Degree Project in Criminology Malmö University
120 Credits, Two-year Masters Faculty of Health and Society 205 06 Malmö
BETWEEN A ROCK AND A
STRANGE PLACE
FEAR OF CRIME AND THE WELL-BEING OF
DEPORTED MIGRANTS IN JAMAICA
BETWEEN A ROCK AND A
STRANGE PLACE
FEAR OF CRIME AND THE WELL-BEING OF
DEPORTED MIGRANTS IN JAMAICA
SANJAY THOMPSON
Thompson, S. Between a Rock and A Strange Place: Fear of Crime and the Well-being of Deported Migrants in Jamaica. Degree project in Criminology 30 Credits. Malmö University: Faculty of Health and Society, Department of Criminology, 2019
Deported migrants in Jamaica face a plethora of integration and rehabilitation issues that have been exacerbated by the society’s negative perception of the population. Though previous research has highlighted the counterproductive implications of the negative attitudes (Headley, 2006), it is still evident in the Jamaican society. The current study examines the relationship between the migrant’s fear of crime and their well-being post-deportation. Therein, eight semi-structured interviews facilitated by the National Organisation of Deported Migrants were used to collect data over two weeks. A thematic analysis indicated that visibility impacted the extent to which deported migrants had a perceived risk of victimisation. The population's reduced mobility and lack of integration as a result of increased visibility and distrust of the wider society influenced their exhibition of isolating behaviours which were identified as incubators for physical and mental health effects, potential substance use disorders (SUD) and recidivism. Additionally, migrants residing in communities with reported criminal activities were identified to be at an increased risk of the adverse effects highlighted. The presence of several protective factors, including less time away from Jamaica and familial support mitigated these factors. The author highlights that social education, in addition to effective long-term reintegration and rehabilitation programs that focus on health are necessary implementations to reduce the risks associated with fear of crime and improve reintegration.
Keywords: deportation, fear of crime, recidivism, substance use, victimisation, well-being.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Throughout the writing period I have received extensive support of which I am grateful. Firstly, I am grateful for the expert assistance of my supervisor Mika Andersson, whose guidance allowed the project to be of a high standard.
Secondly, I am grateful for the recruitment facilitation, interview accommodation and background information provided by the National Organization of Deported Migrants and it’s President Oswald Dawkins. I would also like to acknowledge the facilitation of an interview room by Old Harbour High School. I am grateful for the colleagues whom I have had the pleasure to work with during this project, my family, friends and well-wishers for their support and most importantly, God.
CONTENTS
Introduction………5
Resident Abroad, ‘Deportee ah Yaad’………...…...…5
Public perception of deported migrants……….5
The media’s catalytic role………..6
Barriers to integration and well-being………6
Pinpointing the well-being effects on the deported migrant populatio..….7
Theoretical Framework………..8
Aim………..9
Research Questions……….9
Methodology………..10
About the National Organisation of Deported Migrants………10
Ethical considerations ………10
Material………..11
Measures………11
Visibility, Victimisation and Integration………12
Well-being………..12 Recidivism……….12 Analytical strategy……….13 Coding ………13 Results ………14 Integration………..14 Negative attitudes………...15 Offences……….16 Drug Use………17 Stress………..18 Resilience………...19 Protective factors………..19
Summary of Main Findings………...20
Discussion………..21
Visibility, victimisation and the integration of deported migrants………21
Understanding the Impact………..22
Fear of crime and a deported migrant’s well-being………...22
Examining substance use and potential relapse within the life course…..23
Marijuana and recidivism………..23
Limitations……….23
Conclusion……….24
References………...26
INTRODUCTION
Resident Abroad, ‘Deportee ah Yaad’
Over the past decade, Jamaica has seen over 24,000 individuals forcibly returned to the island (Thomas-Hope, 2017). Notably, the large figure only accounts for deportations from the United States of America, Canada, and the United Kingdom; preferred migratory locations for many Jamaicans citizens. Within the most recent influx, over 30% are as a result of drug infractions (Thomas-Hope, 2018). The reports further highlight that the remaining percentage consist of other violent and non-violent crimes like murder, battery, kidnapping, money laundering and illegal entry.
At its core, deportation describes the forceful removal of an individual from a country of residence to their country of origin as a result of their non-compliance with the laws of their residential land (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019). Despite a significant sense of belonging, the population's lack of citizenship in the residing country negates their right to remain in countries like the United States; a privilege that can be revoked at any time (Golash-Boza, 2016). Though the rising number of deportations to Jamaica is not new, its effects on the Jamaican diaspora became evident after the passage of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Anti-Terrorism (IIRIRA) and Effective Death Penalty Act. With that, researchers highlighted that the IIRIRA or the formidable deportation machinery (Rosenblum and Meissner, 2014), has affected the mental and physical health of individuals at risk (Wang & Kaushal, 2018). Moreover, research suggests that the deportation process has the potential to cause adverse effects on the deported (Brotherton & Barios, 2009).
Public perception of deported migrants
Often called deportees in a derogatory and demeaning way, the migrants are frequently accused of contributing to Jamaica’s rise in criminality (Headley, 2008). This position saturates the views of both the wider society and that of the ‘circles of officialdom’. Evidence of this lies in public opinion posts which points to the deported migrants1 as having the potential to ‘wreak havoc’ on society. (The Gleaner Company (Media) Limited, 2003). Therein, society corroborates views from law enforcement and national security chiefs who typically cite the acquisition and utilization of deviant stills by a select few deported migrants as a measure of their suspected ‘qualitative impact’ on society (Headley, 2006). Interestingly, declarations from public officials have not aided the deported migrant conversation in Jamaica. In 2007, the former minister of security Dr Peter Phillips publicly proclaimed that deported migrants are at the centre of some of the criminal organisations on the island and would not be accepted in his ideal world (Lacey, 2007).
Evidence suggests that the views of the security officials has some weight. Research on the potential impact of deported migrants projected that the population could contribute to approximately 4% of the country’s murder figures (Madjd-Sadjadi & Alleyne, 2007). In addition to that, their predictions estimated a 5.8% increase in the number of rape cases in the year 2000 (ibid). Despite this, Headley (2006) argues that the data is empirically unsupportable and remains insignificant in the grand scheme of things (Headley, 2006). Supporting this, the
2002 CARICOM Task Force Report reported nothing dramatic about the so-called ‘qualitative impact’ of deported migrant crimes (Griffith, 2004). The perspective then confirms the Headley’s (2006) identification of the migrant-society relations as a situation of misdirected conflict. In relation to this conflict, research indicates that the escalated fear of crime among the society has an impact on the disgraceful stigmatisation and open discrimination among the migrants (ibid). Coupled with the confirmation that the migrants are constructed as enemies of society, we can acknowledge that an objective view of reported crime trends in tandem with society’s perceived risk of the deported migrants in necessary.
