immigration, crime, and victimization: rhetoric and … ari 5 october 2012 8:40 immigration, crime,...

LS08CH08-Zatz ARI 5 October 2012 8:40

Immigration, Crime,and Victimization:Rhetoric and RealityMarjorie S. Zatz1 and Hilary Smith2

1Justice and Social Inquiry, School of Social Transformation, Arizona State University,Tempe, Arizona 85287; email: [email protected] of Sociology, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs,Colorado 80918; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2012. 8:141–59

First published online as a Review in Advance onJuly 9, 2012

The Annual Review of Law and Social Science isonline at lawsocsci.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173923

Copyright c© 2012 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

1550-3585/12/1201-0141$20.00

Keywords

criminalization, exploitation, immigration enforcement, immigrationlaw, moral panic, racialization

Abstract

Contrary to popular perceptions that immigration increases crime, theresearch literature demonstrates that immigration generally serves aprotective function, reducing crime. This review takes as its startingpoint the contradiction between the rhetoric and the reality of immi-gration and crime in the United States. We begin by exploring theconditions under which immigration reduces crime and those underwhich it has less or no effect, with particular attention to traditional andnew destination sites. We then demonstrate how the moral panic aboutimmigration has contributed to unprecedented levels of new legislationand intensified enforcement practices. These new laws and policies, wesuggest, are making immigrants and their communities less safe. Weconsider some of the ways in which immigrants have become more vul-nerable and how that vulnerability is patterned and nuanced. We closeby examining recent research in other parts of the world, finding somesimilarities but also differences in the relationships among immigration,crime, and victimization.

141

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


INTRODUCTION

Immigration laws and policies in the UnitedStates have historically been couched in arhetoric of race and crime. From the ChineseExclusion Act of 1882 through the quotalaws of 1921 and 1924 to Arizona’s SB 1070,skin color, language, national origin, andreligion have been entangled with assumptionsabout crime and criminality (Calavita 1984,2000, 2007; Gardner 2005; Hagan et al. 2008;Martınez & Valenzuela 2006; Mears 2001;Newton 2008; Ngai 2004). This linking ofimmigration and crime provides an effectiverallying cry for politicians and pundits, allowingthem to demonize immigrants and reinforceracialized anxieties without ever explicitlyinvoking race (Chavez 2008, Kubrin et al.2012, Provine & Doty 2011). The resulting“moral panic” (Cohen 1972, Goode & Ben-Yehuda 1994) has been further exacerbatedby post-9/11 fears (Altheide 2006; Fink 2008;Fleury-Steiner & Longazel 2010; Provine et al.2012; Welch 2003, 2012), contributing to anunprecedented number of state and local lawsseeking to restrict immigration and punishimmigrants ( Johnston & Morse 2011, Meyeret al. 2011, Varsanyi 2010b) and, we suggest,ultimately leaving some of the most vulnerablemembers of US society at even greater risk ofvictimization and exploitation.1

The relevance of race in this powerfulmythology cannot be ignored. As Mears(2001, p. 13) reminds us, “Insight into theimmigration-crime nexus has direct impli-cations for understanding the relationshipbetween race/ethnicity and crime, and viceversa.” Similarly, Provine & Doty (2011, p. 265)speak to “the mutually reinforcing relationshipbetween racialization and criminalization.”Demonizing Latinos as criminals is not new inthe Southwest (Gomez 2007, Mirande 1987),

1We are not suggesting that the moral panic about immigra-tion and crime is the only factor contributing to the surge ofanti-immigration legislation. Claims about the fiscal impactof immigration on health care, education, and social servicesand of loss of low-paying jobs to immigrants, for example,also fuel the panic.

where fears of violence at the hands of Mexicanimmigrants—whether based in reality ornot—play into what Chavez (2008) has calledthe Latino threat narrative. This narrative,Chavez notes, is “part of a grand tradition ofalarmist discourse about immigrants and theirperceived negative impacts on society” (p. 3).

In contrast to the prevailing moral panicabout the dangers posed by immigrants, dozensof studies have demonstrated that increasedimmigration serves a protective function, re-vitalizing communities and reducing crimerates for both immigrant and nonimmigrantgroups (e.g., Desmond & Kubrin 2009, Haganet al. 2008, Hagan & Palloni 1999, Kubrin &Ousey 2009, Lee 2003, Lee & Martınez 2009,Martınez & Lee 2000, Ousey & Kubrin 2009,Sampson 2008, Stowell 2007, Velez & Lyons2012). Indeed, Sampson (2008) and others haveargued that immigration may be the most im-portant factor explaining the decrease in USviolent crime rates in recent years.

This review takes as its starting point thecontradiction between the rhetoric and thereality of immigration and crime in the UnitedStates. We begin by exploring the conditionsunder which immigration reduces crime andthose under which it has less or no effect. Wethen highlight the contemporary legislativeresponse to the perceived threat posed byimmigration and immigrants and some of theramifications of this legislation. Rather thanimmigration making neighborhoods less safe,we suggest that the moral panic about immigra-tion and crime—and the resulting plethora ofanti-immigrant laws and policies—have madeimmigrants and their communities less safe.More law, in this case, is making matters worse:reinforcing and reconstructing racial differ-ence and exclusion, making immigrants morevulnerable to violence and exploitation, andthwarting efforts by police departments to part-ner with communities. Further, these vulnera-bilities appear to be patterned, with women andthe poorest, least-skilled immigrants at greatestrisk of victimization. To help us better under-stand these patterns and nuances, we examinerecent research in other parts of the world,

142 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


finding some similarities but also differences inthe relationships among immigration, crime,and victimization. We close by discussing someof the most important unanswered questionsand outline areas for future research.

Throughout, we draw from but do notrepeat excellent reviews of the interweavings ofimmigration, law, race, and identity by Calavita(2007); global restructuring, immigration, andthe rights of noncitizens by Coutin (2011);illegality and deportability as experiencedin everyday life by De Genova (2002); andimmigration and crime by Lee & Martınez(2009) and Martınez & Lee (2000). In additionto these comprehensive review essays, we referreaders to recent collections on immigration,crime, and victimization edited by Martınez& Valenzuela (2006), McDonald (2009b), andKubrin et al. (2012). Individually and as a set,these essays and edited volumes examine theconnections among immigration, race, crime,global restructuring, law, and the state.

IMMIGRATION AND CRIME

One of the harshest and most controversialrecent immigration laws is Arizona’s SB 1070.The architect of SB 1070, then–state SenatorRussell Pearce, credited the law with reducingcrime, boasting that “violent crime has droppedthree times the national average in Arizona.That’s huge” (quoted in Howard FischerCapitol Media Serv. 2011). In fact, violentcrime in Arizona began dropping in 2008, twoyears before passage of SB 1070 (UCR Stats.2012). Across the nation, popular perceptions,fueled by the media and politicians, continue toassert a relationship between immigration andcrime. Yet social science research consistentlyfinds null or negative effects of immigrationon serious crime, and especially violent crime,at both the individual and aggregate levels(Butcher & Piehl 1998, Desmond & Kubrin2009, Hagan et al. 2008, Hagan & Palloni1999, Kubrin & Ousey 2009, Lee 2003, Lee& Martınez 2009, Martınez 2002, Martınezet al. 2008, Ousey & Kubrin 2009, Reid et al.2005, Rumbaut & Ewing 2007, Sampson 2008,

Sampson et al. 2005, Stowell 2007, Stowellet al. 2009, Tonry 1997, Velez & Lyons 2012).Moreover, the null or negative effects ofimmigration on crime rates hold (a) in cross-sectional research and studies conducted atmultiple points in time, (b) at the national andneighborhood levels, and (c) whether the analy-sis focuses on crime rates or incarceration rates.Accordingly, the general sense among scholarsis that “the link drawn between immigrationand crime is misleading, to the extent ofconstituting a mythology” (Hagan & Palloni1999, p. 630).

That said, there are some interestingnuances to the patterns found, and attentionto the conditions under which immigrationsignificantly reduces crime and those underwhich it has less of a protective effect shouldhelp us to better understand crime and victim-ization patterns and, perhaps, why the moralpanic about immigration and crime is louder insome locales than in others. In particular, newresearch within the United States points to theimportance of whether a city is a traditionalgateway for immigrants or a new receiving site(Velez & Lyons 2012). This question is furthercomplicated because a number of studies con-sider immigrant concentration rather than typeof destination site, although the two conceptsare interrelated (e.g., Desmond & Kubrin 2009,Kubrin & Ousey 2009, Stowell et al. 2009).In addition, a few studies attempt to tease outpossible variation in the protective effects ofimmigration across forms of violent offending.

