Deaths in the Desert: The Human Rights Crisison 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 thatimmigradon reform should be a priority. However, there is Utde attention to the humanrights crisis on the U.S.-Mexican border. As a result of dghtened border security since1994, 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 ofdeaths and injuries of migrants crossing the border in hanh and remote locations, (2) theuse of mass hearings to prosecute apprehended migrants, and (3) abuses of migrants inimmigration 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 notdiminished 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 humanitarianorganizations 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 theU.S.-Mexico border, the Sonoran desert isa hanh and brutal environment. Summer

temperatures reach highs above 120°F, and winterlows faU below 32°F. The lack of natural resources,such as water and plant life, makes it difficult tosustain human Ufe. Many travelen are Ul-preparedfor this ferocity and perish. Since 1994, it is esti-mated that more than 5,000 migrants have died inthe desert attempting to cross into the UnitedStates from Mexico and that one migrant diesevery day (Jimenez, 2009). The U.S. GovemmentAccountabOity Office (GAO) has estimated thatthe annual number of migrant deaths has doubledsince 1995, more than 75 percent of which oc-curred in the Arizonan desert (GAO, 2006).

As federal, state, and local immigration poUcyand enforcement pattems have increasingly re-stricted immigration and criminaUzed migrants(Androff et al., 2011), the humanitarian situationof 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 dangerousjourney north for migrants condnues to resultin deaths, tremendous health risks, separationfrom family memben, and the risk of inhumane

treatment if apprehended and detained. Toaddress this human rights crisis and prevent furtherloss of Ufe, volunteen have organized to providehumanitarian aid to migrants and have in turnbeen criminalized.

Undocumented immigrants represented ap-proximately 4 percent (11.9 miUion) of the U.S.population and 5.4 percent (8.3 miUion) of itsworkforce in 2008, a dramatic increase from atotal 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 aUregions around the globe, Mexico has experi-enced unique economic and social chaUenges; theMexican peso crisis and the North American FreeTrade Agreement have increased poverty and in-equaUty in Mexico since the mid-1990s (GaUegos,2004; Lovett, 1996). The growth of the ülegaldrug trade and the Mexican government's crack-down has resulted in widespread corruption andviolence (Beer & MitcheU, 2004). Many migrantscross the Sonoran desert after enduring yean ofpoverty, seeking opportunities to provide for theirfamiUes (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 communitiesin the United States and both documented andundocumented immigrants. This criminalizationhas resulted in human rights violations, includingmigrant deaths, processing of apprehended mi-grants in "mass hearings," abuses in immigrationdetention, and inhumane deportation practices.This article reviews federal and academic data onthese conditions and data compiled by advocacygroups. Where possible, data from advocacygroups have been verified with other sources;however, often these organizations supply theonly data currently available on conditions likeabuse of migrants in immigration detention. Al-though such anecdotal evidencs has limitations, itillustrates the conditions faced by migrants. Byplacing the crisis on the border within the contextof human rights and social work ethics, this articleaims to stimulate social workers' commitmentto social justice by advocating for the welfare ofthis vulnerable population and a more inclusivesociety.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL WORK ETHICSArticle 13 of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights holds that everyone has the right to freedomof movement (United Nations, 1948). TheUnited Nations (1990) has recognized the needs ofinternational migrants by adoptkig the InternationalConvention on the Protection of the Rights of AllMigrant Workers and Members of Their Families,which emphasizes that migrants are not onlyworkers, but also human beings with families, anddraws attention to the dehumanization and humanrights violations of migrant workers and their fam-Uies. Although the United States is currently not aparty to this convention, social workers are ethi-cally obligated to protect the human rights of mi-grants and their family members. Elvira Craig deSuva, former NASW presidents quoting from theNASW poHcy statement on immigrants and refu-gees, expressed that "the plight of refugees and im-migrants [must] be considered on the basis ofhuman values and needs, rathei than on the basison an ideological struggle related to foreignpolicy" (NASW, 2006, p. 4). The NASW (2008)Code of Ethics calls social workers to advocate for

