DEADLY CONSEQUENCES: CRIME-CONTROL DISCOURSE AND UNWELCOME MIGRANTS

\\server05\productn\C\CPP\6-2\CPP204.txt unknown Seq: 1 24-APR-07 9:50

REACTION ESSAY

DEADLY CONSEQUENCES: CRIME-CONTROL DISCOURSE ANDUNWELCOME MIGRANTS

MICHAEL WELCHRutgers UniversityLondon School of Economics

In his informative study on border safety initiatives in this issue, RobGuerette (2007) provides an excellent overview of the dangers ofunauthorized migration and how certain efforts to reduce migrant deathshave fared over the past several years. While reading the article, I keptthinking about an old story of a fisherman who one day while casting hisline into a river saw a person being dragged downstream by the swiftcurrent. Immediately he sprung into action, diving into the chilly waters tocarry out a successful rescue. About an hour later, the fisherman noticedanother person floating by; just as before, he took the plunge and scoredanother save. As his day of fishing continued, so did an occasional drift ofwaterlogged individuals. Eventually, he tossed his rod and reel to theground and marched briskly away from the riverbank. When anotherfisherman nearby asked where he was going while more victims wouldneed rescuing, he grumbled that he was going upstream to find out whowas pushing people into the water. Whereas migrants are not necessarilybeing forced into the United States, important “push” (e.g., economicdeprivation) and “pull” (e.g., economic opportunity) factors should beconsidered, particularly because some unauthorized border crossingsbecome matters of life and death.

As the Guerette study demonstrates, certain border patrol strategiesproduce dangerous and sometimes fatal consequences. That problemshould prompt critical thinking about the crime-control model given thatmany border patrol tactics conform to standard criminal justice operationsfor managing target populations. Indeed, notions of deterrence featureprominently, resting on the belief that a strong front line of defense candiscourage illegal crossings, even though unwelcome migrants persist.1

1. In its editorial on the subject, the New York Times (2007:A26) writes:What little the last Congress did about immigration was focused on appeasinghard-line conservatives by appearing to seal the border. President Bush’s newbudget continues that approach, seeking 3,000 more Border Patrol officers andanother $1 billion for a 700-mile fence, adding to the billions spent tomilitarize the border since the 1990s. That still isn’t enough to build the fence

VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2 2007 PP 275–282 R


276 WELCH

Border enforcement authorities concede readily that many of thoseapprehended are returned to other side of the border only to resume theirattempts to gain passage into the United States (McKinley, 2007). Thatsimple fact seems to strain the assertion that deterrence is effective inpreventing that particular form of migration. Moreover, efforts directed atcatching unwelcome migrants before they get too far inland become agame of cat and mouse played out continually, until of course the mouseeventually evades capture. Analogies can be useful to decipher policy butbecome problematic when politicians, policy makers, and the public takethem literally. Setting the record straight, border patrol agents are not catsand unwelcome migrants are not mice, nor are they criminals.

So as to deliver some commentary on the nature of unwelcomemigration and why the crime-control model is a poor paradigm from whichto devise policies aimed at reducing such movement, it is important to firstrecognize the global scope of the phenomenon. Such reflection shouldassist in properly framing policy according to compassionate logic ratherthan politicized hyperbole over the putative threats of “illegal aliens”(Welch, 2002, 2003). Like other academic migrants, I travel abroadextensively and even reside in other countries of my choosing. Perhapsfrom experience, I have a heightened awareness of those who are also insearch for opportunities elsewhere. Likewise, I am cognizant of the politicsof movement or what Zygmunt Bauman (1998:69) refers to as the “globalhierarchy of mobility” in which freedom of movement is a trait of the“dominant” and the “strictest possible constraints” are forced upon the“dominated” (see De Giorgi, 2006; Young, 1999, 2003). Contained in thesocioeconomic stratification between “legal” or welcome migrants andthose deemed “illegal” or unwelcome is the belief that crime-controltactics are necessary in preventing prohibited forms of migration. Such anassumption invites closer scrutiny because it is a force that drives policyand practice in a sphere of human activity that is not criminal in nature.

