This article, set in El Paso, Texas, in 1908, concerns immigration inspector Robert L. Dodd who was accused and administratively removed by the federal Immigration Bureau for facilitating the introduction of undocumented Japanese immigrants into the United States. The article examines the government’s case against Dodd and argues that his dismissal was not only a miscarriage of justice but also may have been structured to scapegoat Dodd as part of the ongoing efforts in the Progressive Era toward civil service reforms within federal service.

A migrant's journey is no linear trajectory from A to B. It is a fragmented and complex move over different regions with alternating periods of mobility and immobility. This article researches the complex dynamics of irregular migration from Iran to the Netherlands, and everywhere in between. Through a historical comparison of the life stories of Iranian asylum seekers in the Netherlands in two time periods (1988–1989 and 2009–2010), it studies the routes they took, their relations with human smugglers, and their interactions with immigration policies and border managements along the way. It shows migrants' and smugglers’ flexibility and capacity to adapt to ever-changing circumstances. Migration politics and border controls, along with their increasing limitations on legal migration channels, are indeed crucial in the understanding of irregular migration practices and the ever-growing involvement of facilitating services. Through a combination of this migration policy research and the migration trajectory research, the paper explores these dynamics and the interactions between migrants, smugglers, and state policies in every phase of their journey from Iran to the Netherlands, and everywhere in between.

Between 2016 and 2017, inflows along the central Mediterranean peaked, increasing pressures on the southern European border. Coordination with Libya to reduce departures has been possible thanks to the role played by Italy, backed by the Union. The diplomatic effort exhibited mainly through 2017 crafted a framework aimed at simultaneously ensuring Libya's interest in regaining full control of its sovereign prerogatives and addressing the EU's desire to reduce irregular inflows. This new framework is explored in this work through the lens of migration diplomacy with a double aim: to enrich the existing body of research by proposing a triangular analysis of migration diplomacy and to expand the literature on the external dimension of the Union's migration policy, by pointing out the political nature of migration relations and its critical aspects.

According to EU policy documents, “[s]aving lives of people in distress is a primary goal of EU action in relation to managing the EU external borders.” The EU preferred strategy to achieve this objective is to take measures against human smuggling—including the establishment of cooperation with third countries—ostensibly so that migrants are contained and their irregular movement is prevented. This Article examines whether this strategy complies with the positive obligations corresponding to the right to life as enshrined in Article 2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. After considering any formal obstacles that might prevent the activation of the Charter, this Article clarifies the factors that determine the scope of these positive obligations. Procedural and substantive obligations are then distinguished. The procedural positive obligation demands that the EU and its Member States (MS) consider alternatives to the measures of containment. Due to difficulties in assessing the reasonableness of such alternatives, the EU and the MS are also under the positive obligation to initiate studies that can provide reliable evidence that alternative measures—such as the possibility of issuing humanitarian visas—would be too burdensome. As to the substantive positive obligation corresponding to the right to life, this Article will argue that the EU and the MS need to be attentive about the cumulative outcome of their migration policies. The more successful they are in their indiscriminate containment policies—and the more unlikely any protection possibilities in the region of containment—the more likely it is that the positive obligation to protect life will remain unfulfilled.

Human smuggling is a complex process. Made up of actions both organized and chaotic, it compels migrants to deal with different structures and agents of power, among them smugglers, the state(s), and migrants’ own social networks. The current literature on human smuggling provides a detailed analysis of the different phases of this process, within which discussion of the structure and operation of this “business” can be situated. However, only minimal attention has been paid to migrants’ agency in the smuggling process. Engaging with recent perspectives in migration studies, which emphasize the need to conceptualize human smuggling by focusing on the interdependencies between the different actors involved, the analysis developed in this article aims to explore the different phases of the human smuggling process by focusing on the multilayered relations between smugglers and undocumented people. Drawing upon qualitative ethnographic fieldwork conducted with migrants on the Turkish-Iranian border, the article examines how the physical and sociopolitical conditions of border crossing affect people’s ways of thinking, behavior, and engagement with different structures of power. In doing so, the article attempts to further our understanding of how smuggled migrants mobilize their agency in such a way as to manipulate and challenge the system, as well as of how this process transforms migrants’ capacity to simultaneously recognize and unsettle state bordering practices.