Traditional and New Destination Sites

Historically, California, Florida, Illinois, NewJersey, New York, and Texas have been theprimary destination sites for new immigrants.Although these states remain major gateways,there have been some shifts in recent years.Most notably, the number of new unautho-rized immigrants in California has decreased,whereas the presence of immigrants fromMexico and Central America has increasedmarkedly in southeastern states that previouslyhad seen few Latino immigrants, such as

www.annualreviews.org • Immigration, Crime, and Victimization 143

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, andAlabama, as well as in parts of the Midwest,the Northeast, and western states includingArizona, Nevada, and Utah (Massey 2008,Passell & Cohn 2009, Zuniga & Hernandez-Leon 2005).

Not surprisingly, much of the prior researchon immigration and crime was conducted inLos Angeles, Miami, Chicago, New York,Houston, and other traditional gateways(see Lee & Martınez 2009 for a review).Immigrants to these cities found support inethnic enclaves where jobs, housing, and otherforms of assistance were readily available. Inturn, the new immigrants helped to keep theculture, religious practices, and mores of theirhomelands vibrant in those communities. Incontrast, as Varsanyi (2010a, p. 10) notes, thenew settlement patterns have “brought thephenomenon of immigration—particularly un-documented immigration—to cities and statesthat have never before grappled to any signifi-cant extent with the challenges and costs—bothreal and perceived—of large-scale immigrantsettlement.” Some new research asks whetherthe protective effects of immigration on crimefound in traditional destination sites are alsoapparent in these new locales or whether theweaker economic, cultural, and social supportsfor immigrants in these settings erode the posi-tive aspects of immigration on community life.

Velez & Lyons (2012) analyze data from6,926 neighborhoods in 69 US cities duringthe period 1999–2001 to assess whether therelationship between immigration and violentcrime is constant across traditional and newdestination sites. Having previously found anegative relationship between immigrationand homicide in economically disadvan-taged neighborhoods but not in more affluentChicago neighborhoods (Velez 2009), they alsoexamine whether neighborhood disadvantageconditions the effects of immigration. Theyfind that the protective effect of immigrationon violent crime is greater in economicallydisadvantaged neighborhoods than in wealth-ier neighborhoods, perhaps due, at least inpart, to the higher concentrations of recent

immigrants in poorer neighborhoods. Thesenew immigrants, they suggest, “reinvigoratelocal communities by developing strong‘fictive’ ties to fellow immigrants (both recentand long-term) as well as to non-kin personslike clergy, social service providers, and schoolofficials. Such ties and the trust they generatelikely lead to an infusion of social control andreductions in crime” (Velez & Lyons 2012,p. 172). In contrast, the small number of immi-grants in wealthier neighborhoods may makeimmigrants more isolated from the culturaland social support systems that reduce crime.

Moreover, Velez & Lyons (2012) concludethat the neighborhood revitalization thatprotects immigrant communities from crimeis strongest in traditional gateway cities. Innew destinations, the significant negative rela-tionship between crime and immigration is nolonger found, although neither does immigra-tion increase crime in those neighborhoods—itsimply does not have any effect. As the authorssuggest, it may well be that new settlement sitessimply do not have a sufficient concentration ofimmigrants to create an infrastructure of ethnicenclaves and immigrant-serving institutionssuch as churches or schools offering bilingualeducation. This finding is also consistent withresults from Kubrin & Ousey’s (2009) study ofimmigration and homicide rates in 206 citiesacross the United States. They find that citieswith the greatest concentrations of immigrantshave lower homicide rates, again speaking tothe protective effect of immigration. AlthoughKubrin & Ousey do not distinguish betweentraditional and recent destination sites, it isprobably reasonable to assume that the largestconcentrations of immigrants will be in citiesthat have served traditionally as destinationsites.

Likewise, Ousey & Kubrin (2009) examinethe longitudinal, macrolevel impact of immi-gration on violent crime from 1980 through2000 for 159 US cities, observing that citiesexperiencing increases in immigration arecharacterized by decreasing violent crimerates. This relationship was “not explained bydemographic transition, economic deprivation,

144 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


drug market, or formal social control argu-ments”; rather, the authors argue, the negativeassociation between immigration and crimeis due to strong family ties associated withimmigrants (p. 466).

Looking specifically at the effects of im-migrant concentration on adolescent violence,Desmond & Kubrin (2009) utilize the NationalLongitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) school-based surveys from 1995 and1996, finding that immigrant concentration re-duces adolescent violence. Again, though, wecan only surmise that the cities with large con-centrations of immigrants are traditional set-tlement sites, and this assumption may becomeless accurate over time as new destinations drawlarger numbers of immigrants.

Finally, Stowell (2007) suggests the impor-tance of examining whether poverty, unem-ployment, and other structural factors limit theprotective effects of immigration (see also Lee& Martınez 2009). Such structural factors mayalso be related to whether the community is atraditional or new destination site, particularlybecause the ethnic enclaves found in traditionalreceiving communities may offer potential em-ployment opportunities for newcomers, even inthe poorest neighborhoods.

Types of Violent Crime

Another question raised by some scholars iswhether the protective effect of immigrationholds across all types of violent crime. Kubrin &Ousey (2009) examine the relationship betweenimmigration and different forms of homicide,finding that immigration significantly reducestotal homicides, felony homicides, and homi-cides resulting from altercations. However,immigration’s effect on drug-related homicidesis negative but not significant, and there isa positive relationship between immigrationand gang-related homicides. Whether this isa real effect or due to the police being “morelikely to impute gangs as cause of homicide incities with high concentrations of immigrantsand pervasive stereotypes linking gangs withimmigration” (Kubrin & Ousey 2009, p. 30)is, however, unclear. Stowell and colleagues’

(2009) longitudinal, multivariate analysis of im-migration and violent crime from 1994 to 2004links changes in immigrant concentration withchanges in levels of violent offending. Theyfind that the protective effects of immigrationon rates of robbery, especially, as well as onaggravated assault and the overall violent crimeindex, were greatest in areas with high concen-trations of immigrants. Stowell et al. concludethat these findings may be attributable tothe less violent character of recent immi-grants, greater levels of community efficacyin immigrant communities, revitalization ofcommunities through increased immigration,or some combination of these and other factors.

THE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE

Regardless of the strong empirical evidence thatimmigration reduces crime for immigrants andnonimmigrants alike in neighborhoods withlarge concentrations of immigrants (Sampson2008), politicians and the media continue tofuel a moral panic, inciting fears about dan-gerous racialized others. This moral panic, inturn, has contributed to a substantial increase inrestrictive immigration policies (Newton 2008,Sinema 2012, Varsanyi 2010b). At the federallevel, this get-tough approach to immigrantsand immigration led to passage of the IllegalImmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsi-bility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, which heightenedborder enforcement; increased penalties fortransporting undocumented immigrants intothe United States; provided that noncitizen im-migrants, including legal permanent residents,could be detained or deported for a variety ofcrimes; implemented restrictions for employingillegal immigrants; and reduced the eligibilityof immigrants for federal welfare benefits. TheIIRIRA, in combination with the Antiterrorismand Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, alsogave local and state police authority to enforcecivil immigration laws.

Not satisfied with the federal responseto immigration, state and local govern-ments have passed unprecedented numbersof immigration-related laws and ordinances.As documented by the National Conference


Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


of State Legislatures, in 2005 a total of 300immigration-related bills were introduced, ofwhich 39 were enacted into law. Two yearslater, this tally had increased to more than1,500 bills presented, 228 of which were signedinto law. The high numbers have held rel-atively steady ever since, with a record highof 1,607 bills and resolutions introduced in2011, 306 of which were enacted (a slight de-crease from a high of 346 laws enacted in 2010)( Johnston & Morse 2011, Meyer et al. 2011).This flood of legislation and associated ballotinitiatives were designed to reduce the num-bers of immigrants in the United States, ei-ther through harsh criminal law and expandedlaw enforcement powers or by denying servicesand opportunities to undocumented persons forjobs, health care, in-state residency for collegetuition, and other services.

