The Dehumanization of Noncitizens: A Consequence of Criminalizing Immigration

       The criminalization of the American immigration system, commonly referred to as “crimmigration,” has sparked a significant amount of controversy for a relatively recent phenomenon. Blurring the lines between civil and criminal law for immigration-related processes has consequences for noncitizens and the general public, and an analysis of the origins of immigration legislation, the impacts of derogatory labels on noncitizens, and The Line Becomes a River by Francisco Cantú makes this evident. Ultimately, an examination of the increasing criminalization of the American immigration system reveals a significant hurdle for immigrants: the dehumanization of noncitizens.

​

The Criminalization of the Immigration System: A Historical Perspective

       Although the American immigration system has historically existed within a civil realm, with an 1893 Supreme Court decision comparing immigrant deportation to the cancelation of a contract, the system began to dip its toes into the criminal sphere during the early 1900s (Shapiro, 2017). The shift toward a simultaneously civil and criminal classification of immigration law began in 1917, when noncitizens with criminal charges became deportable solely because of their convictions (Shapiro, 2017). Widening the grounds for deportation to include noncitizens with criminal charges had serious consequences because suddenly millions of immigrants were at risk of deportation, family separation, and unemployment. As the immigration system continued to expand during the mid-1900s, more elements of criminal law began to apply to the immigration system, particularly the deportation process. Notably, in the 1920s, illegally reentering the United States became punishable not only by deportation but by a criminal charge and incarceration as well (Shapiro, 2017).

       Other pivotal pieces of legislation passed in the 20th century that slowly criminalized immigration processes include the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). IRCA expanded the types of immigration-related offenses that warrant criminal charges, including the use of fraudulent work documents (Shapiro, 2017). This 1986 legislative work also criminalized the knowing employment of noncitizens and increased resources to guard the border, which reinforced the unification of immigration and criminal spheres (Abrego et al., 2017). A decade later, IIRIRA furthered the criminalization of immigration by establishing new criminal offenses and increasing the effect of criminal charges on immigration status (Shapiro, 2017). IIRIRA is one of the main reasons why millions of noncitizens were reclassified as deportable through criminal law specifications because it made noncitizens with minor offenses, such as shoplifting or failing to appear in court, deportable (Abrego et al., 2017). According to immigration attorney Ashley Shapiro, the enactment of IIRIRA also marked the conception of “crimmigration,” a term commonly used to refer to the criminalization of the immigration system (Shapiro, 2017).

       Although these pieces of legislation have expanded the criminal implications of immigration, the refusal of the American government to acknowledge these criminal aspects of immigration proceedings has restricted the rights of immigrants. Some of the constitutionally protected rights of defendants in criminal proceedings, including the right to counsel and the right to a jury trial, are not afforded to those in civil proceedings (Shapiro, 2017). As crimmigration has evolved, immigrants in particular are burdened by the classification of immigration as a purely civil area of law because it exempts them from these important aspects of a criminal trial. This has especially affected noncitizens in deportation proceedings because, according to Abrego et al. (2017), IIRIRA and other similar acts have intentionally limited due process for those in removal proceedings in an effort to accelerate their deportation. Stripping immigrants of certain rights is especially worrisome given the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, which as emphasized by Professor Stevenson during the criminal law module, is integral to the protection of one’s right to privacy (Stevenson, 2022). By claiming that legal proceedings regarding immigration are purely civil in nature, including those pertaining to the deportation process, immigrants lose evidentiary protections established by the Fourth Amendment and a large component of their right to privacy (Shapiro, 2017). The Fourth Amendment also fails to protect noncitizens because of its border search exception, which gives law enforcement the authority to search and seize anything within 100 miles of the United States border (Stevenson, 2022). This leaves noncitizens vulnerable to actions that would normally be classified as unreasonable searches or seizures, but because of immigration’s civil categorization coupled with the existence of the border search exception, noncitizens are left with few privacy rights. Ultimately, the refusal to recognize immigration law as anything but a civil field has had significant consequences for the rights of immigrants, especially those established by the Fourth Amendment.