The media’s catalytic role
With the acknowledgement of the media’s potentially catalytic role with issues surrounding societal concern (Brotherton & Barios, 2009), the far-reaching effects of the discriminatory labelling against deported migrants can be estimated. In the symbiotic relationship, the media’s coverage of the deported migrants influences their visibility in society. Evidence of this lies in Miller’s (2012) revelation that the relationship between criminality and deportation can be understood in terms of unsystematic and sentiment-driven media reporting. In addition to that, Jamaica’s extensive coverage of deportation flights to the island could be connected to Reiner’s (2001) ‘Virtual Vigilantism’. Therein, their portrayal of the populations as an indistinguishable lot of ‘rejects’ who will recreate a violent way of life (Headley, 2006) leads us to identify a version of the ‘vulnerable innocents’ and ‘dangerous predators’ on the island.
In-depth content reviews of The Gleaner, one of the oldest and most reputable newspapers on the island highlighted a consistent trend of negative reporting (Miller, 2012). Despite the newspaper reporting that ‘Caribbean societies are fearful of deportees’ (The Gleaner, 22 June 2005, as cited in Miller, 2012), the analysis uncovered frequent reports from local police associating deported migrants with a high number of crimes. This included armed robberies, shootouts and connecting them to criminal gangs locally and internationally (Miller, 2012). In addition to that, the term ‘crimes’ and ‘deportees’ were associated some 637 times in their publications, contrasting the 50 times ‘voluntary returned migrants’ and ‘crimes’ were associated in a 17-year period (ibid).
As Headley & Milovanovic (2016) notes, the media’s action is largely propagative and are often supported by ‘circles of officialdom’. As such, it is not surprising that there is little research concerning how these factors may affect the population. Moreover, the concern then lies on the deflective potential of society’s negative perceptions and its ability to reduce the counterproductive impact of current integration and rehabilitation efforts on the island (Headley, 2006).
Barriers to integration and well-being
Qualitative evidence highlights that the deported migrant population in Jamaica requires three fundamental things; 1) a less hostile, more accepting environment that stigmatises and discriminates against them less, 2) a permanent and decent place to live and 3) a chance at making a sustainable livelihood, whether hired or self-employed (Headley, 2010). However, despite the ever-present concerns of the community, few researchers have attempted to examine how lack of these affect the population's well-being or how fear of crime and victimisation contributes to the deterioration of the well-being of the population.
While the complex and challenging processes associated with return migration are rarely studied (Vathi, 2017), there is a plethora of evidence highlighting the readjustment challenges faced by deported migrants (Headley, 2006; Miller, 2012; Charles, 2010). Studies show that deported migrants often encounter problems with unemployment, homelessness, inadequate housing, property crime, mental health and addiction (see Miller, 2012; Williams & Roth, 2011; Barnes, 2009; Barnes & Seepersad, 2009; Madjd-Sadjadi & Alleyne, 2007; Barnes, 2007). As highlighted in the previous sections, stigmatisation lies at the forefront of the population’s issues. Often described as the most difficult social and psychological issue facing the population (Brotherton & Barios, 2009), research suggests that stigmatisation may, in part, lead to discriminatory practices that affect people’s well-being. (Wallengren & Mellgren, 2015).
Though a complex concept, Gough and McGregor’s (2007) identifies well-being as the ‘relational state of being with others that enables the pursuance of one’s goals and ultimately the achievement of a suited enhanced quality of life’. Within this idea, Wessell (1999), identified that psychosocial well-being was suitable to be applied to migration, allowing researchers to make solid connections with the emotional social and cultural variables affecting the population. Moreover, with the temporal and multiscalar aspects that psychosocial well-being encompasses (ibid), it is possible to analyse Jamaica’s ‘deportee phenomenon2’.
Pinpointing the well-being effects on the deported migrant population
Previous research on the well-being of deported migrants found that deportation influences the process of stigmatisation and leads to the migrant being discounted and treated as tainted (Schuster & Majidi, 2015). In addition to that, family members and communities often restrict the integration process of deported migrants through social isolation (Rozo, 2016). Studies on hate crime among minority populations have also suggested strong correlations between increased visibility and the risk of becoming a victim (FRA, 2009 as cited in Wallengren & Mellgren, 2015). To counter this and reduce the possibility of risky criminal situations, vulnerable populations often restrict their daily activities (Whitley & Prince, 2005). Therein, the lack of movement and social inclusion, when coupled with the high levels of post-deportation stress, can be associated with secondary health effects of fear of crime. Stafford et al. (2007) found that vigorous physical activities, contact with friends and involvement in physical activities were lower among individuals with a greater fear of crime. In addition to that, individuals who reside is violence-prone communities or communities with disorder had a higher perception of individual-level victimisation/fear of crime than those who did not (Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; Brunton-Smith & Sturgis 2011)
With recent reports highlighting an expression of fear of crimes among the migrant population, (Taylor, 2019), it is imperative that the long-term effects of such fear be understood. In pursuit of this, studies have shown that anxieties associated with fear of crime increase deteriorative negative behavioural and affective consequences, and impact overall mental and physical health in addition to the restriction of their daily lives (Jackson & Stafford, 2009;Whitley & Prince, 2005; Hale, 1996). Evidence of the health effects lies in the identification of cardiovascular disease, paranoia, poor mental and physical health and cognitive functioning of the population (Tanasescu, Leitzmann, Rimm, Willett, & Stampfer, 2002:Ruijsbroek, Droomers, Groenewegen, & Hardyns, 2015 as cited in Stafford,
Chandola, & Marmot, 2007). In addition to that, it has been uncovered that the fear of crime is directly connected to health through the identification of avoidance, stress, mistrust and the use of substances (Stafford et al., 2007).
Migration studies between the USA and Mexico have identified a close relation to the flow of migrants and the risk of substance use and related disorders (Familiar, et al., 2011; Brouwer et al., 2009; Horyniak et al., 2017). While showing that mobility and migration were common with drug use, (Brouwer et al., 2009) highlighted that deportation history was associated with more frequent drug injection, different patterns of drug use, and less interaction with medical or treatment services. Noting the increased call to mental health research and how these life course changes can affect the individual (George, 2014), there is a strong indication of the great potential that lies in bridging the health-crime-victimisation gap that exists within research on the deported migrant population in Jamaica.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
At its core, the life course perspective offers a broad view of offending across an individual’s lifespan (Elder, 2001) Within it, five principles (see: Elder, et al., 2003) allow research to recognise individual choice and decision-making; promoting awareness of larger social contexts, history, the timing of events and role change (ibid). Essentially, this view makes the theories within it applicable to the understanding of how criminal behaviour changes systematically over time (Elder, 2001). Jamaica’s deportation phenomenon and the variables that exist within it, further allows the perspective to highlight the influence of disruptive life events on previously convicted and deported individuals. This includes, but is not limited to reintegration, the loss of family ties, unemployment and recidivism. As Turbian & Franco (2016) indicates, transitions on various level of an individual’s life can also have an impact on their health, limitation of activities, expression of symptoms, traumatic events and control of diseases. Through their ideas, 1) how these effects limit and individuals’ opportunities to attain goals and 2) how they create major life changes increasing susceptibility to antisocial behaviour can be identified.