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

CRIMINALIZATION OF MIGRANTS ANDHUMANITARIAN AID WORKERSAs different ethnic groups have immigrated to theUnited States, immigrants have been alternatelyviewed as public menaces or threats to nationalsecurity 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 populationalso affect documented immigrants and citizens.The current trend toward controlling undocu-mented immigration began in the 1980s whenCongress criminalized the unauthorized hiring ofnoncitizen workers and using false documents toevade employer sanction laws and increased pen-alties for immigration violations (Chacón, 2009).Immigrants have also been excluded from socialwelfare benefits; in 1996, welfare reform discour-aged immigrants from accessing benefits, regard-less of legal status (PadiUa, 1997). Even legalpermanent residents with green cards face restrict-ed eligibuity for most benefits and are required tomeet a minimum of five years' residency withproof of good character (PadiUa, 1997).

State and Local PoliciesBorder states such as Arizona have become centralbatdegrounds in the criminalization of immigra-tion policies. In 2002, Arizona passed an identitytheft law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-2008, 2002) tocriminalize the use of "fake" identities. In 2004,Arizona passed Proposition 200 (Arizona Tax-payer and Citizen Protection Act, 2004) to denypublic benefits to undocumented migrants; pubHcemployees who fail to check the immigrationstatus of clients are subject to fines or jaü time(Furman, Langer, Sanchez, & Negi, 2007). In2005, the Arizona Smuggling Law (Ariz. Rev.Stat. §13-2319, 2005) made smuggling migrants afelony. The Maricopa County Attorney's Officehas prosecuted migrants as coconspirators in theirown trafficking by having consented to be trans-ported across the border. Recendy, Arizonapassed Senate Bul 1070 (Support Our LawEnforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of2010), the most restrictive state immigration

166 Social Work VOLUME 57, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2012

poUcy in the United States, which grants local lawenforcement unprecedented latitude to detainpeople if there is "reasonable suspicion" that theymay be in the country without documentation.FoUowing a federal injunction that blocked mostprovisions, this law is currentiy under appeal yethas already contributed to a cUmate of discrimina-tion against undocumented immigrants.

Federal Apprehensions and Prosecutionsof MigrantsIn 2008, the U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS) (2009) apprehended 791,568foreign nationals in the United States withoutdocumentation, 88 percent of whom wereMexican nationals. Ninety-one percent of theseapprehensions were made by the U.S. BorderPatrol, primarily along the southwest border. TheTucson Sector covers 262 mues along Arizona'sborder with Mexico and is the busiest sector inthe 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 trendhas 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 mostfrequent immigration charges are illegal entry orreentry, accounting for 92 percent of all prosecu-tions (TRAC, 2009). Of the 94 federal districts,the five along the U.S.-Mexico border process75 percent of aU criminal cases p H S (2009).