​

Derogatory Labels and the Dehumanization of Noncitizens

       The criminalization of the immigration system and withholding of certain constitutional protections from immigration legal proceedings has played a large role in the dehumanization of noncitizens. Through acts like IIRIRA, which expanded the criminal implications of immigration, the ideas of criminality and immigrant status have slowly converged. This consolidation has negatively impacted Americans’ perceptions of noncitizens who are increasingly viewed as ill-intentioned and equipped with a desire to commit crimes, rather than hard workers who risked their lives to chase after American opportunities and contribute to society (Shapiro, 2017). Shapiro explicitly faults crimmigration for the increasing dehumanization of immigrants and claims that “changes in the law fed a powerful vision of the immigrant as a scofflaw and a criminal that began to dominate the competing image of the benign, hard-working embodiment of the American dream” (Shapiro, 2017, p. 134). Terms like “criminal alien” and “illegal alien,” which are often used in laws and by government officials, have also strategically influenced Americans to view noncitizens as if they are predisposed to violence or criminality. It is important to note that these derogatory terms are often used without regard to immigration status or the magnitude of a criminal offense, leaving no room for context or the ability to defend noncitizens (Shapiro, 2017).

       During the immigration law module, Erika Rosales echoed the consequences of dehumanizing labels given to noncitizens such as “illegal,” “criminal,” and “alien.” The rhetoric surrounding noncitizens in American political discourse heavily impacted Rosales’ sense of self due to her noncitizen status and she admitted the extent to which she struggled with feelings of inadequacy and inferiority as a result (Rosales, 2022). Rosales also alluded to the impact that the criminalization of the immigration system has had on her, revealing that for most of her life she believed that she was committing a crime just by existing in the United States without citizenship (Rosales, 2022). Through the impacts of derogatory labels and the testimony of Erika Rosales, it is clear that labeling noncitizens “criminal aliens” perpetuates negative stereotypes about immigrants, makes the ideas of criminality and noncitizen status appear synonymous, and intentionally classifies immigrants as inherently criminal, dangerous, and subhuman (Shapiro, 2017).

​

Francisco Cantú's Depictions of Immigrant Dehumanization

       The dehumanization and criminalization of immigrants is also an apparent theme throughout Francisco Cantú’s novel, The Line Becomes a River. Towards the beginning of the book, Cantú provides historical context for the inferior treatment of Mexicans by white Westerners dating back to the 18th century. He mentions that Father Eusebio Kino, an Italian priest, was the first white man to look upon Baja California in 1706 and viewed the natives as weak and tattered (Cantú, 2018). Cantú also explains that the Europeans regarded the entire region as a “malpaís”, or a bad country, and believed that they were superior to the land and its people (Cantú, 2018). This perception of Mexico as an inferior and dangerous place continued into the 1800s and was also held by surveying parties, which acted as the first border patrol (Cantú, 2018). After the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, these survey members were sent to patrol the border and commented that a large part of Mexico was a “[…] sterile waste, utterly worthless for any purpose other than to constitute a barrier […] between two neighboring nations” (Cantú, 2018, p. 59). By including this background information on Western perceptions of Mexico, Cantú illustrates how the dehumanization of immigrants, specifically those from Mexico, stems from the perceived inferiority of a place. It also becomes clear that the idea of immigrant inferiority, specifically Mexican inferiority, and the desire to keep noncitizens out of the United States has existed for hundreds of years and continues to pervade American society today.

       Francisco Cantú also emphasizes the harmful nature of derogatory labels and metaphors used to describe immigrants in current political discourse by highlighting the work of Jane Zavisca, a sociologist at the University of Arizona (Cantú, 2018). In The Line Becomes a River, Cantú brings attention to Zavisca’s research on journalists’ use of metaphors to describe the deaths of immigrants, which often have discriminatory undertones (Cantú, 2018). Zavisca found that the most common metaphors are econometric measures, analyzing immigrant deaths through costs and benefits, which implicitly places partial responsibility onto immigrants for their own deaths (Cantú, 2018). Other common metaphors describe immigrant deaths in terms of violence, sometimes blaming deaths on unpredictable weather or destructive immigration laws, or in terms of explicit dehumanization, describing immigrants as prey being hunted by border patrol agents (Cantú, 2018). Besides the obvious negative impacts these kinds of metaphors have on immigrants and American perceptions of noncitizens, this language also emphasizes the belief that immigrants are “other.” This is especially relevant for explicitly dehumanizing metaphors describing immigrants as prey because they reinforce the humanity of border patrol agents but the criminality of immigrants. Zavisca highlights the consequences of this perception by explaining that when we alienate certain groups, “[…] we risk the inner cohesion of our society, allowing our personal relationships to become undermined by a creeping mistrust” (Cantú, 2018, p. 163). Cantú and his inclusion of Zavisca’s research make it evident that dehumanizing rhetoric not only negatively impacts Americans’ impressions of immigrants but directly contributes to the dehumanization of noncitizens.

