF AND TAVASSOLI / The Human Rights Crisis on the U.S.-Mexico Border 169

when repatriated at night. Belongings such as identification, money, and clozhes are often not retumed on repatriation (Williams, 2008). Mi- grants have reported physical aad verbal abuse on removal; for example, one malí migrant reported being kicked in the stomach by Border Patrol agents and denied medical attention (NMM, 2008). At an aid station in Mexico, the Red Cross recommended surgery for sweUing in his genitals and blood in his urine, indications of abdominal or testicular injury (NMM, 2008). U.S. deporta- don poUcy often leads to the separadon of families (Hagan, Eschbach, & Rodriguez, 2008). Humani- tarian volunteen have witnessed the deUberate separation of hundreds of famuy memben in custody and their repatriadon to different ports of

• entry, making reunification extremely difficult (NMM, 2008). In one case, an adult male and his teenage sister were separated by the Border Patrol; the man was repatriated but was not given any in- formation about his sister, v̂ ĥo was likely repatri- ated somewhere else (NMN4, 2008). A growing number of people expeUed to Mexico are appre- hended in the interior of the United States. Having Uved in the United Ststes for yean, they speak only or primarily EngUsh, have famiUes and children who are citizens, and Uttle or no des to Mexico (NMM, 2008).

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

The criminaUzation of immigradon and the border security poUcy of "pcevention through deterrence" have increased tlie apprehensions, prosecutions, détendons, and deportations of mi- grants. These poUcies have contributed to a crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border: The deaths of mi- grants, mass hearings of apprehended migrants, abuses in detendon, and deportations violate uni- venal human rights. The chaUenge is how social worken respond to this crisis; social worken can take action to promote human rights and social justice for migrants through direct pracdce, macro pracdce, and advocacy for poUcy reform.

Social Work Practice with Iramigrant Populations Social worken should strive to provide culturaUy competent services by attending to the stress of immigration on famiUes (Furman, Negi, & Cisneros-Howard, 2008; PadMa, 1997). The

specific problems described in this article pertain primarily to Latino immigrants; however, immi- grants and refugees of other ethnicities may be affected by similar human rights violations in their immigradon joumeys. Although social work prac- tice with immigrants is not new, the contempo- rary prominence of immigration and concomitant anti-immigrant cUmate requires social workers to attend to these issues in their practice with renewed emphasis. For social worken engaged in cUnical practice, this can be accompUshed through enhanced assessment, treatment planning, and case management services. As part of a compre- hensive assessment process, social work practition- en should explore immigradon history with aU their cUents. Immigrants and their families may be suppressing histories of immigration replete with incidences of trauma and experiences of human rights violations; practitionen should be cognizant of such faetón in assessing the effects of these ex- periences on their cUents. Treatment plans should be developed with the recognidon that immigra- tion experiences may affect every facet of immi- grants' weU-being, such as housing, education, health care, and employment. Treatment plans should also incorporate measures to address the effects of discriminadon faced by immigrants. Case management services should include referrals for EngUsh language services, job-training skills, employment, and legal aid. Effective social work pracdce requires practitionen to be educated about the cunent chaUenges faced by immigrants and their famiUes.

Direct Practice with Latino Immigrants There is no greater respect for the dignity and worth of a penon than to prevent death. Direct pracddonen can take an active role in supporting the lifesaving efforts of humanitarian groups working with migrants on the border—for example, by volunteering with NMM. In addi- don to assisting in the basic work of placing water on migrant trails, social worken can contribute speciaUzed cUnical sldUs and provide psychosocial and crisis intervention services to migrants in dis- tress. Social worken can make donations of money and goods to these groups. Clinicians can also provide services to volunteen experiencing secondary trauma from working with dead and

170 Social Work VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2012

dying migrants. Direct practitioners can buud col- laborations with social workers in Mexico to provide psychosocial services at relief centers along the border for deported migrants. In their own communities, direct practitioners can conduct workshops and trainings on the psychosocial effects of racism, discrimination, and trauma.

