Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter August 28, 2013

At the Border between Public and Private: U.S. Immigration Policy for Victims of Domestic Violence

  • Nina Rabin EMAIL logo

Abstract

This article examines the treatment of women in flight from domestic violence at the U.S. – Mexico border. It compares the robust state protections available to domestic violence victims in the interior of the country with the hostile landscape women encounter at the border. The article draws on three sources for information about the treatment at the border of domestic violence victims: an in-depth case study of one woman’s experience of domestic violence and flight, a small data set of domestic violence victims detained in the Eloy Detention Center in Arizona during 2010 and 2011, and a detailed analysis of the policies and practices at play when a woman in flight from domestic violence comes to the U.S. border. From these sources, a grim picture emerges that may surprise many. Women fleeing violence whose lives entangle with the border confront a bureaucracy and justice system that harkens back to the time, 50 years ago, when domestic violence was seen as a private matter about which there was little the government could or should do to respond.

Building on this descriptive account, the article draws on political theories of citizenship and membership to highlight the moral and legal inconsistencies between the immigration policies of the United States and its national values and commitments regarding violence against women. It suggests that language about the “private” nature of the violence at issue for women in flight from domestic violence should not be used to cloak underlying concerns about immigration admissions policies. Transparent discussion of the considerations at issue lays bare the irrationality of applying fundamentally different conceptions of domestic violence depending on which side of the geographic border it occurs.

Appendix: Data Tables

Table 1

Outcomes for women with domestic violence – based asylum claims in Eloy Detention Center, Arizona, 2010 – 2011.[142]

National originAgeDate of detentionOutcomeMonths detained[143]
1Mexico371/21/2010Lost 6/20106
2Guatemala321/17/2010Lost 8/18/20108
3El Salvador462/23/10Lost 4/11/2011; appeal pending22 (still detained)
4El Salvador284/13/2010Lost 9/30/20106
5Brazil295/28/2010Lost 1/20118
6Honduras417/29/2010Lost 6/30/2011; appeal pending17 (still detained)
7Mexico368/1/2010Lost 2/14/20116
8Guatemala368/17/2010Pending16 (still detained)
9Guatemala318/19/10Pending16 (still detained)
10Mexico409/4/2010Lost 6/20/201110
11Ecuador219/8/2010Lost 12/5/11; appeal pending15 (still detained)
12Guatemala399/14/2010Lost 4/26/20117
13Nicaragua369/14/10Lost 7/21/1110
14Guatemala249/24/2010Lost 8/5/1111
15El Salvador9/27/2010Lost 3/22/116
16Ecuador239/28/2010Lost 5/25/20118
17Honduras3210/6/2010Lost 7/21/119
18Guatemala3810/26/2010Lost 6/2011; appeal pending13 (still detained)
19Mexico5710/27/10Lost 10/19/1114
20Mexico3611/2/2010Lost 7/8/20118
21Guatemala2611/19/10Pending13 (still detained)
22Mexico4112/22/2010Lost 7/19/20117
23Dominican Republic5812/16/2010Pending12 (still detained)
24El Salvador2612/31/2010Lost 6/1/20115
25Guatemala3712/4/10Lost on 8/9; appeal pending12 (still detained)
26Peru571/4/11Pending11 (still detained)
27Peru331/10/11Lost 9/14/119
28Guatemala301/13/11Lost 11/2/11; appeal pending11 (still detained)
29Colombia271/11/2011Lost 6/23/116
30Guatemala253/30/2011Pending9 (still detained)
31Guatemala205/26/2011Pending7 (still detained)
32Guatemala465/23/2011Pending7 (still detained)
33Guatemala297/25/2011Pending5 (still detained)
34Nicaragua445/3/2011Pending7 (still detained)
35Mexico405/13/2011Pending7 (still detained)
36El Salvador286/3/2011Pending6 (still detained)
37Guatemala318/3/2011Pending4 (still detained)
Table 2

Months awaiting reasonable fear interviews for women with domestic violence – based asylum claims.

National originAgeNo.of attempts to crossDate of detentionDate of reasonable fear interviewMonths to reasonable fear interview
1Guatemala3038/17/20102/2/116
2Guatemala3628/19/20103/20117
3Nicaragua3629/14/20102/14/105
4Guatemala37310/26/20104/26/116
5Mexico54310/27/20105/20116
6Guatemala25211/19/20105/20116
7Guatemala37312/4/20105/20115
8Dominican Republic58412/16/20105/27/115
9El Salvador25412/31/20105/11/114.5
10Peru5521/4/20115/23/114
11Peru3321/7/20117/14/116
12Guatemala2921/13/20115/20114

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to thank Dr. Tally Kritzman-Amir, Ronit Donyets-Kedar, and all the participants in the workshop, as well as the editors of the journal of Law & Ethics of Human Rights. She also wishes to thank Meredith Lynch and Patricia Manning for their research assistance and Barbara Atwood, Linda Bosniak, David Marcus, Karen Musalo, Robert and Yemima Rabin, Judith Resnik, Christopher Robertson, and Katie Ruhl for their invaluable insights and comments on the article.

Published Online: 2013-8-28

©2013 by De Gruyter

Downloaded on 28.4.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/lehr-2013-0005/html
Scroll to top button