       In the latter half of his book, Francisco Cantú describes his friendship with José, a Mexican immigrant with no legal status, and the fight against his deportation. Upon learning about José’s detention and attending the Streamline hearing, Cantú met with Walter, José’s court-appointed attorney, where they discussed the significance of the criminal-civil divide in immigration law (Cantú, 2018). Walter explained why José would be involved in both criminal and civil proceedings, stating that José’s unauthorized entry into the United States was a criminal charge but since citizenship is a civil law concern, attempting to find a pathway to citizenship would be under the civil realm (Cantú, 2018). Although José was able to be represented by immigration attorney Elizabeth Green in his civil proceedings, a privilege which many immigrants cannot afford due to exorbitant costs, her attempt to get a stay of removal for José was ultimately unsuccessful and he was deported to Mexico.

       Towards the end of The Line Becomes a River, the narrator changes from Cantú to José, and we learn about José’s relationship with America and its immigration system. In light of José’s deportation, he openly disagrees with American efforts to criminalize immigrants, most of whom are simply looking for a better life. José explains that “[…] the U.S. is making criminals out of those who could become its very best citizens,” such as dedicated parents and hard workers, who are willing to risk everything to cross the border time and time again until they are successful (Cantú, 2018, p. 237). However, his appreciation for American opportunities is so great that he admitted he will never stop trying to return to the country. José’s experience within the American immigration system exemplifies the consequences of crimmigration for those simply doing their best to support their families and contribute to American society. In spite of these consequences, such as derogatory labels, dehumanizing treatment, and increasing implications of criminal convictions, the vast majority of noncitizens would likely reiterate the words of José and never stop striving to migrate to America and create a better life.

​

The Influence of Crimmigration on "Law in Action"

       The criminalization of the American immigration system and the dehumanization of immigrants impacts not only noncitizens but legal institutions and American society as well. The labels and definitions that we prescribe to certain groups have significant impacts on their rights and how they are affected by policy because these labels distort lawmakers’ perceptions of these groups (Shapiro, 2017). We have seen this over the past century with the slow intertwining of criminal and immigration law: damaging stereotypes of noncitizens and immigrants in general, that paint them as inherently criminal and “other,” led to the creation of acts like IRCA and IIRIRA that expanded the impacts of crimmigration. These pieces of legislation in turn have cultivated a correctional and dehumanizing immigration system, which reinforces the dangerous stereotypes that prompted the emergence of crimmigration. This phenomenon is perfectly summed up by Ashley Shapiro who states: “this concept – that the way we as a society define people and social groups impacts the rights of those so defined – has broad policy implications and transfers into the legal lexicon” (Shapiro, 2017, p. 119). It is apparent that this vicious cycle of crimmigration and the dehumanization of noncitizens leaves little areas of society untouched, impacting immigrants, legal institutions, and the general public.

       Through an examination of how immigration blurs the lines between criminal and civil law, it is indisputable that crimmigration has significant consequences for immigrants, American society, lawmakers, and especially noncitizens. The evolution of crimmigration has failed to provide immigrants with certain rights such as evidentiary protections established by the Fourth Amendment, enabled the dissemination of derogatory labels such as “criminal alien,” and as emphasized by José, criminalized those who could become America’s best citizens. These consequences together expose the largest hurdle for immigrants: the dehumanization of noncitizens.

​

​

References

​

Abrego, L., Coleman, M., Martinez, D. E., Menjivar, C., & Slack, J. (2017). Making immigrants into criminals: Legal processes

       of criminalization in the post-IIRIRA era. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(3), 694-715.

Cantú, F. (2018). The line becomes a river: Dispatches from the border. Penguin Random House LLC.

Rosales, E. (2022). Center for DREAMers at UW-Madison. [PowerPoint slides].

Shapiro, A. R. (2017). The criminalization of the immigration system: The dehumanizing impact of calling a person illegal.

       Richmond Public Interest Law Review, 12(2), 117-146.

Stevenson, A. (2022). How secret are your secrets, pt. I: Your castle and your car. [PowerPoint slides].