POWER AND POLICY

The crime-control model advocating tough measures to deal with illicitbehavior has produced more of the three P’s: punishment, police, and pris-ons. Not only have those measures been met with limited effectiveness inreducing crime, but they also are credited with making matters worse(Clear, 1994; Welch, 2005). With those lessons in clear view, good reasonexists to conclude that applying the crime-control model to unwelcome

and it hasn’t controlled the illegal flow; you need more visas and betterworkplace enforcement to do that. It has directed much traffic into the remoteSouthwest desert, making more immigrants vulnerable to smugglers andleaving many people dead.


REACTION ESSAY 277

migration marks another shift in the wrong direction. Moreover, a senseexists that the use of the crime control is “self-evident” or simply the mostobvious way of dealing with the problem as many Western governmentshave gone to great lengths to adopt and institutionalize crime-control tac-tics to curb unwelcome migration. However, crime-control policies shouldnot be accepted uncritically, because not only do they struggle to enforcemigration laws but also in some instances have deadly consequences byprompting unwelcome migrants to travel across treacherous terrain andangry seas (see Pratt, 2005; Welch and Schuster, 2005a, 2005b). Offering acritique of crime-control strategies as a form of domination aimed atunwelcome migrants, we turn to some conceptual considerations thatunveil power relations embedded in such “self-evident” policies. Arguablyall forms of policy stem from an entity that is regarded having power. Nev-ertheless, policies that resort to coercive control are notable for theirambition to dominate their subjects, and by looking at practice, we findsocial cues signifying how action, belief, and conduct are structuredaccording to the contours of a particular authority.

One could assert that the crime-control model is ill suited for dealingwith unwelcome migration because it attempts to apply a microsociologi-cal strategy (i.e., individuals and psychology) to a macrosociological phe-nomenon (i.e., demography and economic history). However, thatparticular conceptualization also is problematic because it creates a falsedichotomy between the micro and the macro. Superficially bracketingthose levels of analysis impedes insight into the construction and mainte-nance of power relations. Alternatively, the micro and macro planes ofpolicy should be approached from the same analytical perspective, whichconsiders how domination is continually produced. Furthering an inte-grated micro–macro framework, it is useful to tap into the governmental-ity literature (Burchell et al., 1990; Garland, 1997; Rose and Miller, 1992).In doing so, we can develop a conceptual vocabulary that helps us compre-hend what policy is for (i.e., political rationalities) and how practices arecarried out (i.e., governmental technologies; see Carrabine, 2000). In hislater writings, Foucault (1978, 1991) hones his conception of power by sug-gesting that analyses of local arenas could be replicated for studying theways in which populations are governed within the territories of nationstates. Furthermore, changes in the practice of government (“the conductof conduct”) have enormous significance in the project of modernity, espe-cially given its rationality or system of thinking about who can governwhom.

Political rationalities further define micro–macro connections, whichoffer moral justifications of certain methods of exercising power (Roseand Miller, 1992). Equally important are government technologies thatrefer to an array of programs, calculations, techniques, and procedures


278 WELCH

through which authorities embody so as to express or give life to the ambi-tions of government. It is precisely at that juncture of conceptualizationwhere Garland (1997:182) informs us: “Power is not a matter of imposing asovereign will, but instead a process of enlisting the cooperation of chainsof actors who ‘translate’ power from one locale to another.” Power in thatsense is not a monolithic entity centralized by the state but a force that isdispersed throughout local arenas, which in turn often meets the expressedobjectives of authorities situated further up the chain. Such dispersal isanimated by discourse and is understood as a system of thought thatinforms and guides practice and, thereby, organizes the ways in whichthings are done (Foucault, 1972)