Fear of crime research has a noticeable connection between a deterioration of the quality of life and its rudimentary characteristics. Though a common occurrence with individuals of a higher social class, researchers argue that the increased protective action enforced by these individuals might very well displace criminal activities to the less privileged in society (Box, Hale, & Andrews, 1988 as cited in Hale, 1996). Further, studies show that migrants often face the risk of being victims of crimes like robberies and theft (Fussell, 2011). This may be a result of their increased vulnerability and unfamiliarity with their surroundings; essentially, being between a rock and a strange place.
Some migrants, despite their freedom, have compared the return home to a second prison sentence (Kempadoo, 1999). The highlighted concern corroborates Perry’s (2009) suggestions of a close association between worry about criminal victimisation, marginalisation and isolation (ibid). Pointing to the premise of the lifestyle/exposure theory, such worry can have adverse effects on how these groups carry out activities in their day to day lives. Scholars within the field of
victimology identified visibility, lifestyle factors and routine activities as important factors influencing victimisation as they increase the risk of an individual becoming a victim to criminality (Hindelang et al. 1978). When viewed in tandem with the Jamaican law enforcement description of the migrants as ‘no angels’ (Headley, 2006), the migrant population essentially has little to no protective factor in the Jamaican society. This essentially creates a large pool of potential crime victims when viewed within the context of the large-scale deportations.
While there here have also been several suggestions that deported migrants with previous criminal backgrounds may become perpetrators of crime (Logan et al., 2006), great concern falls on the criminal potential of individuals who have no criminal background but have lived away for a long time (Perry, 2009).
AIM
From the available knowledge of numerous murders committed against deported migrants in Jamaica (The Guardian, 2019) the difficulty in integration and the lack of various protective factors, examining the fear of crimes being committed against them is crucial to the population. Studies show that anxiety about crime may cause negative effects on individuals who are vulnerable (Jackson & Stafford, 2009). Coupled with the Jamaica society struggling to address the integrational concerns of the population, the area of research must now divert from the highly saturated ‘deportee-crime’ relations and engage topics concerning the well-being of the population. Notably, few studies specifically investigate the victimisation deported migrants face and the effects that fear of crime or said victimisation might have on their well-being and potential relapse to criminal activity. As such, the fundamental aim of this study is to investigate the level of victimisation that criminally deported migrants face in Jamaica and examine how fear of crime and victimisation can affect the well-being of the population. In addition to that, the study will examine the risk of recidivism among the deported migrant population as a result of victimisation/fear of crime.
Importantly, in addition to providing stakeholders with substantial information that could aid current rehabilitation and reintegration program, the research positions itself as a gateway for advancement in the public’s education on the topic and further in-depth analysis.
Research Questions
In fulfilling the aims of the study, the following research questions will be investigated:
1. Has visibility influenced victimisation and integration of deported migrants?
2. Does the fear of being victims to crime affect the well-being of deported migrants?
3. Does the fear of becoming victims to crime influence deported migrants to abuse substances or commit any illegal offence?
METHODOLOGY
Locating the migrants posed a significant challenge to the researcher as individuals deported to Jamaica have no distinct community. Additionally, because the research deals with individuals who can be perceived as disadvantaged, the research needed to reduce the risk of ethical issues which could arise. Snowball and simple random sampling techniques were utilised in the recruitment of participants for the study. Therein, the National Organisation of Deported Migrants acted as gatekeeper and recruiter and was asked to select participants who were recently (within five years) deported from the United States, Canada or the United Kingdom for drug offences (see Appendix A). Six male participants who were willing to be a part of the study were initially selected, and two additional male participants joined the study as a result of connections with other recruited participants or interest in the study. Notably, no females expressed interest in the study, and two participants whose genders were unknown by the author did not show up for their scheduled interview. The gatekeeper also had difficulty in recruiting participants based on the drug-offences selection criteria, as the required information was deemed sensitive for some participants. The National Organisation of Deported Migrants (NODM) also acted as a key informant to the study, providing background information on the lives of the deported migrants in Jamaica. During the recruitment process headed by the gatekeeper, individuals were contacted via telephone or in person and given an outline of the study. Interviews were conducted at the offices of the National Organisation of Deported Migrants in Kingston, the Old Harbour High School in Old Harbour and over-the-phone. Thereafter, four face-to-face and four over the telephone semi-structured interviews were conducted. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the author, who is a native speaker of English and Jamaican Creole/Patois.
About the National Organisation of Deported Migrants
The National Organisation of Deported Migrants (NODM) is a non-governmental organisation, managed by deported Jamaicans, which aims to ‘foster and develop among deported migrants an understanding of their fundamental rights in the Jamaican state and society’. Through its work, the agency has been the first contact for many deported migrants to Jamaica. This is evident in their voluntary presence at the airports whenever deportation flights arrive in Jamaica. In addition to assisting deported migrants, the agency represents them, forms alliances with other agencies with similar objectives and plans projects geared towards social-economic upliftment and empowerment of depowered Jamaicans (NODM, 2019).
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In researching individuals who have broken laws, ethical choices are to be considered (Miles & Huberman, 1994. p. 294). This is especially so when researching potentially vulnerable populations who do not have a distinct community. As such, to ensure such compliance within the field of research, advice was sought from the Malmö University’s Ethics Council and the Ministry of National Security, Jamaica. Notably, such approval would approval indicate
that the current study’s proposal was in line with the fundamental ethical principles that guide research with human subjects. After an initial January 29, 2019 application and an amended submission on February 26, 2019, to the University’s council, approval was granted on March 3, 2019 (see Appendix B). The amended proposal followed the advice of the Ethics Committee to improve the project on various levels, which included a more detailed information letter, methodology and purpose of study (see Appendix C). Though additional approval was requested from the Ministry of National Security Jamaica, the agency highlighted that it was not unnecessary.
The study worked with individuals who had been criminally deported from the USA, Canada or England. According to the 2017 Economic and Social Survey, a total of 1393 persons were involuntarily returned to the island (Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2018). Of that, 80.3% were male with 26.1% of the population being deported for drug infringements. Upon contacting the participants who met the selection criteria, the gatekeeper provided a brief introduction of the study and the researcher. After a participation agreement was made and participant availability understood, deported migrants were invited to the interview room at the offices of the National Organisation of Deported Migrants at 77 Church Street, Kingston 7, secured rooms at the Old Harbour High School or over-the-phone interviews. An information sheet containing a summary of the research objectives was given or read to the participants (see Appendix D). This was done to ensure that participants understood the nature of the research. Additionally, the researcher obtained verbal and/or written consent from all participants, including permission to audio record prior to the interviews. Importantly, all data was securely stored on a password protected external hard drive after each interview day. The researcher also notified the participants and the gatekeeper all collected data would be destroyed after the obtainment of an approved final grade for the project. Anonymity was also maintained throughout the study, as no identifying information was requested or recorded by the researcher. These methods ensured the confidentiality of the study.
