In the past three decades, the international system has seen an upward trend in the criminalization of migration and border militarization as a result of xenophobia. A byproduct of these trends is the ever-increasing presence of detention centers. These facilities are meant to hold migrants while their applications for entry are being processed or they are awaiting deportation. International law has recognized that detention centers are meant to be used as a last resort, considering they are expensive and systemically subject migrants to unhygienic conditions. Nonetheless, the use of detention centers is “growing and endemic.” Many people are familiar with the detention centers at the US-southern border which have recently come under severe scrutiny for widespread abuse and poor conditions. However, these facilities are not unique to the United States; India, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, plans to build ten detention facilities. The first one is currently being built in the northeastern state of Assam which has a fraught history of anti-immigrant sentiments and outright violence. While these countries have unique socio-politico issues, they are perversely united in the rise of nationalism and xenophobia- both of which are embodied by the utilization of detention centers.
Over the summer, American television was flooded with reports and images of Central American migrants and asylum-seekers being subjected to horrendous conditions that point to trends throughout different facilities. There is the issue of dangerous overcrowding at Customer and Border Patrol (CBP) facilities; a Homeland Security report from May stated that there are 900 people crammed into a space designed to accommodate 125 people at most. Additionally, reports have highlighted a lack of access to hygienic products such as soap and toothpaste, basic necessities that most people would take for granted. However, many of the reports specifically shed light on the conditions that detained children are subjected to. Babies reportedly had to drink from unwashed bottles and children were forced to sleep on concrete floors in cold temperatures, with only a foil blanket to keep them warm. While migrants have certainly faced poor conditions under previous administrations, the abuse has become particularly acute under the Trump presidency which recently argued in federal court that child migrants do not need basic hygienic products. The neglectful nature of these detention facilities have reached critical points where migrants have died in CBP care; under the Trump administration, 24 migrants have died in government custody.
President Donald Trump has made xenophobia a cornerstone of his presidency, which is reflected in the administration’s policies and the president’s rhetoric. The administration has made efforts to effectively end asylum for a large number of asylum-seekers and has attempted to severely debilitate the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program with setting lower ceilings each year. The president’s rhetoric has been inflammatory since the first day of his campaign when he characterized Mexican migrants as “rapists.” It is arguable that President Trump’s immigration policy is rooted in white nationalism as the president has demonstrated on numerous occasions- both through policies and rhetoric- that he views the United States’ national identity in “racial terms and seeks to preserve the nation’s predominantly white identity.” This is reflected in his defense of the neo-Nazis protestors in Charlottesville and his laments over the removal of Confederate statues which he seems to regard as an attack on the country’s culture. The president’s white nationalism was particularly exemplified in the administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the Department of Justice’s heightened standards that asylum-seekers must meet in order to stay in the country. These standards target the women and children who have been coming to the southern border en masse. Under these new rules, individuals cannot claim asylum on the grounds of fleeing domestic or gang violence.
Furthermore, it would not be too far off-base to argue that white nationalism and current federal immigration laws are deeply intertwined considering that there is a historical precedent of these laws being embedded in racism. Immigration statues have long “openly discriminated on the basis of race” starting in the late 19th century with the Chinese Exclusion laws. The white nationalism that the Trump administration espouses is detrimental in many regards, but especially when it comes to migrants and asylum-seekers arriving at the southern border. The majority of the people trying to enter the country are from the Northern Triangle in Central America which consists of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Those who are arriving no longer mainly consist of men trying to find work as it was in the latter half of the 20th century; today’s U.S.-bound migrants are families, often women and children, who are fleeing endemic violence in El Salvador and Honduras or poverty in Guatemala. President Trump bases the country’s identity off of being white and has made it clear that anyone who does not fit this racial standard will face significant barriers. Central American migrants undermine a racialized vision that President Trump has attempted to defend throughout his presidency. It is not hard to determine the particulars of this vision. The president’s rhetoric and policy proposals have demonstrated his desire for the US to be culturally, linguistically, and racially European. This foundation of white nationalism in federal immigration laws justifies the maltreatment of those being kept in detention centers.
However, xenophobia and nationalism are not strictly staples of the Trump administration; India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made Hindu nationalism a popular mainstream ideology. Hindutva, the predominant form of Hindu nationalism, has been enshrined as the governing dogma. It aims to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu history and values. Prime Minister Modi’s nationalism has exacerbated India’s own problems with xenophobia and immigration which are not new and can be traced back to Great Britain’s colonial rule. According to Reece Jones in Violent Borders, the India-Bangladesh border has the highest number of deaths at the hands of the state police. The northeastern state of Assam, which borders Bangladesh, has historically been the destination for Bangladesh migrants. In the 19th century, the British created tea plantations in Assam which attracted many foreign migrants, thus planting a seed of anxiety among the native Assamese who feared cultural shifts. Resentment among natives continued to increase as millions fled into the state during the partition of 1947. One of the biggest cases of displacement was during the Bangladesh Liberation War in the early 1970s as Bangladesh sought to break away from Pakistan; millions of Bengali Muslims fled to Assam. Anti-immigrant sentiment reached a boiling point in 1983 when more than 1,800 Bengali Muslims were massacred in Assam. Immigrants continue to be marginalized, particularly in this area, especially with the ascendency of Hindu nationalism which has helped to legitimize xenophobia.