DISCOURSE AND UNWELCOME MIGRATION

Now what does all this talk about power and governmentality have todo with the subject at hand? Well, quite a lot in terms of how crime controlremains the prevailing policy governing unwelcome migration. The Guer-ette article (2007) permits us to look closer at the crime-control model, itscontradictions, and its efforts to secure borders. In the face of strong “anti-immigration” politics, Guerette like so many other observers concedesthat a reformed migration policy resulting in “loosening” borders isunlikely any time soon. Nonetheless, it seems that, if the government isgoing to fortify its southern boundary in ways that produce high risks forunwelcome migrants, an added initiative to improve safety should beimplemented: Simply put, what is being proposed is a secure and safe bor-der. I do not question the motives of those who seriously advocate safetymechanisms for unwelcome migrants, nor do I detect any bigoted or pater-nalistic sentiment in formulating policies that improve search-and-rescuemissions. Still, the discussion on how to establish a secure and safe borderclearly adopts a distinctive crime-control discourse, thereby taking our eyeoff the larger phenomenon of unwelcome migration. Consider just twopassages from the Guerette article (emphasis from the original):

The BSI [Border Safety Initiative] is a harm-reduction strategy consis-tent with community- and problem based policing trends foundthroughout the United States among local police jurisdictions . . . .TheBSI represents an opportunity to understand how proactive policingmight be applied in new contexts, such as in the case of migrantdeaths.Recent ideas in crime prevention studies suggest that mechanismsrather than causes should be identified that act within various contextsto explain specific outcomes.

It is that vocabulary on policing and crime prevention that pervades con-temporary discourse on unwelcome migrants. Additionally, such language


REACTION ESSAY 279

further contributes to criminalizing those who attempt unauthorized bor-der crossings (see Welch, 2006a, 2006b). The problem of trying to dealwith unwelcome migration by imposing the crime-control model is com-pounded further by its own limitations in crime reduction. Guerette recog-nizes that: “Although evaluations of many proactive policing and crime-prevention programs show discernable localized reductions, little evidenceexists that they have contributed to overall declines in crime rates exper-ienced across the country.” Despite those frank acknowledgments, crime-control discourse persists, as Guerette states: “A more formal adoption ofa prevention program, such as situational crime prevention (SCP) or prob-lem-oriented policing (POP), could better inform life-saving efforts.”

It is not surprising given the prevailing discourse over unwelcomemigration that we witness a criminalization campaign against “illegalaliens.” Nevertheless, the extent to which crime-control discourse drivesother forms of criminalization is worth noting. Guerette informs us thatthe Border Patrol cracks down on humanitarian organizations for assistingmigrants in distress, adding that volunteers for No More Deaths wereprosecuted for federal immigration crimes. Guerette suggests that, ratherthan criminalize those groups, the Border Patrol should form allianceswith them, thereby expanding and improving rescue campaigns. If such amerger were to occur, it would mean that humanitarian activists wouldthen be brought into the discourse of crime control aimed at unwelcomemigration. More to the point, those nongovernmental activist groupswould then be operating within a political rationale and government tech-nology representing the ambitions of the state. Consequently, such a part-nership could diminish the resistance of the activists against state policiesand practices that they view as unfair and unjust.

To reiterate, Garland (1997) reminds us that power is not merely a mat-ter of imposing a sovereign will but a process by which various actors arerecruited for the purpose of “translating” authority in the form of policyand practice from one locale to another. Therefore, it is crucial not only tooppose the crime-control model in regulating unwelcome migrants butalso to challenge its discourse because as a system of thought it informsand guides practice (see Carrabine, 2000). As the growing body of litera-ture convincingly demonstrates, the crime-control model fails to contrib-ute to sound criminal justice policy in large part because it neglectsimportant social and economic sources of crime (Currie, 1998; Pratt, 2007;Simon, 2006). With that realization in full view, it is troubling to find West-ern governments relying on the crime-control model as a strategy to haltunwelcome migration, without taking into consideration the complexity ofhuman geography and global movement (see Gregory, 2006; Sassen,1999).

A deeper and more informed examination of this controversy goes


280 WELCH

beyond the few thoughts expressed in this essay. Still, contained in muchof the dialogue over how to deal with unwelcome migration is a lot ofshoulder-shrugging complaints that for the foreseeable future we are stuckwith the crime-control model as the reluctant paradigm of choice. Com-menting on the unwillingness to dismantle coercive crime-control tactics,Cohen refers to Woody Allen’s restaurant criticism: “the food is lousy—and the portions are too small. That is: the law is all we have and despiteits flaws, we want it to be implemented more rather than less seriously”(2006:298).