Economic Opportunity, Racial Threat,and Anti-Immigration Legislation

New research on anti-immigration policiesat the state and local levels suggests that thegreatest legislative activity and harshest lawsand ordinances may be in new destinationsites, such as Alabama, Georgia, and othersoutheastern states, and in places such asArizona and Utah, which had previously beenhome to some new immigrants but where thosenumbers have now swelled. In the Southeastand Midwest, the growth of meat-processingplants and other new industries creates eco-nomic opportunities that attract relatively largenumbers of immigrants. This benefits the localbusiness communities, but the rapid influx ofLatino immigrants alters the demographics ofsmall towns and suburbs, creating tensions overlanguage and cultural differences; generatingcompetition with the local population for jobsin informal sectors such as construction, land-scaping, and housekeeping; and increasing thedemand on the public sector (Fleury-Steiner& Longazel 2010, Furuseth & Smith 2010,Varsanyi 2010a). Similar economic and politi-cal contradictions can be found in places such asPhoenix, Arizona, where the business commu-nity aspires to make the city a global gateway

for commerce. At the same time, increased im-migration has fueled conflicts over low-payingjobs, and an underlying racial threat appears tounderscore some of the toughest new laws andpolicing practices (Provine 2010, Sinema 2012).

Arizona passed one of the nation’s harsh-est anti-immigration laws, SB 1070, in 2010.2

This was followed in 2011 by Alabama’s HB 56.Although the courts have since blocked partsof both laws, SB 1070 became a symbol forpublic and state-level frustration over immi-gration, authorizing local police to determineimmigration status during any lawful stop, re-quiring people to carry alien registration docu-ments, and permitting warrantless arrests if theoffense would make the person removable fromthe United States. Alabama followed suit withan even more punitive law requiring, amongother provisions, that police detain anyone whocannot produce proper documentation whenstopped for any reason if the police suspectthe person of being in the United States il-legally, and restricting undocumented immi-grants from accessing public benefits. In bothArizona and Alabama, critics have argued thatthe laws cannot be enforced without racial pro-filing, that they will deprive US citizen childrenof educational and health benefits to which theyare entitled, and that they will separate familiesand lead to the departure of many Latino work-ers. As we argue in the next section, these andother new laws passed during the recent legisla-tive surge have also made immigrants, and theircommunities, less safe.

THE FLIP SIDE OF CRIME:VICTIMIZATION OFIMMIGRANTS

Immigrants, and especially undocumentedimmigrants, are highly vulnerable to violence,

2On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court struck down threesections of the law, leaving only Section 2B standing. Section2B permits local law enforcement officers to verify the immi-gration status of persons stopped, detained, or arrested. Thecourt warned, however, that if this practice is found to resultin racial profiling or other civil rights violations, it would beunconstitutional (Arizona et al. v. U.S., 567 U.S. __ 2012).

146 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


abuse, and exploitation. Ironically, it appearsthat the laws and policies enacted in responseto the faulty fears that immigrants are dan-gerous contribute to their victimization bymaking immigrants, and other members oftheir communities, afraid to call on the policeor otherwise draw attention to themselves.This lack of protection from the criminaljustice system makes immigrants particularlyattractive targets for victimization.

Kittrie (2006) reminds us of JusticeBrennan’s statement, in Plyler v. Doe (1982,pp. 218–19 and n.18), that illegal migrantsconstitute a “‘shadow population’ . . . whosepresence is tolerated, whose employment isperhaps even welcomed, but who are virtuallydefenseless against any abuse, exploitation, orcallous neglect.” Extrapolating from estimatesof violent crime and estimated numbersof undocumented immigrant adults in theUnited States, Kittrie (2006) concludes thatundocumented immigrants are the victims ofat least 200,000 violent crimes and 1,000,000property crimes each year. Thus, three decadesafter Plyler, undocumented immigrants’ statusas deportable aliens continues to leave them“vulnerable to abuse and exploitation byspouses, common criminals, corrupt govern-ment officials, border vigilantes, unscrupulousemployers, and others” (Kittrie 2006, p. 1461).

We suggest that this vulnerability is exacer-bated by the political response to racialized anx-iety and fear of immigrants. We focus here onthree areas of vulnerability that we believe areintensified by aggressive anti-immigrant lawsand enforcement practices: entering the coun-try, working as day laborers and domestic work-ers, and violence in the home and communitysafety. These forms of victimization are by nomeans exhaustive and serve simply to highlightthe dangers faced by immigrants and to helpus consider whether and how the wave of anti-immigrant legislation has made immigrants andtheir communities even more vulnerable. And,as we discuss later, neither the anti-immigrationlegislation nor the vulnerability of immigrantsto exploitation, abuse, and violence is unique tothe United States.

Entering the Country: BorderDeaths, Human Trafficking, Violence,and Exploitation

Law enforcement practices and border con-trol policies designed to reduce the flow ofimmigrants into the United States have forcedmigrants to cross the border in remote areaswhere they are more likely to become lost andwhere the risk of death from dehydration, heatstroke, hypothermia, and drowning is height-ened (Andreas 2000, Bejarano 2007, Chavez2008, Cornelius 2001, Fan 2008, GAO 2006,Guerette 2007, Guerette & Clarke 2005, Kil& Menjıvar 2006, Massey et al. 2002, Nevins2008, Weber & Pickering 2011). One indicatorof increasingly dangerous border crossings isthe ratio of deaths relative to US Border Patrolapprehensions. This ratio rose steadily from1999 to 2009 on the US border with Mexico,except for a brief dip in 2004. In fiscal year (FY)1999, the Border Patrol reported 1.6 deaths per10,000 apprehensions. This figure increasedto 7.6 deaths per 10,000 apprehensions in FY2009, indicating that “even as apparently fewerindividuals have been entering the countryillegally over the past few years, the bordercrossing has become increasingly dangerousfor those that do attempt to cross into theUnited States illegally” (Haddal 2010, p. 27).The ratio of migrant deaths to apprehensionsis even more striking in the Border Patrol’sTucson, Arizona, sector, where 8.8 deathswere reported per 10,000 apprehensions inFY 2009 (McCombs 2009). These figuresprobably understate the actual number ofborder deaths because they include only thoseimmigrants whose bodies were recovered andnot skeletal remains, victims of car accidentsnear the border, or bodies found by local lawenforcement agencies (Haddal 2010, p. 27).

Not trusting the federal government toenforce the border, civilian vigilante groupshave taken up arms along the border as well(Doty 2009, Fan 2008). Kil & Menjıvar (2006)and Chavez (2008) analyze aggressive enforce-ment of the border in terms of an invasionmetaphor. Although subtly different from the


Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


moral panic linking immigration and crime,this metaphor feeds on the same racial threatposed by Latino immigrants “invading” USsociety and culture. Kil & Menjıvar (2006,p. 169) observe, “The war metaphor acts as afear-provoking signal, naturalizing racism andjustifying war strategies by creating an image ofthe nation as an innocent victim and an imageof undocumented immigrants as an enemy.”

In response to the greater risks associatedwith enhanced border enforcement strategies(Chacon 2010, Guerette & Clarke 2005),the business of transporting persons acrossthe border has transformed from small-scalesmuggling operations to organized traffickingschemes. Kidnappings, indentured servitudeto repay escalating costs en route, and otherforms of violence and exploitation have becomerelatively routine elements of this trafficking.Human trafficking networks differ fundamen-tally from human smuggling practices in whicha smuggler or coyote would bring perhaps adozen people at a time across the border. Insuch cases, the person being smuggled has afinancial and consensual agreement with thecoyote, and their relationship lasts only as longas the journey. In contrast, human traffickinginvolves “the exploitation of an alien who is be-ing transported by force, coercion or deceptionand for purposes of forced labor or prostitu-tion” (DiSanto 2007, p. 30). It is characterizedby operations in which large numbers ofimmigrants are crowded into vehicles and keptin squalid conditions in drop houses, eitheralong the route to sites throughout the UnitedStates or at those final destinations. In somecases, what begins as smuggling may turn intotrafficking when migrants are held against theirwill and threatened with physical violence orforced into indentured servitude or prostitutionwhile money is extorted from family membersin return for their safe release (Chacon 2010,Kil et al. 2009, Maricopa Cty. Atty.’s Off. 2008).

In response to limitations of existing lawand new enforcement strategies that have, per-haps inadvertently, promoted trafficking, theTrafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of2000 and reauthorizations in 2003, 2005, and

2008 were established to prevent traffickingin persons, identify methods of prosecutingtraffickers, assist victims, and monitor othernations’ responses to human trafficking. TheTVPA created a special T visa for victims ofhuman trafficking who assist law enforcementwith investigation and prosecution of traffick-ing cases (Chacon 2010). There is a cap of 5,000T visas allocated per year for individuals, notincluding visas for the recipients’ immediatefamily members. Yet for the five-year period2005–2009, a total of only 1,168 T visas wereapproved for individuals and another 925 forfamily members (USCIS 2010a). Althoughthe true extent of human trafficking remainsunknown, largely because individuals can betrafficked after entering the United States andbecause victims are afraid to come forward(Logan et al. 2009), this is clearly a smallernumber than the 5,000 visas annually that hadbeen anticipated when the law was passed.