Direct practitioners can influence the immigra- tion debate by using nondiscriminatory language, using terms such as "undocumented" rather than "ülegal," a term that reinforces a criminal justice frame. In their own practice, social workers may be confronted with policies requiring them to check immigration statuses before delivering ser- vices. Social workers should challenge policies that conflict with their ethical values, and they can partner with and make referrals to legal advo- cates and immigration lav̂ ryers to protect their clients' rights. Social workers should report cases in which their clients are denied services and care on the basis of their status; documenting cases with NASW and civil rights groups can contri- bute to advocacy efforts. Latino and immigrant populations already underuse social services (Furman et al., 2008); direct practitioners should be sensitive to the risks of service underutilization and unreported victimization that may result from increased discrimination. Through case manage- ment services, referrals to community- and school-based services may be useful for linking famihes to services (PadiUa, 1997).

Latino and immigrant families may have rela- tives who are undocumented or who came into the United States without documentation; social workers with Latino and immigrant clients should conduct assessments with the awareness that their own clients or their chents' famuy members may have suffered physical and psychological trauma from their immigration experiences. Chencs and their families may have been vulnerable to human trafficking and abuse by human smugglers, injuries or deaths from crossing the border, and abuses whue in immigration detention. Many families in the United States do not know what became of relatives who attempted to cross the border but did not arrive in the United States; they may have died in the desert undiscovered, been detained, had their rights violated, or been deported to Mexico without resources or connections. Social workers can attend to the needs of separated

families and work to promote the reunification of families separated by immigration policies.

Macro Practice and Policy Advocacy for Immigration Reform All social workers have an ethical responsibility to advocate for humane and socially just policies; social workers can use the NASW (2006) Immigra- tion Policy Toolkit to do this. In addition, social workers should write letters to local, state, and na- tional representatives as weU as to media outlets. Social worken should work within their local NASW chapters to promote advocacy, and they should attend state lobby days. Direct practitionen can also translate their clients' experiences into ad- vocacy by providing testimony to legislative bodies on the impact of immigration policies.

Macro practitioners can work to organize im- migrant communities and form coalitions of stakeholder and aUied groups affected by discrimi- natory immigration policies, such as memben of the business community, labor groups, and church congregations. Engagement with the im- migration debate and advocacy on behalf of mi- grants presents opportunities for social work to recommit to the values of the protection of vul- nerable populations and social justice (Cleaveland, 2010; Furman et al., 2008).

Social workers should advocate for immigration policies that embody the values of equahty, fair- ness, justice, and respect for human relationships (Padilla et al., 2008); NASW (2006) supports comprehensive immigration reform and acknowl- edges that current immigration policy compro- mises civu rights and social justice. Border security pohcy should be reformed to prevent the unnec- essary deaths of migrants. The "prevent through deterrence" strategy has not reduced migration or deterred migrants; it has only increased their suf- fering. With legislation such as Arizona's SB 1070, the trend toward punitive immigration policies is increasing and wül likely produce more of the same deadly results. Research with migrants has shown that the primary factors influencing deci- sions to migrate include the health of the U.S. economy, the cost of crossing, and personal and family circumstances (Cleaveland, 2010; Lydgate, 2010). To facilitate relief for migrants and prevent future deaths, U.S. Border Patrol search-and- rescue operations should be increased and work in

ANDROFF AND TAVASSOLI / The Human Rights Crisis on the U.S.—Mexico Border 171

concert with humanitarian groups in the provision of food, water, and medical aid. Operation StreamUne should be suspended for the harm it does to the rights of defendants; due process and the constitutional protection of rights should be restored. Human rights abuses and inhumane treatment in iminigration detention should never be permitted. Regulations and standards for care of migrants in short-term custody must be adopted. Removal and deportation practices should be reformed to respect famuy relationships and promote family reunification.

Immigration must be decriminalized; immi- gration violations are technically civu offenses (Chacón, 2009). Significant reform must include an increase in the options for legal avenues of im- migration, legal pemianent residency, and citizen- ship as well as a reduction in the backlogs and lengthy delays for appUcants. Current immigration poUcy marginalizes those migrants quiedy Uving and working in the United States by criminaUzing their status. Reform needs to bring them out of the shadows through a nonexploitative guest worker poUcy and a system to address current un- documented immigrants who are without crinunal backgrounds. Social workers should promote poU- cies that expand opportunities for migrants, such as restoration of eUgibüity for a safety net of social and medical services and the DREAM Act, which would provide access to higher education for chüdren of undocumented immigrants. Social worken should oppose immigration policies that contribute to discrimination against migrants, such as the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for aU bom in the United States and English-only policies.