Material
Between March 20 and 29, an interview guide with a total of ten semi-structured interview questions was utilised to gather the necessary data for the project. The guide was separated into four sections; integration, visibility and victimisation, substance use/recidivism and a concluding section (See Appendix E, Interview Guide). Interviews with participants ranged from seven to twenty-five minutes. Recordings were facilitated by an Olympus voice recorder provided by Malmö University. The collected data was transcribed in NVivo 12, qualitative analysis software and coded with an open coding method. A theoretical thematic analysis was implemented where different patterns or themes within the data was identified and analysed (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The researcher also utilised a semi-structured analysis guideline stipulated in Maguire & Delahunt (2017).
MEASURES
The interview guide asked participants questions relating to Integration, Visibility & Victimisation and Substance Abuse/Recidivism. In this study, Integration refers to the ability of an individual join or re-join society. Victimisation refers to any unjust treatment experienced by the individuals as a result of their status.
Substance Use highlights the individual's active use of drugs, while Recidivism refers to the individual's tendency to re-offend.
Visibility, Victimisation and Integration
Three questions measured the effect of visibility on victimisation and integration. Within the Integration section, ‘After arriving in Jamaica, were you exposed to any negative treatment from your family or community?’. This question highlights victimisation in the close familial setting and can provide insight into family and community as a protective factor from victimisation. In addition to that, ‘Do you fear being singled out or treated unjustly as a result of being deported’ can provide context on the individual's perception of their visibility as a contributor to victimisation. Moreover, it can highlight ways in which the individuals changed their routine activities in order to reduce victimisation. Lastly, ‘Have you had to alter your behaviour to blend in as a result of fear of being singled out?’ follows up with the previous question and provides specific understanding of the ways in which individuals conceal their behaviours to reduce the possibility of victimisation.
Well-being
Well-being was measured by examining the responses to the questions related to fear of crime and the use of substances within the visibility and victimisation and Substance Use subsections. ‘Have you ever feared or worried about having crimes committed against you as a result of being a deported migrant?’. Responses to this can highlight victimisation among the population, and through the responses, the effect of fear on the participants can be understood. Secondly, ‘Has fear or worry about crime influenced your use of substances, e.g. marijuana?’ was used to understand well-being by identifying the effects of an increase, decrease or first use of substances as a coping mechanism. In addition to this, ‘Has stress to related to deportation influenced your use of substances, e.g. marijuana?’ was added to gain a microlevel perspective on stress and its relation to the use of substances.
Recidivism
In order to gain an insight on the participant's perception of their propensity to relapse, the following question was asked: ‘Has fear worry or any stress related to deportation influenced thoughts of committing offences, including the use of substances? This question also allows the researcher to understand the extent to which negative influences affects the participants. Adding to a good measure of the correlation between stress, fear or worry and recidivism.
Theme Protectiv
e Factors Drug Use Integration Offences Stress Negative Attitudes Sub- theme Avoidan ce Use of Substance s Culture Shock 1.Access to facilities 2.Crime in Jamaica Fear of committi ng offences Stress associated with deportation Societal Respons e Isolation Non-use of substances Fear of victimisat
ion/crime Other stressful situations Governmen t Response (circle of officialdom ) Resilienc e Associati on with drug users Media’s portrayal Family/Fri end support Visibility
Coping Time away from Jamaica Lack of material possessio ns Acceptan ce
ANALYTICAL STRATEGY
Considering the research background, the author utilised a thematic analytical strategy guided by the life course perspective and lifestyle/exposure theory. The analysis included a line by line perusal of the interview transcript in NVivo 12 to identify emergent themes (See Table 1). Themes were then coded and organised by relevance into themes and subthemes. Thereafter, an abductive approach was used in the final analysis of the results. Through this, and the application of the relevant theories, relationships between the deported migrants’ fear of crime and their well-being were investigated.
Coding
The analysis of data revealed six initial themes: Protective factors, Drug use, Integration, Offences, Stress and Negative attitudes. Therein, several subthemes emerged and are presented in the following section. Thereafter, they are discussed within the context of the six overarching themes. The code Protective factors identified any behaviour or situation that could protect the deported migrants from becoming vulnerable; this included isolation, a change in their routine activities and familial support. Drug Use identified their use of substances prior to and as a result of deportation. Integration referred to their ability to adjust to life in Jamaica, including the acquisition of jobs. Offences summarised the fear of crime being committed against them and their own perception of their propensity to Table 1. The emergent themes and subthemes from interviews with deported migrants
Figure 1. Illustration of the emergent effects of fear of crime on the wellbeing of deported migrants in Jamaica and their relationship.
commit a criminal act as a result of being deported. The code Stress collected responses to the stressful events that occurred as a result of the deportation process and the eventual deportation to Jamaica. Negative Attitudes identified the attitudes of others to the participants in their daily lives.
RESULTS
Integration
From interviews with the deported migrants, it was revealed that integrating with the Jamaican society was challenging. Specific reference was made to difficulty as a result of visibility, lack of resources and knowledge of the current conditions in Jamaica. The deported migrants noted that they were easily identified through their accents, specifically the pronunciation of certain words and the inclusion of some vocabulary. In addition to that, members of society also identified them through second-hand information on their arrival and an assumed reason for deportation. Through the migrant’s perception, the visibility incurred resulted in them being singled out and exposed to various levels of discrimination and victimisation, including employment rejection, segregation and other negative attitudes:
‘It is still somewhat difficult to adapt’ (Interview 5) ‘Very difficult, even now…it was difficult to adjust to the way of
life, weather, everything.’ (Interview 4)
‘Yes, it was difficult, because in searching for a job as soon as you opened your mouth to speak, they begin to single you out…
Anywhere you go as soon as you open your mouth because of your accent they will segregate you. They don’t treat you the same as someone who speaks the Jamaican Patois. Because you
left the country for a while, you will say your words differently, and they will single you out for that. They will overcharge you
for one. Then people will assume a lot of things about you. (Interview 4).
A recurring point in the interviews was a lack of support from the Jamaican government. Migrants noted that apart from the NODM, little to no assistance was given from those in a higher power to aid their integration. The difficulty experienced also included homelessness for some deported migrants. This was described explicitly in Interview number 7. Therein, he described a series of uncomfortable short-term lodgings with friends and family members after his arrival:
‘It was, kind of difficult when I arrived. The back and forth, people and strangers.’ (Interview 7)
However, a few respondents highlighted that integration was not an issue for them. Therein, one respondent noted that being accepted was more of a challenge than integrating into society. These points are presented within the themes of protective factors and negative attitudes.