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

Goldsmith et al, 2007). It is difficult to estimatethe extent of migrant deaths in the desert, andstudies have used different methodologies, datasources, and time frames; estimates in the literaturerange between 3,861 and 5,607 deaths from 1994to 2009, or annual averages of from 356 to 529Qimenez, 2009). AU figures should be used withcaution; the avaüable data sources—includingcounty medical examiner records, death certifi-cates in vital registries, and state fataUty reviewprograms—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 orüyinvestigate deaths where remains are recovered; asmost of the Sonoran desert is an uninhabited,remote wüdemess, the discovery of remains is de-pendent on their identification by U.S. BorderPatrol agents or others, and researchers agree thatnot aU remains are recovered (Bowen & MarshaU,2008; ComeUus, 2001; GAO, 2006; Jimenez,2009; Rubio-Goldsmith et al., 2007; Sapkotaet al., 2006). In addition to unrecovered bodies inthe desert, studies exclude counts of drowningvictims whose remains are deposited on theMexican side of the Rio Grande, of cases inwhich a decedent's country of origin is undeter-mined, and when it cannot be determined if thedecedent 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 estimatesmay be that, as with other difficult-to-measuresocial problems Uke human trafficking, govern-ment figures tend to minimize estimates, whereasadvocacy groups use higher estimates to draw at-tention to an issue (Androff, 2011). However, U.S.government agencies, academic researchers, andnongovernmental organizations concur that thedeath count is in the thousands and that estimatesbased on recovered bodies consistently undercountthe 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 ofmigrant 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 inmigrant deaths from 1998 tc 2004 (Jimenez,2009). The GAO (2006) estimated that deathsdoubled from 1995 to 2005. Rubio-Goldsmithet al. (2007) found a 20-fold increase in recoveredbodies from 1990 to 2005 in tne Tucson Sectoralone. ComeHus (2001) estimated a 474 percentincrease in deaths along the southwest borderfrom 1996 to 2000. The number of deaths amongmigrants who are women and children has alsoincreased (Bowen & Marshall, 2008; Jimenez,2009). Sapkota et al. (2006) found that migrantdeaths are largely preventable. Environmental ex-posure, the leading cause of deaths of migrants,has increased even though migrant deaths due toother causes (such as traffic accidents and homi-cides) have declined (Rubio-Goldsmith et al.,2007; Sapkota et al., 2006). Migrants unpreparedfor the harsh terrain lack basic food and water tosurvive. Any reason for migrants to be left behindcan make them susceptible to death; a blister canbe fatal. Death by exposure is slow and agonizing;physical detetioration and organ failure are ac-companied by confusion and disotientation. Inaddition to the common tisks of snakebites andgetting lost, ctiminal gangs prey on migrants,robbing, raping, and killing them.

Responses to the CrisisSeveral prevention measures have been imple-mented, such as pubHc health campaigns to dis-courage migrants in Mexico, warning signs in thedesert stating the tisk of death and encouragingmigrants to turn back, and search-and-rescueoperations by the U.S. Border Patrol for migrantsin distress (Sapkota et al., 2006; Whitaker, 2009).However, these efforts have not stopped theoverall 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) (NoMore Deaths) provide rehef by meeting migrants'basic needs for hydmtion and health. Since 2000,Humane Borders (n.d.) has managed 100 waterstations with over 200 members and 1,500 volun-teers. Since 2002, Samatitans (n.d.) has providedemergency medical aid to hundreds of migrantsthrough daily patrols. A coalition of interfaith andcommunity groups formed NMM in 2004 and

has helped over 250,000 migrants through waterstations, desert aid camps, and relief camps for de-ported migrants who are left on the Mexican sideof 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 fromEl Salvador in the desert (NMM, 2010). This girland her 10-year-old brother were crossing theborder with a group of migrants when shebecame very iU and could not keep up. Urgingher brother to continue with the group to be re-united with their mother in California, she wasleft behind and died of exposure. Two days later,Millis was issued a Htteting ticket by the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service for placing water jugs alongmigrant trails, despite having collected five cratesof trash. MOHs refused to pay the $175 fine,arguing that providing humanitatian aid is not acrime. In 2010, an appellate court overturned theconviction (NMM, 2010). In 2009, Walt Statonwas sentenced to 300 hours of community servicefor leaving water for migrants (Whitaker, 2009).In 2009, 13 more NMM volunteers were ticketedfor Htteting; their case has been dropped (NMM,n.d.). Ctitics contend that providing humanitatianrelief encourages migrants, yet volunteers postwarning signs and disttibute information on thetisks of death and injury, and such aid has notbeen shown to influence migrants' decisions tocross 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 theborder without documentation (WUHams, 2008).To cope with the number of defendants, thecourts have combined initial appearances, arraign-ments, pleas, and sentencing into a single day andone "mass heating." Up to 80 people are chosenfrom a larger group of apprehended migrants forthe daily court docket and given less than 30minutes with an attorney (WOHams, 2008). Ques-tions are posed to the migrants en masse andanswers, such as pleas, are taken in unison. Mostmigrants admit that they are not citizens and pleadguilty 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 servedand deported; migrants with a history of criminalor immigration violations face longer detention.