Migration is a complex international phenome- non. Social workers must encourage poUcies that address the social, poUtical, and economic context of immigration, such as responsible trade, good governance and democratization, economic growth, and social development. With an ethical imperative to promote social justice and a more in- clusive society, social workers cannot choose to remain neutral and aUow the tragedy of migrant deaths to continue. These deaths must be recog- nized as an international human rights crisis; human rights abuses wül continue if there is no sigmficant reform. Unless something changes, more men, women, and chüdren wül die in the desert. These deaths are not inevitable.

REFERENCES Androff, D. (2011). The problem of contemporary slavery:

An international human rights challenge for social work. International Social Work, 54, 209-222.

Androff, D., Ayón, C , Becerra, D., Gurrola, M., Salas, L., Krysik, J., et al. (2011). US immigration policy and immigrant children's well-being: The impact of policy shins. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 38, 77-98.

Arizona Identity Theft Law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-2008. (2008). Retrieved from http://vvww.azleg.state.az.us/ ars/13/02008.htm

Arizona Smuggling Law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-2319. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ an/13/02319.htm

Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (Proposition 200), 1-03-2004. (2004). Retrieved from http:// www.azsos.gov/election/2004/General/Initiatives. htm

Beer, C , & Mitchell, N. (2004). Democracy and human rights in the Mexican states: Elections or social capital? International Studies Quarterly, 48, 294-312.

Bowen, K., & Marshall, W. (2008). Deaths of Mexican and Central American children along the US border: The Pima County Arizona experience. Jowma/ of Immigrant Minority Health, 10, 17-21.

Chacón, J. (2009). Managing migration through crime. Columbia Law Review, 109, 135-148.

Cleaveland, C. (2010). "We are not criminals": Social work advocacy and unauthorized migrants. Social Work, 55,74-81.

Cornelius, W. (2001). Death at the border: Efficacy and unintended consequences of US immigration control policy. Population and Development Review, 27, 661-685.

Furman, R., Langer, C , Sanchez, T., & Negi, N. (2007). A qualitative study of immigration policy and practice dilemmas for social work students. jfoMma/ of Social Work Education, 43, 133-146.

Furman, R., Negi, N., & Cisneros-Howard, A.L.M. (2008). The immigration debate: Lessons for social workers [Commentary]. Social Work, 53, 283-285.

GaUegos, G. (2004). Border matters: Redefining the national interest in U.S.—Mexico immigration and trade policy. California Law Review, 92, 1729-1778.

Guerette, R. (2007). Immigration policy, border security, and migrant deaths: An impact evaluation of life- saving efforts under the Border Safety Initiative. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 245-265.

Hagan, J., Eschbach, K., & Rodriguez, N. (2008). US deportation policy, family separation, and circular migration. International Migration Revieui, 42, 64-88.

Humane Borders, (n.d.). About Humane Borders. Retrieved from http://www.humaneborders.org/about/ about_index.html

Jimenez, M. (2009). Humanitarian crisis: Migrant deaths at the U.S.—Mexico border. Retrieved from http://www.aclu. org/files/pdfs/immigrants/humanitariancrisisreport. pdf

Lopez, M., & Light, M. (2009). A rising share: Hispanics and federal crime. Retrieved from the Pew Hispanic Research Center Web site: http://pewhispanic.org/ files/reports/104.pdf

Lovett, W. (1996). Lesson from the recent peso crisis in Mexico. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 4, 143-160

Lydgate, J. (2010). Assembly-line justice: A review of Operation Streamline. University of California, Berkeley: Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity.

172 Social Work VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2012

National Association of Social Worken. (2006). Immigration policy toolkit. Retrieved from http://wvvav.naswdc. org/divenity/Immi grationToolldt.pdf

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from http://vvfvvw.socialworkers.org/pub/ code/code/asp

National Network for Immigrants and Refugee Rights. (2009). Guilty by immigration status: A report on U.S. violation on rights of the immigrant families, workers, and communities in 2008. Retrieved from http://wvw/. nnin-.org/hurricane/GuiltybyhnmigrationStatus2008. pdf

No Más Muertes. (2008). Crossing the line: Human rights abuses of migrants in short-term custody on the Arizona/ Sonora border. Tucson, AZ: Author.