Time away from Jamaica was another emergent theme during the thematic analysis. The theme was evident as most respondents noted that they spent a longer time away, and this resulted in various time-integration effects. The subtheme uncovered the following experiences:
1) frequent visits to the island increasing the ability to integrate
2) an extended time away from Jamaica increasing the difficulties in integration Notably, individuals who had little to no connections to Jamaica also found it harder to integrate than those who had strong connections in the island nation. These connections included having a spouse, children, jobs and a sense of comfort, e.g. a safe place to stay. One respondent highlighted ‘…if you don't have somewhere to put your head, you can have a lot of stress’ adding to the stress-integration link highlighted in Figure 1. These connections (spouse, children, etc.), when based in the deporting country, also increased the difficulties encountered after deportation:
‘it is a different Jamaica from Jamaica that we left 20 years ago. I don't know about anyone else, but I have it really hard. Especially my kids, because I used to take them to school and pick them up, so it’s really difficult, and I know it’s difficult for
them as well.’ (Interview 4)
Negative attitudes
As presented earlier, common to the integration issues expressed by the population was the acquisition of jobs. Many found that their overseas criminal records affected their job prospects locally. Many reported that they often faced discrimination when engaging job applications if others knew their ‘deportee’ status. In addition to that, some respondents pointed out that the said knowledge of their ‘deportee’ status influenced their relationships with their immediate
family and community. Through this, negative attitudes on a macro (general society) and micro (family and community) level were identified as potential barriers to their livelihood.
In response to the question ‘After arriving in Jamaica, were you exposed to any negative treatment from family or community?’ the following was highlighted:
‘I mean just because I was deported, people knew nothing about me but just the fact that I was a deportee. You know. ye man, they scorn and tell the children not to come around me and stuff
like that’ (Interview 1)
‘My family didn’t want much to do with me’ (Interview 5) ‘I need money to eat, and I can’t get a job now. What am I going to do, beg people like a homeless person?’ (Interview 2)
In contrast to this, two individuals reported little to no negative attitudes on the macro or micro level and ease in blending into society. These experiences are further discussed in the ‘Protective factors’ subthemes.
The media as a factor to the increased visibility of the population was highlighted by one respondent. Therein, the respondent illustrated their return to Jamaica with a limited amount of luggage and referred to the use of a black bag (plastic bag) to transport his belongings as an added embarrassment. The responses were coded in the ‘negative attitudes’ subtheme of the study:
‘… when I got deported, I did not like the idea with the media coming out and… you understand. Why was our flight the targeted flight with the media? So many flights come to Jamaica
with deportation, and it was not targeted. Right around the world, people were calling me seeing me with a black bag, asking if that’s how they sent me. A big embarrassment…’
(Interview 4)
As it regards the change in behaviours from being singled out, a few respondents noted no change in their behaviour with some expressing that they simply ‘carried on’ or a change was not necessary as a result of comfort with their work and social environments. (see Appendix E: Question 4). However, there were those who highlighted a specific changed in their accents and mannerisms to facilitate blending in.
Ye, I would just try to blend in. Try to adapt and try to speak like, try to speak like the regular Jamaican down here.
(Interview 8)
‘Actually, I still don't think I blend in. I just try to find my own, you know I try to stay on the right track. try to find something to
motivate myself, you know. Still, I don’t think I blended in for real. You understand?’
(Interview 3) Offences
The responses to questions on fear of victimisation as a result of having a deported migrant status varied. Some highlighted that as a result of their deported
status, they could not become victims of crime; pointing to their lack of resources, material possession and the constant struggle to integrate:
‘No, the reason for that is there was nothing for me to display, it was always ‘struggles’, so no one would really think about that’
(Interview 5)
‘…I would say no. I have never ever; I don’t remember even fearing that.’(Interview 2)
However, half of respondents highlighted some level of fear or worry about crimes being committed against them as a result of being a deported migrant. In addition to that, it was stressed that the current criminal trends in Jamaica increased their level of paranoia or fear of crimes being committed against them. The effect was especially evident in migrants, who mentioned that they live in a violent or violence-prone neighbourhood:
Do I ever fear? Ye...ye.... (ye).... I mean ye, regularly to the point where if I go to an interview and I am trying to get a job I
don't want to admit that I was deported. I refuse to tell them stuff like that. Because I am afraid of the victimisation or
whatever, that I am gonna get. (Interview 6)
Yes, I have that fear because I have left for a good while and I do not know if I came, how the outcome… Yes, sometimes I have
to look out of my eyes because many times you hear little talks like 'boy some deportees are here'. You know what I mean 'let’s
check them out'’. (Interview 7)
One respondent added a direct linkage between well-being and fear of crime being committed against them:
‘… I don’t know if it is when I am going to pick up some cash, or someone is going to watch me. Yes, I am paranoid because I
am not used to people dying in front of police stations’(Interview 6)
In response to questions which sought to identify a link between substance use, stress or deportation and committing offences (Question 9), there was a clear division on the importance of some variables. In discussing their propensity to commit a criminal act, the following was highlighted in interview number 7:
‘Well I mean like I won’t say fear. To be honest, when you come home (Jamaica) and find out certain things, at that point in time without thinking you would. But if you are a ‘conscious person’
and try to overcome things like that...‘(Interview 7)
Drug Use
While the use of substances is considered an offence, the study sought to separate the theme to facilitate an in-depth analysis on the type of substances used, the perception of such substances and their effects. Several respondents pointed out that they actively used marijuana before, during, and after the deportation process. Importantly, most pointed out that it was the only substance they used, and some
reported that they do not use substances. Through the accounts made by the deported migrants, there were increases in the use of substances after deportation:
‘ Well, marijuana is the only thing I use. So, I would say yes, there were cases when I used to smoke much harder because I
was going through that phase.’ (Interview 2)
Other records show that protective factors were considered by some participants and highlighted as a factor contributing to their use of marijuana:
Interview: ‘Oh, no, no. Those type of people are not around me. I will say I have a disciplined family. So, I don’t really stray too much. My family they are not that type of person.’ (Interview 3)
The analysis also uncovered a connection between drug use and well-being. After speaking about the positive coping effects of marijuana use, one participant highlighted the connection between drug use and their health. Therein, a clear disassociation was made between marijuana use and the use of other ‘drugs’:
‘All the problems I am worrying about, I don't remember them… But I can’t keep on smoking its’ not good for my health, but what can I do? I am not taking drugs, or pills and I am not going to trouble anyone to feel better. I stay by myself and smoke.’ (Interview 6)
However, it is important to note that no deported migrant identified a direct correlation to drug use and their fear of crime (see Appendix E: Question 7). Stress
Stress as a theme was most evident after the exploration of the Drug Use and Integration themes. Several respondents who smoked noted that stress contributed to their smoking habits, citing an increase in marijuana use:
‘Stress makes me smoke’ (Interview 6)
‘But when I reached out here, Oh My God, I smoked without a passion. Because now it starts to boil in my head because I am free, and I think about what they did to me and that it was not
fair.’ (Interview 7)
It was also identified in interview number 3’s discussion on the homelessness ensured after their deportation:
‘If you don’t have somewhere to put your head you can have a lot of stress’ (Interview 3)
After expressing the effects that stress has had on them, one respondent highlighted a propensity to commit acts suicidal acts rather than committing acts against other people. In that, he expressed a strong desire to perform an anomic suicide by way of walking into traffic:
‘Yes, sometimes I feel, that time I feel like I just want to walk into a truck.’(Interview7)
However, deported migrants explained how various protective factors prevented them from self-harm and harming others. This is presented in the subtheme of Resilience.