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

DETENTION AND DEPORTATION

Immigration detention is the fastest growing formof incarceration in the United States, and immi-grants are the fastest growing population in federalprisons (Lopez & Light, 2009). U.S. Immigrationand Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained arecord 378,582 individuals in 2008, up 22 percentfrom 2007. Forty-nine percent of detainees wereMexican nationals (DHS, 2009). As of 2009, therewere 32,000 people in immigration detention onany given day in over 300 facilities around thecountry, almost four times the 8,279 in 1996(ICE, 2008). People held in ICE custody for over72 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 verbalabuse, lack of medical care and legal counsel, andinhumane conditions have been documented inlong-temi detention (DHS 2006; Phillips, Hagan,& Rodriguez, 2006; Southwest Institute for Re-search on Women, 2009). A total of 110 detaineeshave died in immigration detention since 2003(ICE, 2008); research has suggested that some ofthese deaths were the preventable result of inade-quate and substandard medical care (Venters,Dasch-Goldberg, Rasmussen, & Keller, 2009).

On apprehension, migrants are held for 72hours or less in service processing centers, await-ing a court appearance to determine theirstatus. This short-term custody is unregulated andlacks oversight (NMM, 2008; NNIRR, 2009).Between 2006 and 2008, NMM (2008) docu-mented 345 cases of substantiated human rightsabuses of migrants in short-term custody, such asthe denial of food, water, and medical care; physi-cal, sexual, and verbal abuse; and the separation offamilies, including parents and children. Forexample, when held ovemight without food orwater, one woman begged for water for her chil-dren, ages six and nine; Border Patrol officendrank in front of them and refused to provide anywater (NMM, 2008). Migrants often receive nomedical attention for injuries suffered prior to orduring apprehension, such as blisters, sunbum,dehydration, and lacerations (NMM, 2008). Preg-nant women have been denied medical care, andothen have had medication confiscated (NMM,2008). Conditions in short-term custody can beinhumane, including the denial of bathroom facil-ities, extreme temperatures in cells, and refusals toprovide blankets to women and children, eveninfants (NMM, 2008).

Removal refers to deportation, when peoplereceive formal deportation orders by a judge, andrepatriation refers to when people are voluntarilyreturned to their country of origin. A total of356,739 people were removed in 2008, over threetimes more than the 116,464 removed in 2001(ICE, 2008). Mexican nationals accounted for 69percent of all removals in 2008 P H S 2009).More than 1,000 such "expulsions" occur dailyalong the southwest border, at all hours of the dayand night (NMM, 2008). Women and childrenare 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 asidentification, money, and clozhes are often notretumed on repatriation (Williams, 2008). Mi-grants have reported physical aad verbal abuse onremoval; for example, one malí migrant reportedbeing kicked in the stomach by Border Patrolagents and denied medical attention (NMM,2008). At an aid station in Mexico, the Red Crossrecommended surgery for sweUing in his genitalsand blood in his urine, indications of abdominalor 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 deUberateseparation of hundreds of famuy memben incustody and their repatriadon to different ports of

• entry, making reunification extremely difficult(NMM, 2008). In one case, an adult male and histeenage 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 growingnumber of people expeUed to Mexico are appre-hended in the interior of the United States.Having Uved in the United Ststes for yean, theyspeak only or primarily EngUsh, have famiUes andchildren who are citizens, and Uttle or no des toMexico (NMM, 2008).

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

The criminaUzation of immigradon and theborder security poUcy of "pcevention throughdeterrence" have increased tlie apprehensions,prosecutions, détendons, and deportations of mi-grants. These poUcies have contributed to a crisison 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 socialworken respond to this crisis; social worken cantake action to promote human rights and socialjustice for migrants through direct pracdce, macropracdce, and advocacy for poUcy reform.

