Immigration Law by Proxy: The Case of Colorado’s Human Smuggling Crime

Despite the federal government’s well known expansive reach in creating and enforcing immigration law, the states retain substantial authority to play an important role in migrants’ lives. Through their traditional powers to adopt criminal statutes and police their communities, states can indirectly — but intentionally — inject themselves into the incidents of ordinary life as a migrant. Colorado’s human smuggling statute, currently being challenged before the state supreme court, illustrates this type of state regulation of migration. This essay addresses the statute’s reach, its shaky constitutional footing, and places it in a broader context in which states criminalize immigration-related activity.

Naturalizing Immigration Imprisonment

Only recently has imprisonment become a central feature of both t across every level of government and involving civil and criminal law enforcement tools. Examining the population as a whole provides crucial insights as to how we arrived at this state of mass immigration imprisonment. While political motivations — parallel to those that fueled the rapid expansion of criminal mass incarceration — may have started the trend, this Article demonstrates that key legal and policy choices explain how imprisonment has become an entrenched feature of immigration law enforcement. In fact, legislators and immigration officials have locked themselves into this choice, as there are now literally billions of dollars, tens of thousands of prison beds, and innumerable third parties invested in maintaining and expanding the use of immigration imprisonment. Using the literature on path dependence and legal legitimacy, this Article explains the phenomenon of immigration imprisonment as a single category that spans all levels of government. Rather than continue further along this path, the Article concludes by suggesting that policymakers should seek a future reflective of immigration law enforcement’s past when imprisonment was the exception rather than the norm.

Social and immigration factors in intimate partner violence among Ecuadorians, Moroccans and Romanians living in Spain

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women occurs in all countries, all cultures and at every level of society; however, some populations may be at greater risk than others. The aim of this study was to explore IPV prevalence among Ecuadorian, Moroccan and Romanian immigrant women living in Spain and its possible association with their personal, family, social support and immigration status characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 1607 adult immigrant women residing in Barcelona, Madrid and Valencia (2011). Prevalence rates and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were calculated, with current IPV being the outcome. Different women’s personal (demographic), family, social support and immigration status characteristics were considered as explicative and control variables. All analyses were separated by women’s country of origin. Results: Current IPV prevalence was 15.57% in Ecuadorians, 10.91% in Moroccans and 8.58% in Romanians. Some common IPV factors were found, such as being separated and/or divorced. In Romanians, IPV was also associated with lack of social support [AOR 5.96 (1.39–25.62)] and low religious involvement [AOR 2.17 (1.06–4.43)]. The likelihood of current IPV was lower among women without children or other dependants in this subgroup [AOR 0.29 (0.093–0.92)]. Conclusion: The IPV prevalence rates obtained for Moroccan, Romanian and Ecuadorian women residing in Spain were similar. Whereas the likelihood of IPV appeared to be relatively evenly distributed among Moroccan and Ecuadorian women, it was higher among Romanian women in socially vulnerable situations related to family responsibilities and the lack of support networks. The importance of intervention in the process of separation and divorce was common to all women.

Immigration and labor: the economic aspects of European immigration to the United States

by Isaac A. Hourwich.

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.17 (1907)

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.20 (1910)

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.16 (1906)

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.11 (1902)

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.15 (1905)

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.18 (1908)

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.12 (1903)

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.8-9 (1898-1899)

Bulletin de l'Académie internationale de géographie botanique.

v.19 (1909)