Resilience
While the effects of deportation, stress and substance use were uncovered, resilience was an evident theme in the interviews and was related to the integration, fear of crime, well-being and recidivism aspects of the study’s focus. From the analysis, resilience was associated with protective factors, available resources and self-motivation. The effects of other subthemes also showed an effect on the participants:
Still, I feel people looking at me, but my motivation is the best. I motivate myself... (Interview 8)
‘… if I was not strong, I would be mad (mentally ill) already. I'm telling you that. Honestly, it must be affecting me mentally, even my younger cousin, I have to be talking to him. I can see it
affecting him more than me (Interview 4)
Protective factors
Further to this, the respondents highlighted several effects on their well-being as a result of fear of crime. Common to the population was a change in their routine activities, specifically independent activities, to avoid being singled out or becoming a victim of crime. As such, avoidance and isolation were identified as methods to counter the effects of victimisation.
Through this, it was highlighted that deported migrants limited their physical movement to familiar places and people. Therein, almost all migrants highlighted that having the presence of a friend, family member or a direct mode of transportation positively affected their freedom-of-movement. Evidence of this was highlighted in responses to question number 6, ‘Have you ever feared having crimes committed against you because you were deported?’:
‘‘Yes, in a way that, because some places I do not go to just because of that.’ (Interview 8)
‘Well, to be honest, there are certain places I want to go, but I would prefer going with a car that I know will wait for me rather than taking a normal cab, and that will cost me more...’
(Interview 4)
‘The community where I was when I was travelling, I definitely had to leave from there, because the way people look at you,
you feel like you have to hide yourself in the deepest bush.’ (Interview 3)
Evidence of avoidance and isolation was also identified in terms of contact with individuals. Respondents reported less interaction with unfamiliar people:
‘Yes, but I stay away from people, so it does not really bother me. If I do not go around people for them to speak about you
and 'style' you nothing will happen. So, I stay to myself.’ (Interview 6)
In addition to that, one respondent expressed the need to carry a weapon to protect himself in the case that a physical altercation would ensue. In that, a change in
interaction with people abroad versus Jamaica was highlighted:
‘I don't walk around with knives in England. Now, I came here I have to take someone’s ratchet (pocketknife) and walk with it,
because 'me nah tek no check from nobadi'. (Interview 4)
Therein, ‘me nah tek no check from nobadi’ means the respondent lacks trust in others which causes the respondent to be more protective of himself.
As highlighted in the theme of integration, protective factors were identified in relation to the theme:
‘…because of my family background there. I wouldn’t say that. I was welcomed. (Interview 1).
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS
The results of this project indicate that the visibility of the migrants has a strong correlation to their exposure to victimisation and their ease of integration associated, directed by society’s negative attitudes (See Figure 1). However, the effect of these is dependent on the presence of several protective factors (See Table 1). As identified in the results, deported migrants who have limited connections to the island, have been away for an extended time or currently reside in a violence-prone community face more discrimination and have a more difficult time integrating. A direct correlation of which has been seen to their visibility, which in part lies on the perception of the migrants by the local media and public figures. Many migrants cope with these negative effects by increasing their use of substances marijuana. In addition to that, they have also isolated themselves or altered behaviours as a result of fear of crime. Migrants have also altered behaviours to blend in and avoid being singled out. In that, many change their accents or travel with family/friends in order to decrease the risk of victimisation. Notably, these methods of coping affect the overall well-being of some respondents. This includes psychological distress, thoughts of self-harm and physical health deterioration. The added stress ensued has also influenced thoughts of recidivism among some of the migrants (See figure 2). Apart from the use of marijuana, it was migrants feared that their situation may cause them to commit other illegal offences.
Figure 2. The emergent effects of fear of crime on the wellbeing of deported male migrants in Jamaica. Yellow lines are used to indicate the protective factors which act as mediators.
DISCUSSION
Visibility, victimisation and the integration of deported migrants In the exploration of visibility’s effect on the migrant population, the results triggered an understanding of the uncovered protective factors. Notably, owing to the study’s objective, no reported evidence directly linked visibility to crimes against the population. Nevertheless, from the accounts given, it is understood that criminal forces within violence-prone communities may target deported migrants as a result of their perceived wealth, unfamiliarity and common distrust. Evidence of this perceived victimisation lies in the migrant’s utilization of various methods of protection, e.g. travelling with a known individual and changing their behaviours or routine activities (See: Hindelang et al. 1978; FRA, 2009 as cited in Wallengren & Mellgren, 2015; Stafford 2007). From a deductive analysis and corroboration with Whitley & Prince’s (2005) study on vulnerable populations, these are noted as attempts to blend into society or avoid potential victimisation by reducing their visibility. Moreover, the behaviours are directly in line with the ideologies of Hindelang et al.’s (1978) lifestyle/exposure theory.
The negative attitudes experienced by the deported migrant population in Jamaica created a second dimension to the overall perception of visibility’s effect. Wallengren & Mellgren’s 2015 correlation of visibility and stigmatisation corroborates the study’s findings. Therein, it was more evident that the respondent's exposure to hostile environments had the potential to impact their perceived risk of victimisation. This is especially noticeable when viewed in tandem with the high reports of crime in Jamaica, and the catalytic effect of the media. To further understand this, we can employ Schuster & Majidi’s (2015)
identification that these individuals are often ‘treated as tainted’ and Headley’s (2006) identification of the constructed ‘enemies of society.’
Understanding the Impact
Within the study, the absence of protective factors was identified as a defining point on the impact of negative attitudes on deported migrants who return or are introduced to communities. It was understood that the perceived risk of victimisation and difficulty in integration was more evident in with respondents who resided in violence-prone communities, particularly those with incidences of recorded crime, corroborating findings in other qualitative research (Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; Brunton-Smith & Sturgis, 2011).