Social Work Practice with IramigrantPopulationsSocial worken should strive to provide culturaUycompetent services by attending to the stressof immigration on famiUes (Furman, Negi, &Cisneros-Howard, 2008; PadMa, 1997). The

specific problems described in this article pertainprimarily to Latino immigrants; however, immi-grants and refugees of other ethnicities may beaffected by similar human rights violations in theirimmigradon joumeys. Although social work prac-tice with immigrants is not new, the contempo-rary prominence of immigration and concomitantanti-immigrant cUmate requires social workers toattend to these issues in their practice withrenewed emphasis. For social worken engaged incUnical practice, this can be accompUshed throughenhanced assessment, treatment planning, andcase management services. As part of a compre-hensive assessment process, social work practition-en should explore immigradon history with aUtheir cUents. Immigrants and their families may besuppressing histories of immigration replete withincidences of trauma and experiences of humanrights violations; practitionen should be cognizantof such faetón in assessing the effects of these ex-periences on their cUents. Treatment plans shouldbe 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 plansshould also incorporate measures to address theeffects of discriminadon faced by immigrants.Case management services should include referralsfor EngUsh language services, job-training skills,employment, and legal aid. Effective social workpracdce requires practitionen to be educatedabout the cunent chaUenges faced by immigrantsand their famiUes.

Direct Practice with Latino ImmigrantsThere is no greater respect for the dignity andworth of a penon than to prevent death. Directpracddonen can take an active role in supportingthe lifesaving efforts of humanitarian groupsworking with migrants on the border—forexample, by volunteering with NMM. In addi-don to assisting in the basic work of placing wateron migrant trails, social worken can contributespeciaUzed cUnical sldUs and provide psychosocialand crisis intervention services to migrants in dis-tress. Social worken can make donations ofmoney and goods to these groups. Clinicians canalso provide services to volunteen experiencingsecondary 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 toprovide psychosocial services at relief centers alongthe border for deported migrants. In their owncommunities, direct practitioners can conductworkshops and trainings on the psychosocialeffects 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 justiceframe. In their own practice, social workers maybe confronted with policies requiring them tocheck immigration statuses before delivering ser-vices. Social workers should challenge policiesthat conflict with their ethical values, and theycan partner with and make referrals to legal advo-cates and immigration lav̂ ryers to protect theirclients' rights. Social workers should report casesin which their clients are denied services and careon the basis of their status; documenting caseswith NASW and civil rights groups can contri-bute to advocacy efforts. Latino and immigrantpopulations already underuse social services(Furman et al., 2008); direct practitioners shouldbe sensitive to the risks of service underutilizationand unreported victimization that may result fromincreased discrimination. Through case manage-ment services, referrals to community- andschool-based services may be useful for linkingfamihes to services (PadiUa, 1997).

Latino and immigrant families may have rela-tives who are undocumented or who came intothe United States without documentation; socialworkers with Latino and immigrant clients shouldconduct assessments with the awareness that theirown clients or their chents' famuy members mayhave suffered physical and psychological traumafrom their immigration experiences. Chencs andtheir families may have been vulnerable to humantrafficking and abuse by human smugglers, injuriesor deaths from crossing the border, and abuseswhue in immigration detention. Many families inthe United States do not know what became ofrelatives who attempted to cross the border butdid not arrive in the United States; they may havedied in the desert undiscovered, been detained,had their rights violated, or been deported toMexico without resources or connections. Socialworkers can attend to the needs of separated

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

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

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

Social workers should advocate for immigrationpolicies that embody the values of equahty, fair-ness, justice, and respect for human relationships(Padilla et al., 2008); NASW (2006) supportscomprehensive immigration reform and acknowl-edges that current immigration policy compro-mises civu rights and social justice. Border securitypohcy should be reformed to prevent the unnec-essary deaths of migrants. The "prevent throughdeterrence" strategy has not reduced migration ordeterred migrants; it has only increased their suf-fering. With legislation such as Arizona's SB 1070,the trend toward punitive immigration policies isincreasing and wül likely produce more of thesame deadly results. Research with migrants hasshown that the primary factors influencing deci-sions to migrate include the health of the U.S.economy, the cost of crossing, and personal andfamily circumstances (Cleaveland, 2010; Lydgate,2010). To facilitate relief for migrants and preventfuture 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 provisionof food, water, and medical aid. OperationStreamUne should be suspended for the harm itdoes to the rights of defendants; due process andthe constitutional protection of rights should berestored. Human rights abuses and inhumanetreatment in iminigration detention should neverbe permitted. Regulations and standards for careof migrants in short-term custody must beadopted. Removal and deportation practicesshould be reformed to respect famuy relationshipsand promote family reunification.