Fear of deportation, distrust of law en-forcement officials, worry for one’s family,lack of knowledge about alternatives, andphysical and psychological confinement andisolation are some of the factors that keeppeople entrapped in human trafficking (Loganet al. 2009). These fears are compoundedby prosecutorial practices such as those inMaricopa County, Arizona, where a 2005 statelaw against human smuggling was interpretedas giving county attorneys license to prosecuteillegal immigrants “as conspirators to humansmuggling after they were discovered in a pairof furniture trucks” (DiSanto 2007, p. 37).The use of the conspiracy statute to arrest andprosecute illegal immigrants, rather than theirsmugglers, may be an unintended consequenceof the new law. Nevertheless, it was vigorouslyenforced by the Maricopa County Sheriff ’sOffice, and the County Attorney’s Officereported a 90% conviction rate for defendantscharged under these statutes (DiSanto 2007).

Violence Against and Exploitation ofDay Laborers and Domestic Workers

Another example of the specific vulnerabilityof undocumented immigrants concerns the

148 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


victimization of day laborers. Valenzuela et al.(2006) found that 49% of day laborers theysurveyed reported wage theft by employersand that 18% had been victimized by violentemployers, often in the context of confronta-tions over payment for work completed.

In addition to assaults, wage theft, andother forms of exploitation by employers, daylaborers are subject to violence and theft fromsmugglers and traffickers transporting themacross the border, US citizens who see themas taking away jobs, and other immigrantswith whom they are competing for work. Therisks of both violent assaults and theft are evengreater for day laborers with limited Englishlanguage skills and immigrants working inisolated conditions (Cepeda et al. 2012, Fussell2011, Guerette 2006, Valenzuela 2006, Walteret al. 2002). As Cepeda et al. (2012) concludefrom their study of Latino immigrant daylaborers in post-Katrina New Orleans, theserisks are also racialized, with clashes betweendisplaced African Americans and Latino daylaborers erupting into violence at times.Conflicts also arise among the immigrantpopulations, with Central Americans distrust-ing their Mexican coworkers due to violenceand theft they may have encountered ontheir journey through Mexico. These dangersappear to be especially great for immigrantsin new destination sites, where the socialsupports typical of traditional destinations arelimited or nonexistent. Vulnerability to abuseis further aggravated when immigrants arecorrectly perceived to be unlikely to report anyvictimization due to fears of the police and ofdeportation (Bauer 2009, Fussell 2011).

Like day laborers, janitors (Cranford2005); gardeners and landscapers (Ramırez& Hondagneu-Sotelo 2009); nannies, maids,and caregivers (Chang 2000; Ehrenreich &Hochschild 2002; Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994,2001); and others working in informal sectorjobs have few resources and can be easilyexploited and abused. Due to their precariousstatus, they often have to put in long hours;work at a fast pace; accept late, partial, and mea-ger payments; endure harassment; and tolerate

violations of labor laws. For women workingbehind the closed doors of others’ homes, therisks are even greater because they are alsovulnerable to sexual assaults by their employers.

Violence in the Homeand Community Safety

One of the most serious underreported formsof victimization among immigrants, and par-ticularly undocumented immigrants, is inti-mate partner violence (Erez et al. 2009, Erez& Globokar 2009, Erez & Hartley 2003,Gillis et al. 2006, Menjıvar & Bejarano 2004,Menjıvar & Salcido 2002, Salcido & Adelman2004, Vidales 2010). Many factors converge toexplain this underreporting, including lack ofknowledge about battering laws and availableresources, fear of arrest and deportation, loss ofindividual or familial economic support fromthe abusive partner, isolation, pressure fromother family members not to report the abuse,fear of retribution, and language difficulties.

A number of studies involving immigrantsfrom Latin America, Asia, and other parts ofthe world have found that when the abuseris a citizen or legal resident and his partneris not, the batterer will use the victim’simmigration status against her, threateningto call immigration authorities or withdrawpetitions for citizenship if she calls the police(Erez & Globokar 2009, Menjıvar & Salcido2002, Morash et al. 2007). In states with dualarrest policies for domestic violence, the risksof deportation are exacerbated under the 1996immigration laws. This is especially horrifyingfor women whose children are US citizensbecause the violent partner may be granted solecustody of the children if she is deported, thuspotentially putting the children at risk and per-manently separating the victim of abuse fromher children. For these women, the dual vul-nerabilities of being undocumented and beingabused interact in powerful and scary ways.

The Violence Against Women Act II of2000 created a special category of visa, the Uvisa, for undocumented immigrants who havesuffered substantial physical or mental abuse asa result of being the victim of certain specified


Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


crimes and who have assisted authorities in in-vestigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet itwas not until 2008 that U visas were approved,and only in FY 2010 did the US Citizenship andImmigration Service allocate the full 10,000 Uvisas permitted annually (USCIS 2010b). Thus,similar to the T visa for victims of human traf-ficking, the reality is that few women and chil-dren are in a position where they can benefitfrom these visas.

More generally, laws and policies involvinglocal police in immigration enforcementhave thwarted community policing and otherefforts to cultivate improved relations withcommunities that include significant numbersof immigrants. Language and cultural barriers,distrust and misunderstandings of the UScriminal justice system, fear of deportation,and concern over losing custody of children allexacerbate the problem of nonreporting (Daviset al. 2001, Davis & Henderson 2003, Provineet al. 2012, Skogan 2009). Davis & Henderson(2003) draw on Sampson and colleagues’ (1997)studies of community efficacy to shed additionallight on patterns of underreporting of crime byimmigrants. They find that “underreportingwas especially acute in ethnic communitiesthat were poorly organized and disenfran-chised from the local power structure” (Davis &Henderson 2003, p. 568), suggesting that crimerates decrease when immigrant communitieshave more power and are better integrated intothe local political structure. In contrast, whenresidents do not believe that police will helpthem, they are less likely to cooperate with orcall upon authorities for assistance.

Although recent studies have begun lookingat factors that may modify the protective ef-fects of immigration on crime, with particularattention to whether the study site is a newor traditional gateway for immigrants, fewvictimization studies have explicitly addressedthis issue. In new destination sites where ethnicenclaves have not been fully developed, whereinstitutional support for immigrants is weak,and where the criminal justice system has hadlimited interactions with immigrants, thenvictims’ reluctance to report domestic abuse, or

any crime, may be intensified. A recent studyby Sokoloff & Pearce (2011) supports this ex-pectation. They examine awareness of intimatepartner violence in the new gateway city ofBaltimore, Maryland, finding that immigrants(who may or may not have been victims of abusethemselves) expressed a preference for informalsupport systems (e.g., family, friends) as a firstline of outreach in cases of abuse. Sokoloff &Pearce suggest that this may be indicative of“the investment of trust that new immigrants inparticular may place in co-ethnics in contrast toa new public system” (p. 261). Similarly, a studyconducted by Wright & Benson (2010) high-lights the impact that immigrant concentrationmay have on victimization. They examine therelationship between immigration and intimatepartner violence, finding that neighborhoodswith large immigrant populations have lowerlevels of violence between partners, perhapsbecause the women are less isolated.

Research on day laborers in New Orleansby Cepeda et al. (2012), discussed above,provides insights into the many reasons whyCentral American immigrants do not trust thatthe police will come to their aid when theyare victimized, including the lack of supportthey receive from local law enforcement andtheir experiences with police in their homecountries. These fears are compounded byracial antagonisms and a lack of institutionalsupports for immigrants, both of whichfurther contribute to violent victimizationand exploitation. These studies suggest theimportance of the type of destination site toexperiences of victimization, but additionalresearch is needed to tease out the potentialmechanisms through which the type of destina-tion site affects victimization; the role of localpolice and the extent to which they enforce—orare perceived to enforce—immigration law;and the effects of local, state, and federal lawsand policies on risks of victimization.