As Prime Minister Modi ran for reelection, he made the expulsion of undocumented immigrants a pillar and has been making good on his promises. India is currently in the process of constructing ten detention centers with the first one being in Assam. Along with the construction of the detention facilities, which are said to be the size of seven football fields, the Indian government has established the National Register of Citizens (NRC) which is exactly as it sounds: a citizenship list meant to aid the government in expelling undocumented immigrants. Nearly two million people, the majority of whom are Muslims, are currently facing deportation because their names are not on the list; as of right now they are technically undocumented. To complicate matters, the burden of proof has been placed on the individuals.This is problematic because Assam is a rural state and its residents typically do not have paperwork; a quarter of the population in Assam is also illiterate which means that those who must prove their residency probably don’t even know how to discern any available documents. Potentially, if these individuals are not able to prove they were born in India, they will be placed in these detention centers while they wait to be deported to a country they have never been to.
Since the detention centers have not been completed, there is no discussion to be had about the conditions. However, comparisons can be drawn between the U.S. and India’s nationalistic immigration policies. Prime Minister Modi, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and other proponents of Hindutva have made their animosity towards Muslims clear through their rhetoric and the outright violence that has been inflicted upon Muslims and other minorities. Since the prime minister was elected in 2014, communal violence has risen significantly with Muslims bearing the brunt of it. These attacks have consisted of lynching, threats, attacks on places of worship, and forced conversion. No one can also forget the Gujarat riots in 2002. As Chief Minister of Gujarat, it is argued that Modi was complicit in the violence that disproportionately targeted Muslims. Furthermore, the erasure of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood (the only Muslim majority region) and their current occupation conceivably falls within the BJP’s vision of Hindutva. Prime Minister Modi has tried to reinvent his image as someone focused more on economic development, but his silence and inaction to prevent these crimes have emboldened extremists. The NRC, like so many other policies, is disproportionately affecting Muslims who have stated that they feel as though the rules are “arbitrary.” While violence is one way to shape India into the purely Hindu nation that hardliners desire, the NRC is arguably a legal way of achieving this goal.
The rhetoric and policies in India are eerily similar to that of the U.S. white nationalism and Hindu nationalism have strong historical ties to one another and share the same goals. Both share a history that can be traced to the construction of the Aryan race identity, one of the pillars of Nazism. Savitri Devi popularized the idea that civilization has its roots in the “master race” of Aryans in India and proceeded to integrate herself into India’s burgeoning movement of Hindu nationalism. The two ideologies also share the goal of finding an enemy in Muslims, a minority group within each state. It should not be a surprise then to know that the Republican Hindu Coalition, which has strong links to the Hindu nationalist movement in India, has been passionately rallying behind Trump’s controversial immigration policies. While President Trump has predominantly targeted non-white immigrants in an alleged attempt to protect his vision of white America, the president has also targeted Muslims through policy decisions such as the 2017 travel ban. The rhetoric and policy decisions of both leaders are sowing violence for these minority communities with attacks by extremists in both countries.
It has been previously established that detention centers are considered to be extreme under international law. Furthermore, there are cheaper and more dignified ways to supervise undocumented immigrants or those who have been deemed as such with fraught evidence. Private detention centers in the U.S. cost taxpayers $149.58 to detain one person; costs are still expensive in CBP facilities. Additionally, these detention centers have been the sites of systemic abuse and horrifying treatment of individuals, many of whom are children. Alternatives to detention centers include supervised release, regular reporting requirements, and posting bail. Under these alternate plans, migrants and asylum-seekers could be self-sufficient while also promoting cost-effectiveness. These alternatives are not just for changing U.S. policy; these plans can be adapted by any government to help deal with migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers. Instead of adopting a registry and constructing detention centers, India could also look into these alternatives. However, in order to maintain the dignity of immigrants, and other vulnerable groups, white and Hindu nationalism must be addressed and eradicated. The disadvantages of detention centers are clear, yet a large part of their existence is predicated on these ideologies. They are a tool of both President Trump and Prime Minister Modi to construct and protect their visions of identity and nationhood. Without the deconstruction of these dogmas, the humane treatment of undocumented immigrants, and other vulnerable groups will be hard to achieve.