The criminalisation of irregular migrants – in relation to irregular entry, residence, and work – is considered against the 1975 and 1990 ILO Migrant Workers Conventions (MWC); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 (ICESCR); the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG); and the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime 2000, including its Protocols to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children ('the Trafficking Protocol') and against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air ('the Smuggling Protocol'). The creation of laws, which are generally applied only to foreigners – concerning irregular entry, residence, and work – increases costs and exposure to adverse labour conditions and social vulnerabilities, and also impedes access to justice. The possibilities of criminal conviction, resulting in fines, imprisonment and expulsion contribute to a precarious class of low-skilled migrant. The chapter argues that the criminalisation of migration exacerbates the migrant premium because it decreases income while increasing dependency on employers, smugglers and traffickers and complicates access to human rights protection. The chapter suggests that one of the policy propositions for the Global Compact should be an understanding of how the emphasis internationally, regionally and nationally on smuggling and trafficking and border control has resulted in the criminalisation of irregular migrants – both potential and actual - for the ways in which they enter, leave, reside and work in a country; and that migrants need to be able to manage their working needs in a flexible manner.
A unique, accessible text that introduces a broad readership to critical research into 'crime', 'deviance' and conflict through contemporary, in-depth case studies. Tracing the authoritarian legacy of policing civil disturbances, harsh regimes of punishment, deaths in custody and prison protest, diverse issues such as the demonisation of children, the imprisonment of women and the 'war on terror' are explored and analysed
Revenge pornography is a current crime which involves disgruntled lovers to upload on social media, intimate pictures of their once loved one with disparaging comments. As soon as the picture is uploaded it is shared within seconds and the victim's life is turned upside down. The article examines the emotions and legal aspects behind this act of revenge pornography. The introduction focuses on the progress of pornography alongside technology and the growth of sex trade with the development of the internet. Current Laws are examined to give a good overview of the current Criminal and Civil laws. Criminal laws which specifically target revenge pornography both in Malta and Internationally are also targeted in the article. ; peer-reviewed
Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, that goes into effect on 29 July, criminalises the failure to carry immigration documents. Arizona has taken up the cause of immigration enforcement with a law requiring police to arrest persons suspected of being undocumented, and by criminalising activities associated with immigration. This has brought new life to the long-simmering debate about how to respond to the nation's estimated 11 million unauthorised residents. The law is often described as an outgrowth of frustration with the federal government's 'broken' immigration system. This broad characterisation is somewhat misleading. Arizona does not want the federal government to establish 'a path towards citizenship' or to regularise resident immigrants as it did in 1986. Rather, SB 1070 is designed to shift the national debate in a more restrictive direction. Arizona's policy of 'attrition through enforcement' provides a rallying point for opponents of comprehensive immigration reform within parameters that appear legal and possibly appropriate in light of federal inaction. It was designed as a test case. Locally, SB 1070 signals the state's unrelenting hostility towards its unauthorised residents and its indifference to those who must carry papers to prove their right to remain. To local police agencies, the state sends a warning: either prioritise immigration enforcement or risk a citizen-initiated lawsuit.