GLOBAL PATTERNS ANDDISCONTINUITIES

The patterns discussed above have beendocumented most extensively in the United

150 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


States. Although there is a large literature onimmigration and globalization, unauthorizedimmigration has only emerged as a seriousconcern among European and other wealthynations in the past two or three decades(Calavita 2005; Sassen 1998, 1999). Thus, it isnot surprising that studies from other parts ofthe world suggest some similarities and somediscontinuities when compared with the UnitedStates. As De Genova (2002, p. 424) observes,“The recent proliferation and acceleration oftransnational migration has involved the globalemergence of a variety of sociohistoricallydistinct undocumented migrations as well as aconcomitant variety of sociohistorically partic-ular configurations of migrant ‘illegality.’”

For our purposes, Spain and Italy are partic-ularly interesting given their recent transitionfrom sending countries for poor emigrants insearch of work to major destination points fornew immigrants from Africa, eastern and cen-tral Europe, Latin America, and Asia (Bonifaziet al. 2009, Calavita 2005, Melossi et al. 2009,Reher & Requena 2009). Both countries passedtheir first comprehensive immigration lawsin the mid-1980s—Spain in 1985 and Italy in1986. Calavita (1998) draws attention to theparadoxical role of law in Spain’s immigrationpolicy, arguing that although Spanish lawhas symbolically incorporated immigrants, itsnumerous regulations marginalize immigrantsand cause them to fall in and out of regularstatus. She suggests that the dynamics of racial-ization and exclusion, and the economic roleplayed by immigrants, are very similar in theUnited States, Spain, and Italy, despite differ-ences in their history and political structures.

Two differences in the relationship betweenimmigration and crime in these southernEuropean nations, compared with the UnitedStates, become immediately apparent, how-ever. First, immigrants are far more likely tobe incarcerated in Europe than in the UnitedStates. In the United States, the incarcerationrate for native-born men aged 18–39 in 2000was five times higher than the incarcerationrate for foreign-born men in the same agebracket; and among Hispanic men, those born

in the United States were almost seven timesmore likely to be incarcerated than foreign-born men (Rumbaut & Ewing 2007, p. 6). Incontrast, Melossi et al. (2009, p. 49) report,“Whereas the percentage of ‘noncitizens’ inprison in the United States . . . is generally lessthan the number of noncitizens in the generalpopulation, in Europe the overrepresentationof non-EU citizens in prison is between 4 and15 times their share of the general population.”Similarly, Calavita (2005, p. 139) finds that inSpain the proportion of the prison populationthat is foreign is more than 25 times theproportion of immigrants in the country.Further, she reports that 25% of the Italianprison population and 50% of detained minorsin Italy are immigrants (Calavita 2005, p. 99).

Barbagli & Colombo (2009, p. 70) note,“In the last 20 years in Italy, the proportion ofall foreigners charged with crime increased byfactors of three to six times for six offenses.”Most of the immigrants charged with criminalactivity, they observe, are from Romania,Albania, and Morocco and primarily victimizeother immigrants. Barbagli & Colombo alsoobserve that “irregular” (i.e., unauthorized)immigrants are especially likely to be chargedwith instrumental crimes such as pickpocket-ing, car theft, burglary, purse snatching, androbbery, and they are somewhat more likelythan “regular” immigrants to be involved withviolent offenses (p. 72). The positive correla-tion between immigration and crime has alsobeen reported in recent years in Switzerland,where Killias (2009) states that the negativecorrelation between immigration and crimereversed in the 1980s, and immigration becameassociated with increased rates of violent crime.

Yet Calavita (2005, p. 139) urges caution inreading some of the European crime statistics,as many of those incarcerated in Spain, forexample, are detained for administrativeviolations such as not having a residencepermit. And she notes that in the late 1990s,immigration rates increased while crime ratesdecreased significantly in Italy, and to a lesserextent in Spain, similar to the pattern in theUnited States. Thus, she calls for a more


Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


nuanced explanation for the high incarcerationrates of immigrants, one in which the sym-bolic politics of lawmaking, the dynamics ofracialization and exclusion, and the contradic-tions of capitalist development under condi-tions of neoliberalism are better understood.

Another discontinuity between the UnitedStates and Europe is seen in the relationshipbetween crime and second-generation immi-grants. In the United States, the protectiveeffect of immigration appears to wear off forthe immigrants’ children and grandchildren,as second- and third-generation immigrantshave crime rates quite similar to those of otheryouth living in economically disadvantagedareas (Martınez & Valenzuela 2006, Rumbaut& Ewing 2007, Stowell 2007). In contrast,Melossi et al. (2009) suggest that in Europe,and particularly in southern Europe, thesecond generation is less at risk than first-generation immigrants. Canada’s experienceis also instructive. Toronto, Canada, has longbeen a destination site for immigrants, butit is only in recent years that immigrationfrom Asia, Africa, and other non-Europeancountries has grown substantially. Perhapsthat is why Dinovitzer et al. (2009) find thatfirst- and second-generation immigrant youthengaged in fewer delinquent acts than nativeyouth and also that they engaged in fewer actsof illegality than did their predecessors 20 yearsearlier.

Several factors might explain these differ-ences. First, recalling Velez & Lyons’s (2012)finding that the protective effect of immigra-tion in the United States is greatest in tradi-tional destination sites and less strong or nullin newer destination sites, southern Europe isa relatively new destination site. Accordingly,there is likely little infrastructure to supportimmigrants, such as established ethnic enclavesthat provide jobs, churches and mosques, andso forth. The reasons for emigrating, whethersingle workers or the entire family migrate, andthe extent to which racial and religious antago-nisms arise in the destination site are also factorsthat may well differentiate immigrants’ experi-ences of crime and victimization.

Second, as Calavita (1998, 2005) points out,a multitude of new laws and regulations hasmeant that immigrants to Italy and Spain movein and out of irregular status, and this likelyaffects the economic opportunities available tothem. Additionally, Italy has a sizable informaleconomy that attracts large numbers of unau-thorized immigrants but that also may createan environment conducive to crime (Barbagli& Colombo 2009).

Third, immigration, crime, and race havebecome intertwined in many parts of the world.In the United States, it is African Americanswho have historically been a criminalized andracialized underclass, and their high rates ofincarceration are one reflection of this history.Although immigrants to the United Statesare feared and criminalized, their incarcera-tion rates do not approach those of AfricanAmericans. In Spain and Italy, however, thecriminalization and racialization of immigrantsin many ways mirror those of African Ameri-cans in the United States, and the incarcerationrates of these immigrants reflect this pattern.3

As Calavita (2005, p. 138–39) observes in bothSpain and Italy, “Crime and public safety areprominent themes, and are often transparentlyracialized. Photographs of a North Africanlurking behind a doorway holding a long knife,or bedraggled sub-Saharan Africans standingbeside their ‘patera’ in handcuffs, are ominousimages to people already predisposed to fearimmigrants as criminal.”

In Australia (Makkai & Taylor 2009), as inthe United States (McDonald 2009a), thereis also substantial concern that conflatingimmigration and crime has created a climatein which racially motivated hate crime canflourish. Australia has also experienced a moralpanic about immigration, and immigrantsreport higher levels of fear of crime than donative Australians and are more likely thannatives to view their victimization as racially

3Our thanks to Kitty Calavita for suggesting this potentialexplanation for the higher incarceration rates of immigrantsin Spain and Italy than in the United States.

152 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


motivated (Makkai & Taylor 2009, Weber &Pickering 2011, Welch 2012).

The moral panic about immigration andcrime in Australia, however, focuses on asylumseekers (Pickering 2001, 2005), whereas in theUnited States the criminalization-racializationnexus emphasizes the threat posed by Mexicanlaborers and their families. Yet the vulnerabilityof immigrants manifests in similar ways in bothcountries. For example, entering the countryhas become far more dangerous for immigrantsreaching Australia by sea, as recent border en-forcement practices have forced immigrants tomake the crossing and come ashore in moretreacherous areas (Weber & Pickering 2011).And, as is the case in the United States, immi-grant women in Australia are afraid to call onthe police, thus increasing their vulnerability tointimate partner violence (Weber 2012).

Finally, and again similar to what isseen in the United States, the EuropeanUnion’s Agency for Fundamental Rights re-ports gender- and race-based discrimination,exploitation, and violence against irregular(i.e., undocumented) day laborers and domes-tic workers (EU FRA 2011). Based on inter-views with immigrants and persons workingin civil society organizations and trade unionsin 10 member states, they document viola-tions of fair working conditions including fairrates of pay, withholding pay, health issues andsick leave, compensation for work accidents,the right to rest periods, and lodging for live-in workers; unjustified dismissals; lack of ac-cess to courts and other means of redressinggrievances; and sexual and physical abuse byemployers. Instances of nonpayment of irregu-lar workers occurred in all 10 countries studied,and, as in the United States, those victimizedtended not to report violations to authoritiesdue to fear of expulsion (EU FRA 2011).