From the results, it was evident that the perception of the migrant population by the media and those in higher powers or ‘circles of officialdom’ contributed largely to their increased risk for victimisation and inability to integrate. Through this, the negative media exposure and the known level of crime identified in the literature, it is possible to deduce that citizens of the wider society exert these negative attitudes as a result of their own fear of crime. It is then understood that the situation the high level of distrust between 1) the deported migrants and the security forces 2) the society and the security forces and 3) the society and the deported migrants negatively affects the ability of the protective factors as mediators. This, in turn, increases the potential of deported migrants being blamed for criminal activities in their communities. Evidence highlights that this distrust was a common accord among all deported migrants, even those who had a reportedly smoother integration process — suggesting that within the current climate, full integration of the migrant population in Jamaica might be a far-fetched idea.
Fear of crime and a deported migrant’s well-being
While the results of the study highlighted the impact of resilience and protective factors on deported migrant’s well-being, it was important to analyse the negative effects associated with fear of crime. The analytical strategy highlighted that migrants were cautious and fearful when it came to their mobility. From the primary effects from fear of crime (avoidance, isolation and changes in their routine activities), it is possible to deduce that the level of fear of crime might be higher than what was reported by the migrants (See: Whitley & Prince, 2005). The lack of movement and social inclusion, when coupled with the high levels of post-deportation stress, makes an association with secondary health effects of fear of crime possible. Through this, (Stafford et al., 2007) identification of the deterioration of the individual’s well-being can be utilized.
Though the current study was limited in its ability to investigate the extent to which individuals participated in various activities, the large number of social isolation cases indicate that the respondents have restricted mobility as a result of fear of crime. Hale (1996) highlighted that the resulting anxieties from fear of crime, such as those exhibited in this study’s results are known to erode the quality of life and well-being, restrict movement, motivate costly precautions and encourage flight from deprived areas. This was reflected in the study’s identification of respondent’s discomfort in their community and cautious lifestyle. Further to that, the harmed social trust, intergroup relations and the limited capacity of communities to exercise social control were identified.
Examining substance use and potential relapse within the life course Throughout the study, reports of an increase in the use of marijuana, suicidal thoughts and aggression were key indicators of deteriorating effects previously described. Noting the risk of SUDs within migration (Familiar, et al., 2011; Brouwer et al., 2009) the lack of resilient attitudes and other protective factors must not be undermined.
While the results of the study did not indicate any direct correlation between the fear of becoming victims of crime and use/abuse of substances, its analysis provided enough information for the indirect linkages to be uncovered. When examined within the life course perspective, a clear explanation of the importance of health beyond merely identifying a relationship between health and antisocial behaviour is identified. The analysis returned that fear of crime influences change in the behaviours of the population leading to negative health effects; an exacerbation of which puts individuals at high risk for SUDs and recidivism (See figure 2). Though the possibility of severe health effects was highlighted among the deported migrant population, it was impossible to accurately measure within the scope of this study. Despite this limitation, the indication of the severe effects and its potential ramification are understood. The linkages between life transitions and its evident health effects corroborate findings by Turbian & Franco (2016).
Marijuana and recidivism
Marijuana is hardly ever considered a drug or a ‘hard drug’ by the wider Jamaican society as it is casually and religiously used by many (Eichel & Troiden, 1978). Whereas cocaine, heroin and other substances, as seen in the results of this study, are often cited as dangerous. Notably, the deported migrant population in Jamaica only identified marijuana as a substance of choice with many highlighting its use as a coping mechanism. The identification gives an insight into the potentially harmful use of substances among the population and should influence future policies regarding substance use and abuse.
Noting Eichel & Troiden’s (1978) description of marijuana use locally, it may be difficult to view its use a means of relapse to criminal activity, but its use as an indicator of the deteriorating well-being of the migrants is clear. In investigating the potential for recidivism, migrants expressed concern for their individual propensity to crime. It is possible to interpret this as resulting from the overall deportation process, including stigmatisation and their fear of crime. In what could be considered a deteriorative cycle, increased use of substances as a coping mechanism does have the potential to increase the thoughts of committing such acts. Though unpublished, one study found that robbery was common in areas where deported migrants resided (Rozo et al., 2016). In addition to that, like this study, the migrants faced significant integration challenges, including stigmatisation and victimisation.
LIMITATIONS
Before considering the applicability of the study’s findings, its limitations should first be recognized. The author finds that the elements of the developed profile of respondents highlights that the analysis should only be used as an indicator of fear of crime and recidivism among deported male migrants. Therein, the small sample
size and the lack of female participants may underestimate the severity of fear of crime’s impact on the deported migrant population. The inclusion of female participants, who were deemed at a higher risk by the gatekeeper, could have affected the outcomes of the results. Further, the methodological power of the study could be improved by utilizing items that identified migrant’s criminal records. Though it was the intention of the author to select participants who were only convicted of drug-related crimes, the gatekeeper identified that several respondents deemed such information as too sensitive. In addition to that, considering fear of crimes link to previous ill health (Jackson & Stafford, 2009), knowledge of the health profile of the migrants could impact the methodological power of the study. Moreover, the interview guide’s self-report premise might encourage underreporting where participants had a fear of consequences resulting from their admittance to drug use or victimisation. The difficulty in accessing the deported migrant population on a community level decreases the possibility to provide cross-comparison of the effects of community-level factors on the population. This could include socioeconomic comparisons and collective efficacy.
CONCLUSION
The present study was able to provide an overview of how fear of crime contributes to the well-being of deported male migrants in Jamaica. Through the exploration of the migrants as potential victims in an unforgiving social context, the study contributes to the criminological literature by uncovering the under-researched perspectives of fear of crime and well-being among the population. Further, its methodological premise contributes to the existing gap in fear of crime, substance use and recidivism research in Jamaica.
In combination with previous findings, the examined profile highlighted significant effects of visibility, stress, stigmatisation and lack of integration on the population’s well-being. Additionally, the analysis indicates that the exacerbation of the uncovered negative effects increases the risk of substance use, SUDs and recidivism among the deported male migrant population. With the study’s data indicating an association of the adverse effects of the deportation process to the initial return, there is a potential to counter the identified issues through early and strategic interventions. Noting that the media and those in the ‘circles of officialdom’ are at the helm of the social mistrust on the island, an increased level of responsibility as it regards the population is necessary. Through this social responsibility, information regarding the vulnerable population should be accurate, effectively used and well interpreted within the local perspective. Moreover, adequate social education in the wider society has the potential to further reduce the negative effects encountered by the population.
The findings also suggest the implementation of more effective, comprehensive and long-term reintegration programs which cater to the social integration and the mental and physical health of those exposed to the deportation process. To reduce the risk of substance use, fear of crime and recidivism the author advices that the reintegration assistance is given to all individuals who have experienced the deportation process and those identified to be at a higher risk be treated accordingly. Through the identification of individuals with these propensities,
there is a possibility to intervene upon them and reduce the associated risks (Rose, 2000). Thereafter, the challenge for further research is to generate an in-depth profile of the identified risks, benefiting the implementation of long-term reintegration strategies that could benefit Jamaica’s vulnerable populations.
