修车大队

In a world where the U.S. federal government still , it鈥檚 easy to see the nation-state鈥檚 vicious obsession with the idea of.鈥� There are few places in the U.S. where this obsession is more on display than in the immigration system. Though a denied naturalization application can be appealed, there is minimal recourse and when a visa application is denied due to the applicant having a criminal background.

But the guise of criminality overlooks the nuance and complexity that can influence situations as well as the humanity of all people, especially immigrants. It鈥檚 also a notoriously to come back from, though immigrants are than those born and raised in the U.S. 

In a 2017 peer-reviewed paper for the, , an associate professor of law at the University of Houston who specializes in immigration law, keenly noted: 鈥淓very immigrant鈥攍ike every citizen鈥攑oses a 鈥榬isk鈥� of violence because every immigrant is human. The success with which this human mystery and the fear it inevitably elicits is managed by the legal and political system will to a significant extent determine the degree to which noncitizens are embraced by a society.鈥�

The exclusion of individuals labeled 鈥渃riminals鈥� in the U.S. immigration system perpetuates discriminatory practices, ignores the complexity of human behavior, and reinforces this harmful narrative of irredeemability. Crimes of 鈥渕oral turpitude鈥濃�攃rimes that have affect the moral fabric of society鈥攄efine the criteria for exclusion and inadmissibility, and it is through the mask of morality that the nation-state justifies itself.

Such descriptions can鈥攁nd have been鈥攙iolently appropriated by the ruling class for centuries. While legislators claim these laws enhance 鈥減ublic safety,鈥� the laws ultimately push a racist, classist, ableist, and overall discriminatory agenda that does little for actual safety. It is a framework that has been applied to , , , , , and .听

And what better way to weaponize undesirability than to deem someone a criminal who has transgressed America鈥檚 alleged moral compass?

A blanket sweep that decries crimes of 鈥渕oral turpitude鈥� doesn鈥檛 actually improve the moral standing of society, because the 鈥渙ffender鈥� and 鈥渧ictim鈥� dichotomy doesn鈥檛 really exist. 鈥淚n reality, because law-breakers do not spend all of their time committing crimes, individuals move between these categories [of 鈥榦ffender鈥� and 鈥榥on-offenders鈥橾,鈥� writes Susan Bibler Coutin in a 2005 peer-reviewed article published in .听

This reduction of criminality must be done away with both for citizens and noncitizens alike because dichotomies make nuanced conversations seem more absolute. It鈥檚 easier to say that someone is a monster than to acknowledge that everyone has the potential to act monstrously. 

鈥溾�楪overning through crime鈥� works because of narratives that rely on simplistic dichotomies between offender and victim, violent and nonviolent, redeemable and irredeemable,鈥� writes Mira Edmonds in a 2024 peer-reviewed article in the . 鈥淭hese dichotomies are empirically flawed, morally problematic, and ultimately self-defeating if our goal is to reduce violence.鈥� 

But unfortunately, the stigmatization of criminality runs deep. Even within the U.S. justice system, those who commit 鈥渧iolent crimes鈥� are more 鈥攔egardless of case-specific recommendations. If we don鈥檛 allow for context and nuance, then how can there be any claim of just action? 

When a person is labeled a 鈥渃riminal,鈥� they鈥檙e then considered deserving of whatever the nation-state imposes on them. Once that label is applied and said person is deemed 鈥渦ndesirable,鈥� 鈥�,鈥� and 鈥�,鈥� said person is then fixed into those labels and unable to challenge how that influences their immigration status, thanks to , which limits judicial review of visa decisions.听

Maybe it鈥檚 tempting to label an immigrant 鈥渋rredeemable鈥� and 鈥渋nadmissible鈥� because the designation can supposedly help the federal government distinguish between those who are likely to be law-abiding from those who are not. But that labeling system is uninterested in justice and the complexity of human experience. These labels serve only to establish a rigid hierarchy of human worth.

There are even open-border advocates who question whether or not the nation-state even has , especially as it infringes on a person鈥檚 freedom of movement. In questioning the state鈥檚 right to limit immigration, we should interrogate the question of whether or not the state鈥檚 deliberate suppression of freedom of movement is a just response to having a criminal background.

However, to date, U.S. courts have ruled that people seeking entry have . But in order to move past the idea of irredeemable and undesirable, our understanding of restorative and transformative justice must extend beyond the border. And if the United States were truly invested in preventing crime, the nation-state would focus on that dissuade anyone, citizen or non-citizen, from harming people rather than using time and resources to keep people out.听

Unfortunately, as Juliet Stumpf writes in a 2006 article in, 鈥淚t is much easier to equate the criminal offender with the alien and exclude him from society than when the offender was well known by and considered part of a smaller community.鈥澛�

Is it possible to imagine a U.S. immigration system that allows for nuance? A system that acknowledges the multiplicity of a person鈥檚 character and makes space for the reality that people have the ability to change? Maybe. But in order for the immigration system to change, we must first advocate for this nuance to be considered when breaking down the dichotomies reinforced through and restrictions against people with convictions. And, importantly, this work must extend beyond the criminal justice system and beyond the idea of punishment.

鈥淥ur call for the abolition of what we see as a punitive dimension of immigration law responds directly to the hardships and injustices that it produces, but we also see it as a contribution to abolitionists鈥� efforts to broaden our scope of analysis and our political projects,鈥� writes Souheil Benslimane and David Moffette in a 2019 article in the . 鈥淭he move from prison abolitionism to penal abolitionism has been underway for a long time now, but more work needs to be done to further understand forms of punishment not anchored in criminal law, such as immigration penality.鈥�

Some people think that the word citizen can save them just because the word criminal condemns. But these are just invented categories, simultaneously inflexible and malleable. The immigration system will never change as long as the U.S. judicial system remains carceral. Unless we acknowledge that punishment and punitive measures are not the solution for harm prevention, we will never move past the specter of the criminal鈥攆oreign or domestic鈥攁nd the U.S. immigration system will only continue to be a form of double punishment.听