CONCLUSIONS

The demonization and racialization of immi-grants have historically been central elementsin the rhetoric surrounding US immigrationpolicy. Undocumented Latino immigrants are

portrayed as especially dangerous—as sneak-ing into the country, committing crimes, andstealing jobs. The reality, however, as demon-strated in scores of studies, is that immigrationserves a protective function, decreasing neigh-borhood crime rates. Regardless of this reality,the moral panic that has resulted from conflat-ing immigration and crime finds its solution inunprecedented levels of federal, state, and lo-cal anti-immigrant legislation and in intensifiedenforcement, both at the border and within theinterior of the country. We take the argument astep further, suggesting that the anti-immigrantfervor and harsh new laws are making immi-grants and their communities less safe.

To better understand these linkages, wehave explored some of the nuances suggestedby recent studies of crime and victimizationin traditional and new destination sites. Re-search is beginning to suggest that the pro-tective effects of immigration on crime, andespecially violent crime, are greatest in tradi-tional receiving communities with large con-centrations of immigrants. In such sites, ethnicenclaves and institutionalized support systemscan help newcomers become established, andthe new arrivals replenish and revitalize culturaland social ties. We have also drawn attention tothe multiple ways in which recent immigrationlaws have made immigrants more vulnerable toexploitation and violence and have reinforcedand reconstructed racial difference and exclu-sion. Further, these vulnerabilities appear to bepatterned, with women and the poorest, least-skilled immigrants at greatest risk of victimiza-tion. Here, too, there is a growing consensusthat the risks of victimization are greatest in newdestination sites, where there are fewer supportsfor immigrants and immigrants may be moreisolated. Finally, we have considered some ofthe available literature on immigration, crime,and victimization in other parts of the worldto see if the patterns we have identified in theUnited States hold in other nations as well.

Like Calavita (2005, 2007), Kubrin et al.(2012), Ngai (2004), Provine & Doty (2011),Weber & Pickering (2011), and others, wehave argued that law is deeply implicated


Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


in the racialization, economic marginal-ization, and demonization of immigrants.And, we would add, law and legality are alsoimplicated in the greater vulnerability ofimmigrants to violence and exploitation.Consistent with Coutin’s (2011) and DeGenova’s (2002) analyses of the everyday mak-ings of migrant illegality, we have suggestedthat there is an everyday nature to immigrants’susceptibility to the excesses of law and tothe enforcement practices that make themparticularly vulnerable.

Our brief consideration of the relationshipsamong immigration, crime, and victimizationoutside of the United States has raised as manyquestions as answers. Why are incarcerationrates—and in at least some studies, crimerates—for the foreign-born higher in southernEurope with increased immigration, contraryto findings in the United States? Is it becausethese nations have only recently become desti-nation sites for immigrants? Or is it an artifactof the broader range of reasons for detentionin these countries compared with the UnitedStates, or of the widespread opportunities

for crime offered by the informal economy?Alternatively, does the criminalization andracialization of immigrants in Spain and Italymore closely mirror that of African Americansthan immigrants in the United States? How doother nations compare?

Future research should examine possibleracialized and gendered ramifications of newlaws that deny bail to immigrants, require lo-cal police to enforce immigration laws, andmandate that landlords, health professionals,and educators verify citizenship status prior toproviding services. Additional research is alsoneeded to assess whether the new enforcementpractices that are making entry by sea intoSpain, Italy, Greece, and Australia more diffi-cult and dangerous are also increasing humantrafficking practices in those sites, as we haveseen in the United States. Finally, we urge fur-ther research on whether traditional destinationsites serve as a buffer, protecting immigrantsfrom victimization as well as reducing crime,and whether the harshest immigration laws arefound in new destination sites, where the racialthreat may be greatest.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Kitty Calavita for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this review.

LITERATURE CITED

Altheide D. 2006. Terrorism and the Politics of Fear. Lanham, MD: AltamiraAndreas P. 2000. Border Games: Policing the US-Mexico Divide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. PressBarbagli M, Colombo A. 2009. Immigrants as authors and victims of crime: the Italian experience. See

McDonald 2009b, pp. 69–94Bauer M. 2009. Under Siege: Life for Low-Income Latinos in the South. Montgomery, AL: South. Poverty Law

Cent.Bejarano C. 2007. Senseless deaths and holding the line. Criminol. Public Policy 6:267–74Bonifazi D, Heins F, Strozza S, Vitiello M. 2009. Italy: the Italian transition from an emigration to immigration

country. IDEA Work. Pap. No. 5. http://www.idea6fp.uw.edu.pl/pliki/WP5_Italy.pdfButcher K, Piehl A. 1998. Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime. J. Policy

Anal. Manag. 17:457–93

154 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Calavita K. 1984. U.S. Immigration Law and the Control of Labor: 1820–1924. Orlando, FL: AcademicCalavita K. 1998. Immigration, law, and marginalization: notes from Spain. Law Soc. Rev. 32:529–66Calavita K. 2000. The paradoxes of race, class, identity, and “passing”: enforcing the Chinese Exclusion Acts,

1882–1910. Law Soc. Inq. 24(1):1–40Calavita K. 2005. Immigrants at the Margins: Law, Race, and Exclusion in Southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge

Univ. PressCalavita K. 2007. Immigration law, race, and identity. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3:1–20Cepeda A, Negi N, Nowotny K, Arango J, Kaplan C, Valdez A. 2012. Social stressors, special vulnerabilities

and violence victimization among Latino immigrant day laborers in post Katrina New Orleans. SeeKubrin et al. 2012, pp. 207–31

Chacon J. 2010. Tensions and tradeoffs: protecting trafficking victims in the era of immigration enforcement.Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 158:1609–53

Chang G. 2000. Disposable Domestics: Immigrant Women Workers in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: SouthEnd

Chavez L. 2008. The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniv. Press

Cohen S. 1972. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: McGibbon & KeeCornelius W. 2001. Death at the border: efficacy and unintended consequences of US immigration control

policy. Popul. Dev. Rev. 27:661–85Coutin S. 2011. The rights of noncitizens in the United States. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 7:289–308Cranford C. 2005. Networks of exploitation: immigrant labor and the restructuring of the Los Angeles jani-

torial industry. Soc. Probl. 52:379–97Davis R, Erez E, Avitabile N. 2001. Access to justice for immigrants who are victimized: the perspectives of

police and prosecutors. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 12:183–96Davis R, Henderson N. 2003. Willingness to report crimes: the role of ethnic group membership and com-

munity efficacy. Crime Delinq. 49:564–80De Genova N. 2002. Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 31:419–47Desmond S, Kubrin C. 2009. The power of place: immigrant communities and adolescent violence. Sociol. Q.

50:581–607Dinovitzer R, Hagan J, Levi R. 2009. Immigration and youthful illegalities in a global edge city. Soc. Forces

88:337–72DiSanto C. 2007. Alien smuggling along the Arizona-Mexico border: federal and state responses. Ariz. Atty.

43:29–32, 37Doty RL. 2009. The Law into Their Own Hands: Immigration and the Politics of Exceptionalism. Tucson: Univ.

Ariz. PressEhrenreich B, Hochschild AR, eds. 2002. Global Women: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy.