Notes
1. Headley (2010) notes that individuals deported to Jamaica saw themselves as “deported migrants” not “deportees.” With an understanding of the negative connotation deportees, the researcher saw it fit to utilise the term ‘deported migrants’ throughout this study. 2. Is the paper ‘Giving Critical Context to the Deportee Phenomenon’,
Bernard Headley (2006) discusses the reintegration issues faced by deported migrants to Jamaica.
REFERENCES
Box, S., Hale, C. & Andrews, G., 1988. Explaining fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, pp. 340-356.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , pp. 77-101.
Brotherton, D. & Barios, L., 2009. Displacement and stigma: The social-psychological crisis of the deportee. Crime, Media, Culture, 5(1), p. 29–55. Brouwer, K. et al., 2009. Deportation Along the U.S.–Mexico Border: Its Relation to Drug Use Patterns and Accessing Care. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 11(1), pp. 1-6.
Brunton-Smith, I. & Sturgis, P., 2011. Do neighbourhoods generate fear of crime? An empirical test using the British Crime Survey. Criminology, pp. 331-369. Cambridge Dictionary, 2019. Cambridge Dictionary. [Online]
Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/deport [Accessed 19 April 2019].
Charles, C., 2010. The reintegration of criminal deportees in society. Dialectical Anthropology, 34(4), pp. 501-511.
Corporate Watch, 2018. Deportation Charter Flights: Updated Report 2018. [Online]
Available at: https://corporatewatch.org/deportation-charter-flights-updated-report-2018/
[Accessed 27 April 2019].
Eichel, G. & Troiden, R., 1978. The Domestication of Drug Effects: The Case of Marijuana. Journal Of Psychedelic Drugs, pp. 133-136.
Elder, G. H. J., 2001. Time, Human Agency and Social Change. In: Life-Course Criminology. Toronto: Wadsworth, pp. 3-20.
Elder, G., Johnson, M. & Crosnoe, R., 2003. The Emergence and Development of Life Course Theory. In: Mortimer J.T., Shanahan M.J. (eds) Handbook of the Life Course. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research.. In: Handbook of the Life Course. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 3-19.
Familiar, I., Borges, G., Orozco, R. & Medina-Morab, M., 2011. Journal of Affective Disorders, 130(1-2), pp. 83-91.
FRA, 2009. Data in Focus Report 1: The Roma, European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS), Brussels: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).
Fussell, E., 2011. The Deportation Threat Dynamic and Victimization of Latino Migrants: Wage Theft and Robbery. Sociological Quarterly, pp. 593-615 .
George, L., 2014. Taking Time Seriously: A Call to Action in Mental Health Research. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, pp. 251-264.
Golash-Boza, T., 2016. Feeling Like a Citizen, Living As a Denizen. American Behavioral Scientist, pp. 1575-1589.
Gough, I. & McGregor, J., 2007. Wellbeing in Developing Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffith, I., 2004. Caribbean Security in the Age of Terror: Challenge and Change. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers..
Hale, C., 1996. Fear of Crime: A Review of the Literature. International Review of Victimology, pp. 79-150.
Headley, B., 2006. Giving Critical Context to the Deportee Phenomenon. Social Justice, pp. 40-56.
Headley, B., 2010. Jamaican deported migrants aim to support development and environmental management, Kingston: Migration for Development.
Headley, B. & Milovanovic, D., 2016. Reintegrating deported citizens into national development: The Jamaican model. [Online]
Available at:
http://refugee-rights.org/rights-in-exile- newsletter/articles/reintegrating-deported-citizens-into-national-development-the-jamaican-model/
Hindelang;, M., Gottfredson, M. & Garofalo, J., 1978. Victims of Personal Crime - An Empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimisation. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Horyniak, D., Pinedo, M., Burgos, J. & Ojeda, V., 2017. Relationships Between Integration and Drug Use Among Deported Migrants in Tijuana, Mexico. Journal of Immigrant Minority
Health, Volume 19, pp. 1196-1206.
Jackson, J. & Stafford, M., 2009. Public Health and Fear of Crime: A Prospective Cohort Study. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(6), pp. 832-847.
Kanan, J. & Pruitt, M., 2002. Modelling Fear of Crime and Perceived Victimization Risk: The (In)Significance of Neighborhood Integration. Sociological Inquiry, pp. 527-548.
Kempadoo, K., 1999. Sun, Sex, and Gold: Tourism and Sex Work in the Caribbean.. s.l.:Rowman & Littlefield.
Lacey, M., 2007. No Paradise for Criminals Deported to Jamaica. [Online] Available at:
Logan, S., Bain, B. & Kairies, K., 2006. Deportation feeds a cycle of violence in Central America. Americas Program. International Relations Center. Published online., s.l.: International Relations Center.
Madjd-Sadjadi, Z. & Alleyne, D., 2007. The Potential Jamaican Impact of Criminal Deportees from the U.S. Journal Of Ethnicity In Criminal Justice, pp. 29-53.
Maguire, M. & Delahunt, B., 2017. Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars. AISHE-J:, pp. 335(1-14). Miles, M. & Huberman, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Miller, A., 2012. Deportation as a Process of Irreversible Transformation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, pp. 131-146.
NODM, 2019. National Organisation oF Deported Migrants. [Online] Available at: https://nodmjm.org/
Perry, B., 2009. There's just some places ya don't wanna go: The segregating impact of hate crime against Native Americans. Contemporary Justice Review, 12(4), pp. 401-418.
Planning Institute of Jamaica, 2018. Economic & Social Survey Jamaica 2017, Kingston, Jamaica: Planning Institute of Jamaica.
Reiner, R., 2001. The Rise of Virtual Vigilantism: crime reporting since World War II. Criminal Justice Matters, 43(1), pp. 4-5.
Rose, N., 2000. The biology of culpability: Pathological identity and crime control in a Biological Culture. Theoretical Criminology, 4(1), p. 4.
Rozo, S., Raphael, S. & Anders, T., 2016. Deportation, Crime, and Victimization. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Ruijsbroek, A., Droomers, M., Groenewegen, P. & Hardyns, W., 2015. Social Safety, Self-Rated General Health and Physical Activity: Changes in Area Crime, Area Safety Feelings and the Role of Social Cohesion. Health & Place , pp. 39-45.
Schuster, L. & Majidi, N., 2015. Deportation Stigma and Re-migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, pp. 635-652.
Stafford, M., Chandola, T. & Marmot, M., 2007. Association Between Fear of Crime and Mental Health and Physical Functioning. American Journal of Public Health, p. 2076–2081.
Tanasescu, M. et al., 2002. Exercise type and intensity in relation to coronary heart disease in men.. JAMA, pp. 1994-2000.
