COVID-19 IMPACTS ON IMMIGRATION DETENTION: GLOBAL RESPONSES These measures clearly did not consider an irregular migrant population and/or those in transit across the country, nor the impact of such measures on this population. Furthermore, those who had not been detained and lived in the community generally lacked stable housing and the financial resources to guarantee their basic needs. With the suspension of non-essential activities, migrants were among the first to lose their employment, and both their jobs and housing became increasingly precarious, making them more vulnerable to immigration detention. With time, and the official declaration of a health emergency, the federal government did eventually create protocols and guidelines for vulnerable populations. The “Protocol for the prevention and attention of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Detention Centers and Temporary Shelters of the National Immigration Institute” and the “Preventive measures for Detention Centers and Temporary Shelters” were developed for the detained migrant population. Subsequently, in May 2020, a care and coordination plan was announced that included border checkpoints, medical units, shelters, places of refuge and private accommodation. These measures came late and were deficient and widely ignored in institutional practice. Thus, for example, the social distancing and hygiene health measures established for detention centers, did not take account of the prevailing physical conditions of these centers, nor were alternative measures considered that would avoid detention in such places. The measures therefore served no purpose in guaranteeing and effectively protecting either the health, or the physical, emotional, or psychological well-being of migrants. The National Immigration Institute (INM) continued with the identification and detention of migrants with a view to deportation. However, the regular operation of the immigration system was affected by total, partial or intermittent border closures, among which were those of the northern Central American countries, and the return to Mexico of migrants from various countries under Title 42 of the United States Code.12 This resulted in erratic and negligent actions on behalf of the INM, that violated human rights and that were aimed essentially at getting rid of migrants. In a second phase, the INM began to transfer people between detention centers, abandon them on the border, encourage their irregular crossing into Guatemala,13 or simply released them with no provisions to protect or guarantee their rights. This occurred within a context in which DIF shelters (responsible for receiving unaccompanied migrant children) had significantly reduced their operations, as had civil society organizations that provide accommodation to migrants and refugees. Nevertheless, among other targeted actions for migrants, various civil society organizations offered spaces and support for the implementation of alternatives to detention in the absence of a response from the immigration, health, or any other authorities. The Mexican State faced limitations and enormous challenges in protecting public health in the face of COVID-19. While recognizing its intention to respond to the presence and context of migrants and detention, including the recent initiative by the health authorities to provide statistics regarding numbers of COVID-related cases and deaths of migrants, none of these actions really sought to guarantee and protect the dignity and human rights of migrants and asylum seekers. The pandemic has confirmed, once again, that current immigration policies, and discrimination and institutional and social xenophobia in Mexico, are structural features that constantly inhibit and violate migrants’ human rights. In the new, post-COVID reality, it will be worth reflecting on and responding to such structural elements that endanger people’s lives, liberty, security, and integrity. ELBA Y. CORIA MÁRQUEZ Policy advocate specialized in immigration and asylum This article has been translated into English from the original in Spanish Initially, the INM extended the detention of migrants, amid undignified conditions that violated their rights. The resulting desperation led to at least five riots in detention centers in the north and south of the country, between 26 March and 6 April: in Tapachula, Tenosique, Villahermosa, Hermosillo and Piedras Negras. One of these resulted in the negligent death of an asylum seeker and several people were injured. 12 CDC. Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine: CDC’s Role. February 24, 2020. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/ aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html 13 UNHCR communication: “Concerns regarding transfers from the northern border to the southern one in the framework of the COVID-19 emergency”. Sent to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-secretarial Commission for Integral Attention in Matters of Migration (CIAIMM) of the Foreign Affairs Ministry and obtained through a request for access to information (INAI) folio:500112720, SRE, 3 June 2020. idcoalition.org | westernsydney.edu.au/hadri 39