New York: Henry HoltErez E, Adelman M, Gregory C. 2009. Intersections of immigration and domestic violence: voices of battered

immigrant women. Fem. Criminol. 4:32–56Erez E, Globokar J. 2009. Compounding vulnerabilities: the impact of immigration status and circumstances

on battered immigrant women. See McDonald 2009b, pp. 129–45Erez E, Hartley C. 2003. Battered immigrant women and the legal system: a therapeutic jurisprudence per-

spective. West. Criminol. Rev. 4:155–69European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (EU FRA). 2011. Migrants in an Irregular Situation Employed

in Domestic Work: Fundamental Rights Challenges for the European Union and Its Member States. Luxembourg:Publ. Off. Eur. Union

Fan M. 2008. When deterrence and death mitigation fall short: fantasy and fetishes as gap-fillers in borderregulation. Law Soc. Rev. 42:701–33

Fink E. 2008. Liars and terrorists and judges, oh my: moral panic and the symbolic politics of appellate reviewin asylum cases. Notre Dame Law Rev. 83(5): 2019–44

Fleury-Steiner B, Longazel J. 2010. Neoliberalism, community development, and anti-immigrant backlash inHazleton, Pennsylvania. See Varsanyi 2010b, pp. 157–72


Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Furuseth O, Smith H. 2010. Localized immigration policy: the view from Charlotte, North Carolina, a newimmigrant gateway. See Varsanyi 2010b, pp. 173–91

Fussell E. 2011. The deportation threat dynamic and victimization of Latino migrants: wage theft and robbery.Sociol. Q. 52:593–615

Gardner M. 2005. The Qualities of a Citizen: Women, Immigration, and Citizenship: 1870–1965. Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ. Press

Gillis J, Diamond S, Jebely P, Orekhovsky V, Ostovich E, et al. 2006. Systemic obstacles to battered women’sparticipation in the judicial system: When will the status quo change? Violence Against Women 12:1150–68

Gomez L. 2007. Manifest Destinies: The Making of the Mexican American Race. New York: New York Univ.Press

Goode E, Ben-Yehuda N. 1994. Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Malden, MA: BlackwellGov. Account. Off. (GAO). 2006. Illegal Immigration: Border-Crossing Deaths Have Doubled Since 1995; Border

Patrol’s Efforts to Prevent Deaths Have Not Been Fully Evaluated. Washington, DC: US Gov. Account. Off.Guerette R. 2006. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Washington, DC: Dep. Justice, Off. Community Oriented

Polic. Serv. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/publications/e09061311.pdfGuerette R. 2007. Immigration policy, border security, and migrant deaths: an impact evaluation of life-saving

efforts under the border safety initiative. Criminol. Public Policy 6:245–66Guerette R, Clarke R. 2005. Border enforcement, organized crime, and deaths of smuggled migrants on the

United States-Mexico border. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 11:159–74Haddal CC. 2010. Border security: the role of the U.S. Border Patrol. CRS Rep. Congr. 7-5700 RL32562,

Congr. Res. Serv., Washington, DC. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL32562.pdfHagan J, Levi R, Dinovitzer R. 2008. The symbolic violence of the crime-immigration nexus: migrant mytholo-

gies in the Americas. Criminol. Public Policy 7:95–112Hagan J, Palloni A. 1999. Sociological criminology and the mythology of Hispanic immigration and crime.

Soc. Probl. 46:617–32Hondagneu-Sotelo P. 1994. Regulating the unregulated? Domestic workers’ social networks. Soc. Probl. 41:50–

64Hondagneu-Sotelo P. 2001. Domestica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence.

Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressHoward Fisher Capitol Media Serv. 2011. Both Brewer, Pearce call SB 1070 a success. Ariz. Daily Star, Apr. 18.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_a3cf2637-d420-5e4a-83c1-f8a80449ac46.html#ixzz1flt3xZD1

Johnston G, Morse A. 2011. 2010 Immigration-Related Laws and Resolutions in the States ( January 1–December 31, 2010). NCSL Immigr. Policy Rep., Natl. Conf. State Legis., Washington, DC. http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/2010-immigration-related-laws-and-resolutions-in-t.aspx

Kil S, Menjıvar C. 2006. The “war on the border”: criminalizing immigrants and militarizing the U.S.-Mexicoborder. See Martınez & Valenzuela 2006, pp. 164–88

Kil S, Menjıvar C, Doty R. 2009. Securing borders: patriotism, vigilantism and the brutalization of the USAmerican public. See McDonald 2009b, pp. 297–312

Killias M. 2009. Paradise lost? New trends in crime and migration in Switzerland. SeeMcDonald 2009b, pp. 33–45

Kittrie O. 2006. Federalism, deportation, and crime victims afraid to call the police. Iowa Law Rev. 91:1449–508Kubrin C, Ousey G. 2009. Immigration and homicide in urban America: What’s the connection? See Mc-

Donald 2009b, pp. 17–32Kubrin C, Zatz M, Martınez R, eds. 2012. Punishing Immigrants: Policy, Politics, and Injustice. New York: New

York Univ. PressLee M. 2003. Crime on the Border: Immigration and Homicide in Urban Communities. New York: LFB ScholarlyLee M, Martınez R. 2009. Immigration reduces crime: an emerging scholarly consensus. See McDonald

2009b, pp. 3–16Logan TK, Walker R, Hunt G. 2009. Understanding human trafficking in the United States. Trauma Violence

Abuse 10:3–30Makkai T, Taylor N. 2009. Immigrants as victims of crime: the Australian experience. See McDonald 2009b,

pp. 69–94

156 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Maricopa Cty. Atty.’s Off. 2008. Illegal Immigration. Phoenix, AZ: Maricopa Cty. Atty.’s Off.Martınez R. 2002. Latino Homicide: Immigration, Violence and Community. New York: RoutledgeMartınez R, Lee M. 2000. On immigration and crime. In Criminal Justice 2000, Vol. 1. The Nature of Crime:

Continuity and Change, ed. G LaFree, pp. 485–524. Washington, DC: US Dep. JusticeMartınez R, Stowell J, Cancino J. 2008. A tale of two border cities: community context, ethnicity, and homicide.

Soc. Sci. Q. 89:1–16Martınez R, Valenzuela A, eds. 2006. Immigration and Crime: Race, Ethnicity and Violence. New York: New

York Univ. PressMassey D, ed. 2008. New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. New York:

Russell Sage Found.Massey D, Durand J, Malone N. 2002. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic

Integration. New York: Russell Sage Found.McCombs B. 2009. No signs of letup in entrant deaths. Ariz. Daily Star, Dec 27. http://azstarnet.com/news/

local/border/article_faf5b437-b728-527b-9eb8-77977d0cdf84.htmlMcDonald W. 2009a. Adding insult to injury: the unintended consequences for immigrants of hate crime

legislation. See McDonald 2009b, pp. 163–85McDonald W, ed. 2009b. Immigration, Crime and Justice. New York: EmeraldMears D. 2001. The immigration-crime nexus: toward an analytic framework for assessing and guiding theory,

research, and policy. Sociol. Perspect. 44:1–19Melossi D, De Giorgi A, Massa E. 2009. The ‘normality’ of ‘second generations’ in Italy and the importance

of legal status: a self-report delinquency study. See McDonald 2009b, pp. 47–65Menjıvar C, Bejarano C. 2004. Latino immigrants’ perceptions of crime and police authorities in the United

States: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan area. Ethnic Racial Stud. 27:120–48Menjıvar C, Salcido O. 2002. Immigrant women and domestic violence: common experiences in different

countries. Gender Soc. 15:898–920Meyer B, Segreto J, Carter A, Morse A. 2011. 2011 Immigration-related laws and resolutions in the

states ( Jan. 1–Dec. 7, 2011). NCSL Immigr. Policy Rep., Natl. Conf. State Legis., Washington, DC.http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/immig/state-immigration-legislation-report-dec-2011.aspx

Mirande A. 1987. Gringo Justice. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame PressMorash M, Bui H, Zhang Y, Holtfreter K. 2007. Risk factors for abusive relationships: a study of Vietnamese

American immigrant women. Violence Against Women 13:653–75Nevins J. 2008. Dying to Live: A Story of U.S. Immigration in an Age of Global Apartheid. San Francisco: City

LightsNewton L. 2008. Illegal, Alien, or Immigrant: The Politics of Immigration Reform. New York: New York Univ.

PressNgai M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Univ. PressOusey G, Kubrin C. 2009. Exploring the connection between immigration and violent crime rates in U.S.

cities, 1980–2000. Soc. Probl. 56:447–73Passell J, Cohn D. 2009. A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Pew

Res. Cent. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1190/portrait-unauthorized-immigrants-statesPickering S. 2001. Common sense and original deviancy: news discourses and asylum seekers in Australia.

J. Refugee Stud. 14:169–86Pickering S. 2005. Refugees and State Crime. Sydney: FederationPlyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)Provine DM. 2010. Local immigration policy and global ambitions in Vancouver and Phoenix. See Varsanyi

2010b, pp. 217–35Provine DM, Doty RL. 2011. The criminalization of immigrants as a racial project. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice

27:261–77Provine DM, Varsanyi M, Lewis P, Decker S. 2012. Growing tensions between civic membership and en-

forcement in the devolution of immigration control. See Kubrin et al. 2012, pp. 42–61Ramırez H, Hondagneu-Sotelo P. 2009. Mexican immigrant gardeners: entrepreneurs or exploited workers?