Immigration must be decriminalized; immi-gration violations are technically civu offenses(Chacón, 2009). Significant reform must includean increase in the options for legal avenues of im-migration, legal pemianent residency, and citizen-ship as well as a reduction in the backlogs andlengthy delays for appUcants. Current immigrationpoUcy marginalizes those migrants quiedy Uvingand working in the United States by criminaUzingtheir status. Reform needs to bring them out ofthe shadows through a nonexploitative guestworker poUcy and a system to address current un-documented immigrants who are without crinunalbackgrounds. Social workers should promote poU-cies that expand opportunities for migrants, such asrestoration of eUgibüity for a safety net of socialand medical services and the DREAM Act, whichwould provide access to higher education forchüdren of undocumented immigrants. Socialworken should oppose immigration policies thatcontribute to discrimination against migrants, suchas the constitutional guarantee of citizenship foraU bom in the United States and English-onlypolicies.

Migration is a complex international phenome-non. Social workers must encourage poUcies thataddress the social, poUtical, and economic contextof immigration, such as responsible trade, goodgovernance and democratization, economicgrowth, and social development. With an ethicalimperative to promote social justice and a more in-clusive society, social workers cannot choose toremain neutral and aUow the tragedy of migrantdeaths to continue. These deaths must be recog-nized as an international human rights crisis;human rights abuses wül continue if there is nosigmficant reform. Unless something changes,more men, women, and chüdren wül die in thedesert. These deaths are not inevitable.

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

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

Androff, D., Ayón, C , Becerra, D., Gurrola, M., Salas, L.,Krysik, J., et al. (2011). US immigration policy andimmigrant children's well-being: The impact ofpolicy 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 (Proposition200), 1-03-2004. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.azsos.gov/election/2004/General/Initiatives.htm

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

Bowen, K., & Marshall, W. (2008). Deaths of Mexicanand Central American children along the US border:The Pima County Arizona experience. Jowma/ ofImmigrant 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": Socialwork advocacy and unauthorized migrants. SocialWork, 55,74-81.

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

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

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

GaUegos, G. (2004). Border matters: Redefining thenational interest in U.S.—Mexico immigration andtrade 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). USdeportation policy, family separation, and circularmigration. International Migration Revieui, 42,64-88.

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

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

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

Lovett, W. (1996). Lesson from the recent peso crisis inMexico. Tulane Journal of International and ComparativeLaw, 4, 143-160

Lydgate, J. (2010). Assembly-line justice: A review ofOperation 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). Immigrationpolicy toolkit. Retrieved from http://wvvav.naswdc.org/divenity/Immi grationToolldt.pdf

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code ofethics 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, andcommunities in 2008. Retrieved from http://wvw/.nnin-.org/hurricane/GuiltybyhnmigrationStatus2008.pdf

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

No Más Muertes. (2010). Littering conviction of bordervolunteer overturned by appeals court. Retrieved fromhttp://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 socialwork practice. Social Work, 42, 595-606.

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

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

Phillips, S., Hagan, J., & Rodriguez, N. (2006). Brutalborders? Examining the treatment of deporteesduring 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, andEl Paso, Texas, 2002-2003. American fournal of PublicHealth, 961, 1282-1287.

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

Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe NeighborhoodsAct (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. Retrievedfi-om http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/218

United Nations. (1948). TIte universal declaration of humanrights. 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). Annualreport—Immigration enforcement actions: 2008. Retrievedfrom http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/enforcement_ar_08.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2006). Illegalimmigration: Border-crossing deaths have doubled since1995; Border Patrol's efforts to prevent deaths have notbeen fully evaluated (GAO-06-770).Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2008). Fiscalyear 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 andmorbidity among detained in-imigrants. Human RightsOuarterly, 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 AdministrativeLaw, 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. 2010Final revision received November 16. 2010Accepted 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.