REFERENCES

Bauman, Zygmunt1998 Globalization: The Human Consequences. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.

Burchell, Graham, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller1990 The Foucault Effect: Studies of Governmentality. Chicago, Ill.: University

of Chicago Press.

Carrabine, Eamonn2000 Discourse, governmentality and translation: Towards a social theory of

imprisonment. Theoretical Criminology 4:309–331.

Clear, Todd1994 Harm in American Penology: Offenders, Victims, and their Communities.

Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Cohen, Stanley2006 Neither honesty nor hypocrisy: The legal reconstruction of torture. In Tim

Newburn and Paul Rock (eds.), Politics of Crime Control: Essays inHonour of David Downes. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Currie, Elliott1998 Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Henry Holt and

Company, Inc.

De Giorgi, Alessandro2006 Re-Thinking the Political Economy of Punishment: Perspectives on Post-

Fordism and Penal Politics. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate

Foucault, Michel1972 The Archaeology of Knowledge. London, U.K.: Tavistock.1978 The History of Sexuality, vol.1: The Will to Knowledge. Robert Hurley,

(transl.). London, U.K.: Penguin.1991 Governmentality. In Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller

(eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, Ill.:Chicago University Press.

Garland, David1997 ‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime. Theoretical Criminology

1:173–214.

Gregory, Derek2006 The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq. Oxford, U.K.:

Blackwell.


REACTION ESSAY 281

Guerette, Rob T.2007 Immigration policy, border security, and migrant deaths: An impact

evaluation of life-saving efforts under the border safety initiative.Criminology & Public Policy. This issue.

McKinley, James C.2007 Tougher tactics deter migrants at U.S. border. New York Times (February

21):A1.

New York Times Editorial2007 They are America. New York Times (February 21):A26.

Pratt, Anna2005 Securing Borders: Detention and Deportation in Canada. Vancouver,

B.C., Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

Pratt, John2007 Penal Populism. London, U.K.: Routledge

Rose, Nikolas and Peter Miller1992 Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British

Journal of Sociology 43:173–204.

Sassen, Saskia1999 Guests and Aliens. New York: The New Press.

Simon, Jonathan2006 Governing through Crime: The War on Crime and the Transformation of

America, 1960-2000. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Welch, Michael2002 Detained: Immigration Laws and the Expanding I.N.S. Jail Complex.

Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press.2003 Ironies of social control and the criminalization of immigrants. Crime,

Law & Social Change: An International Journal 39:319–337.2005 Ironies of Imprisonment. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.2006a Scapegoats of September 11th: Hate Crimes and State Crimes in the War

on Terror. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.2006b Seeking a safer society: America’s anxiety in the war on terror. Security

Journal 19:93–109.

Welch, Michael and Liza Schuster2005a Detention of asylum seekers in the UK and US: Deciphering noisy and

quiet constructions. Punishment & Society: An International Journal ofPenology 7:397–417.

2005b Detention of asylum seekers in the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy:A critical view of the globalizing culture of control. Criminal Justice: TheInternational Journal of Policy and Practice 5:331–355.

Young, Jock1999 The Exclusive Society. London, U.K.: Sage.2003 To these wet and windy shores: Recent immigration policy in the UK.

Punishment & Society 5:449–462.

Michael Welch is a professor of criminal justice at Rutgers University, New Bruns-wick, N.J., and Visiting Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the


282 WELCH

London School of Economics. Among his recent books are Detained: ImmigrationLaws and the Expanding I.N.S. Jail Complex (2002, Temple University Press) andScapegoats of September 11th: Hate Crimes and State Crimes in the War on Terror (2006,Rutgers University Press). Please direct all correspondence to his website (http://www.professormichaelwelch.com) or to his e-mail address ([email protected]).

Documents

DEADLY CONSEQUENCES: CRIME-CONTROL DISCOURSE AND UNWELCOME MIGRANTS