Soc. Probl. 56:70–88


Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Reher D, Requena M. 2009. The national immigrant survey of Spain: a new data source for migration studiesin Europe. Demogr. Res. 20:253–78

Reid L, Weiss H, Adelman R, Jaret C. 2005. The immigration-crime relationship: evidence across U.S.metropolitan areas. Soc. Sci. Res. 34:757–80

Rumbaut R, Ewing W. 2007. The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: IncarcerationRates Among Native and Foreign-Born Men. Washington, DC: Am. Immigr. Law Found.

Salcido O, Adelman M. 2004. “He has me tied with the blessed and damned papers”: undocumented-immigrantbattered women in Phoenix, Arizona. Hum. Organ. 63:162–72

Sampson R. 2008. Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts 7:28–33Sampson R, Morenoff J, Raudenbush S. 2005. Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence.

Am. J. Public Health 95:224–32Sampson R, Raudenbush S, Earls F. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective

efficacy. Science 277:918–24Sassen S. 1998. Globalization and its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money. New York: New

PressSassen S. 1999. Guests and Aliens. New York: New PressSinema K. 2012. No surprises: the evolution of anti-immigration legislation in Arizona. See Kubrin et al.

2012, pp. 62–88Skogan W. 2009. Policing immigrant communities in the United States. See McDonald 2009b, pp. 180–203Sokoloff N, Pearce S. 2011. Intersections, immigration, and partner violence: a view from a new gateway—

Baltimore, Maryland. Women Crim. Justice 21:250–66Stowell J. 2007. Immigration and Crime: Considering the Direct and Indirect Effects of Immigration on Violent

Criminal Behavior. New York: LFB ScholarlyStowell J, Messner S, McGeever K, Raffalovich L. 2009. Immigration and the recent violent crime drop in the

United States: a pooled, cross-sectional time-series analysis of metropolitan areas. Criminology 47:889–928Tonry M. 1997. Ethnicity, crime and immigration. Crime Justice 21:1–29Unif. Crime Report. (UCR) Stats. 2012. Estimated Crime in Arizona, 1960–2010. Washington, DC: US Dep.

JusticeUS Citizsh. Immigr. Serv. (USCIS). 2010a. USCIS National Stakeholder January Meeting. http://www.

uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=74adc3531a176210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=994f81c52aa38210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

US Citizsh. Immigr. Serv. (USCIS). 2010b. USCIS reaches milestone: 10,000 U visas approved infiscal year 2010. News Release, July 15. http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=5d5d58a734cd9210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

Valenzuela A. 2006. New immigrants and day labor: the potential for violence. See Martınez & Valenzuela2006, pp. 189–211

Valenzuela A, Theodore N, Melendez E, Gonzalez A. 2006. On the Corner: Day Labor in the U.S. Los Angeles:Univ. Calif. Los Angeles Cent. Study Urban Poverty

Varsanyi M. 2010a. Immigration policy activism in U.S. states and cities: interdisciplinary perspectives. SeeVarsanyi 2010b, pp. 1–27

Varsanyi M, ed. 2010b. Taking Local Control: Immigration Policy Activism in U.S. Cities and States. Stanford, CA:Stanford Univ. Press

Velez M. 2009. Contextualizing the immigration and crime effect: an analysis of homicide in Chicago neigh-borhoods. Homicide Stud. 13:325–35

Velez M, Lyons C. 2012. Situating the immigration and neighborhood crime relationship across multiplecities. See Kubrin et al. 2012, pp. 159–77

Vidales G. 2010. Arrested justice: the multifaceted plight of immigrant Latinas who faced domestic violence.J. Fam. Violence 25:533–44

Walter N, Bourgois P, Loinaz M, Schillinger D. 2002. Social context of work injury among undocumentedday laborers in San Francisco. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 17:221–29

158 Zatz · Smith

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Weber L. 2012. Policing a world in motion. In Borders and Crime: Pre-crime, Mobility and Serious Harm in anAge of Globalization, ed. J McCulloch, S Pickering. London: Palgrave Macmillan. In press

Weber L, Pickering S. 2011. Globalization and Borders: Death at the Global Frontier. Basingstoke, UK: PalgraveMacmillan

Welch M. 2003. Ironies of social control and the criminalization of immigrants. Crime Law Soc. Change39:319–37

Welch M. 2012. Panic, risk, control: conceptualizing threats in a post-9/11 society. See Kubrin et al. 2012,pp. 17–41

Wright E, Benson M. 2010. Immigration and intimate partner violence: exploring the immigrant paradox.Soc. Probl. 57:480–503

Zuniga V, Hernandez-Leon R, eds. 2005. New Destinations: Mexican Immigration in the United States.New York: Russell Sage Found.


Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

LS08-Frontmatter ARI 5 October 2012 12:49

Annual Review ofLaw and SocialScience

Volume 8, 2012Contents

Legacies of Legal Realism: The Sociology of Criminal Law andCriminal JusticeJerome H. Skolnick � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Mass Imprisonment and Inequality in Health and Family LifeChristopher Wildeman and Christopher Muller � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �11

After Critical Legal History: Scope, Scale, StructureChristopher Tomlins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �31

Paying Attention to What Judges Say: New Directions in the Studyof Judicial Decision MakingKeith J. Bybee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �69

Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understandingof Moral Judgment and DishonestyMax H. Bazerman and Francesca Gino � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Varieties of Transition from Authoritarianism to DemocracyJirı Priban � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

Substance, Scale, and Salience: The Recent Historiographyof Human RightsSamuel Moyn � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 123

Immigration, Crime, and Victimization: Rhetoric and RealityMarjorie S. Zatz and Hilary Smith � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 141

Emotion and the LawSusan A. Bandes and Jeremy A. Blumenthal � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 161

Law, Environment, and the “Nondismal” Social SciencesWilliam Boyd, Douglas A. Kysar, and Jeffrey J. Rachlinski � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 183

BullyingEve M. Brank, Lori A. Hoetger, and Katherine P. Hazen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 213

Pro Se LitigationStephan Landsman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

v

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

LS08-Frontmatter ARI 5 October 2012 12:49

Regulating Sex Work: Heterogeneity in Legal StrategiesBill McCarthy, Cecilia Benoit, Mikael Jansson, and Kat Kolar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 255

History Trials: Can Law Decide History?Costas Douzinas � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 273

Empirical Studies of ContractZev J. Eigen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 291

Sociolegal Studies on MexicoJulio Rıos-Figueroa � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 307

Mind the Gap: The Place of Gap Studies in Sociolegal ScholarshipJon B. Gould and Scott Barclay � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 323

Law’s ArchiveRenisa Mawani � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 337

International Human Rights Law and Social Movements: States’Resistance and Civil Society’s InsistenceKiyoteru Tsutsui, Claire Whitlinger, and Alwyn Lim � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 367

Law and Economics of Intellectual Property: In Searchof First PrinciplesDan L. Burk � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 397

Legal History of MoneyRoy Kreitner � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 415

The Force of Law and Lawyers: Pierre Bourdieu and the ReflexiveSociology of LawYves Dezalay and Mikael Rask Madsen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 433

Rethinking Corruption in an Age of AmbiguityJanine R. Wedel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 1–8 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 499

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 1–8 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 502

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Law and Social Science articles may befound at http://lawsocsci.annualreviews.org

vi Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

ANNUAL REVIEWSIt’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

ANNUAL REVIEWS | Connect With Our ExpertsTel: 800.523.8635 (US/CAN) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its ApplicationVolume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon UniversityAssociate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto

Stephen M. Stigler, University of ChicagoThe Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the fi eld of statistics, including theoretical statistical underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specifi c application domains such as biostatistics and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.

Complimentary online access to the fi rst volume will be available until January 2015. TABLE OF CONTENTS:• What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg• A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence

from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Patrick B. Ryan

• The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, David A. van Dyk

• Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman• Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp• Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,

Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein• Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,

Matthias Katzfuss• Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert• Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,

Radu V. Craiu, Jeff rey S. Rosenthal• Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent

Variable Models, David M. Blei• Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:

Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright

• High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier

• Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel

• Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond, Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca

• Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding• Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profi le Evidence,

Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding• Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:

Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein• Statistical Ecology, Ruth King• Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity

Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh• Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,

Susan A. Murphy• Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,

Hong Qian, S.C. Kou• Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking

and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Ann

u. R

ev. L

aw. S

oc. S

ci. 2

012.

8:14

1-15

9. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by A

rizo

na S

tate

Uni

vers

ity o

n 02

/23/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

immigration, crime, and victimization: rhetoric and … ari 5 october 2012 8:40 immigration, crime,...

Documents