No Más Muertes. (2010). Littering conviction of border volunteer overturned by appeals court. Retrieved from http://www.nomoredeaths.org/Press-releases/ littering-conviction-of-border-volunteer- overtumed-by-appeals-court.htm]

No Más Muertes, (n.d.). History of No More Deaths. Retrieved firom http://www.nomoredeaths.org/ Information/history-and-mission-of-no-more- deaths.html

Padilla, Y. C. (1997). Immigrant pohcy: Issues for social work practice. Social Work, 42, 595-606.

Padilla, Y. C , Shapiro, E. R., Femandez-Castro, M. D., & Faulkner, M. (2008). Our nation's immigrants in peril: An urgent call to social workers [Guest Editorial]. Social Work, 53, 5-8.

Passel, J. S., & Cohen, D. (2009). A portrait of unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Retrieved from http:// pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf

Phillips, S., Hagan, J., & Rodriguez, N. (2006). Brutal borders? Examining the treatment of deportees during arrest and detention. Social Forces, 85, 93—109.

Rubio-Goldsmith, R., McCormick, M., Martinez, D., & Duarte, I. (2007). A humanitarian crisis at the border: Neiv estimates of deaths among unauthorized immigrants. Washington, DC: Immigration Pohcy Center.

Samaritans, (n.d.). About Samaritans. Retrieved from http:// vvww.samaritanpatrol.org/ABOUTSAMARITANS. html

Sapkota, S., Kohl, H., Gilchrist, J., McAuliffe,J., Parks, B., England, B., et al. (2006). Unauthorized border cross- ings and migrant deaths: Arizona, New Mexico, and El Paso, Texas, 2002-2003. American fournal of Public Health, 961, 1282-1287.

Southwest Institute for Research on Women. (2009). Unseen prisoners: A report on women in immigration detention fadhties in Arizona. Retrieved from http:// sirow.arizona.edu/files/UnseenPrisonets.pdf

Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona Senate Bill 1070), 49th Arizona Legisla- ture, 2nd Session. (2010). Retrieved from http:// www.azleg.gov/legtext/491eg/2r/bills/sbl070s.pdf

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. (2009). Immi- gration prosecutions at record levels in FY09. Retrieved fi-om http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/218

United Nations. (1948). TIte universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ documents/udhr/history.shtml

United Nations. (1990). International convention on the protec- tion of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their

families. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/ enghsh/law/cmw.htm

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2006). Treatment of immigration detainees housed at ¡CEfacihties (OIG-07-01). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2009). Annual report—Immigration enforcement actions: 2008. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/ publications/enforcement_ar_08.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2006). Illegal immigration: Border-crossing deaths have doubled since 1995; Border Patrol's efforts to prevent deaths have not been fully evaluated (GAO-06-770). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2008). Fiscal year 2008 annual report. Retrieved from http://www. ice.gov/dochb/pi/reports/ice_annual_report/pdf/ iceO8ar_final.pdf

Venters, H., Dasch-Goldberg, D., Rasmussen, A., & Keller, A. (2009). Into the abyss: Mortality and morbidity among detained in-imigrants. Human Rights Ouarterly, 31, 474-495.

Whitaker, J. (2009). Mexican deaths in the Arizona desert: The culpability of migrants, humanitarian workers, government, and business. JoMma/ of Business Ethics, 88, 365-376.

Wilhams, H. (2008). Statement to the US House of Represen- tatives Subcommittee of Commercial and Administrative Law, June 25, 2008. Retrieved from http://judiciary. house.gov/hearings/pdf/Williams080625.pdf

David K. Androff, PhD, MSW, is assistant professor, and

Kyoko Y. Tavassoli, MSW, is a doctoral student. School of

Social Work, Arizona State University, Phoenix. Address

correspondence to David K. Androff, School of Social Work,

Arizona State University, Mail Gode 3920, 411 North

Gentral Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85004; e-mail:

[email protected].

Original manuscript received Aprii 29. 2010 Final revision received November 16. 2010 Accepted November 19. 2010

ANDROFF AND TAVASSOU / The Human Rights Crisis on the U.S.—Mexico Border 173

Copyright of Social Work is the property of National Association of Social Workers and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.