ABSTRACT

Politicians justify U.S. immigration laws and policies by claiming that harsh immigration enforcement will deter unauthorized migrants. This Article demonstrates that migrant decision-making in practice undermines common assumptions underlying how immigration deterrence is expected to operate. By highlighting research demonstrating that immigration law does not have a significant deterrent effect, this Article invites scholars and activists to challenge the use of deterrence logic as a façade to legitimate cruelty towards migrants, especially as that cruelty disproportionately affects migrants of color. This Article recommends decriminalizing unauthorized entry and reentry and ending civil immigration detention as initial steps in creating a fairer and more just future outside the confines of deterrence logic.