In 2018, Americans were captivated by media attention that spotlighted the practice of family separation at the southern border under the Trump administration. Shocking stories like a Honduran woman having her daughter taken away from her while she was breastfeeding spurred public condemnation and calls for changes to these inhumane policies. According to Michael J. Sullivan’s latest book, these revelations were only the tip of the iceberg. Born Innocent: Protecting the Dependents of Accused Caregivers calls our attention to the reemergence of a variety of state actions in liberal democracies that inflict vicarious punishment on the dependents of people incarcerated or detained. The moral uproar over family separation at the southern border has quieted to a hum on the 24-hour news cycle, yet the practice has not abated, and as Sullivan persuasively argues, a number of other practices produce similarly negative outcomes that deserve our attention. Born Innocent, ambitious in scope, pulls together the disparate actions states carry out in criminal justice, immigration, and antiterrorism policy to provide a unique and wide-ranging perspective on the effects of vicarious punishment.

In addition to providing a distinctively broad analytic focus, Sullivan also presents a convincing normative argument about how states should protect children in these diverse circumstances. He responds to the reemergence of vicarious punishment in liberal democracies with a forceful call for states to end these practices and to work to protect dependents from punishments directed at a caregiver. In developing his case, Sullivan grapples with questions about what a state and its citizens owe the individuals it detains and their innocent dependents—questions that are central to those working on criminal justice reform, international migration policy, and citizenship studies. In Sullivan’s estimation, the commitment to retributive forms of punishment has led to collateral consequences such as family separation, exclusionary citizenship policies, and the destruction of communities. An alternative framework rooted in restorative justice, rehabilitation, and reintegration, Sullivan argues, should instead be applied to alleviate the harms inflicted on the dependents of detained caregivers.

This book traces the injustices faced by asylum seekers, immigrants, mixed-citizenship–status families, African Americans, Native Americans, and the children of suspected terrorists. Chapter 2 explores the ways that states use family separation in punitive ways to deter unauthorized immigration and residence. Highlighting the collateral consequences for the dependents of immigrants adds an important example to the growing case scholars are making that immigration policies are melding with criminal punishment. Because immigrant detention is replicating the worst outcomes of criminal punishment, Sullivan argues it should be classified as such and that people should be provided with the same protections guaranteed to the criminally accused.

In extending the critique of policies surrounding citizenship rights that unfairly harm dependents, chapter 3 argues that the denial of citizenship is a form of punishment and should be avoided for the children of irregular immigrants. These dependents deserve to be considered for citizenship separately from the status and conduct of their parents. Sullivan argues for expansive territorial birth and descent citizenship practices to ensure protection for children who are at risk of de jure and de facto statelessness. The chapter dispels the empirically unfounded myths of “birth tourism” and “anchor babies” that have fueled increasingly restrictive and punitive immigration policies (56, 58).

The normative arguments for how dependents should be protected by the state set up the following two chapters that examine the consequences of failing to provide protection for the dependents of offenders within states (chap. 4) and across borders in detainment camps (chap. 5). These two chapters detail the negative outcomes of retributive approaches that break up families and communities. Sullivan puts forth a model of reintegration and rehabilitation that he argues would be more effective in addressing security concerns and protecting dependents. Not only is the separation of family members harmful to dependents but Sullivan also shows that it undermines rehabilitation and reintegration for those who are incarcerated. In the case of antiterrorism policies, denationalization does not necessarily incapacitate or deter the accused, but it does render their dependents stateless. Therefore, Sullivan makes an argument that rehabilitation and reintegration as guiding principles would not only assure better outcomes for dependents but also would better achieve security goals.

In the final substantive chapter, Sullivan traces the case of family separation that came from forced residential school attendance for Indigenous children in Canada and the United States. This closing case demonstrates the lasting harms of separating families and lays out an argument for how past injustices should be handled to facilitate healing and avoid reproducing harm. Although Canadian residential schools going as far back as the late nineteenth century may seem worlds away from antiterrorism cases unfolding in the Middle East, Sullivan pulls together the unifying themes of both: the harms of familial separation and the solution of restorative justice. His call for solidaristic alliances between Indigenous communities and immigrants provides a political rationale for why it is valuable to consider these different policies and histories together. The path to resolving the injustices in these widely varying contexts is to build alliances and common cause between a diverse set of actors to better protect children.

The strongest contribution of the book is that it provides a clear normative argument and puts forth specific and well-considered solutions to the problems of dependents being vicariously punished and separated from caregivers. The clear call to consider those too often forgotten by policy makers in their rush to punish is a valuable contribution. Yet the prescribed solutions also raise some questions, in part stemming from the lack of focus on the larger political and economic contexts in which these policies take shape.

Sullivan suggests that one reason family separation is negative is because it ultimately increases burdens on taxpayers and leads to dependents’ unnecessary reliance on social assistance (16, 83). Although he makes important points about the disruptive and negative effects of family separation, this line of argument may ultimately contradict some of his own solutions. Appeals to fiscal responsibility have been used to eviscerate the very types of programs Sullivan rightfully notes are needed to keep families together and to protect children. He proposes a range of policies to mitigate harm to dependents that would all require state investments, including providing financial support for visitation, making chaperones available for children to visit parents (10, 85), employing psychiatrists and social welfare workers to address mental health needs (23), allowing incarcerated parents to work for market-level wages while in prison (95), and broadly giving caregivers “support and resources” (12).

Similarly, the argument that greater family connection and rehabilitation while in prison would lessen the need for state support programs in society more broadly may be shortsighted. Family unity is a worthy goal, but it is not necessarily a substitute for the responsibility of society to address economic, political, and racial inequalities. Many of those outside prison face a similar lack of resources, such as not having access to living wages or affordable housing, that create major impediments to caregiving. This broader inequitable social environment raises the question of whether it will be sufficient to change criminal justice, immigration, and antiterrorism practices alone. It seems likely that the problems related to protecting the children of the accused and detained require policies that extend beyond these domains.

Sullivan acknowledges the social determinants and structural causes of crime, which makes his call for rehabilitation at times an odd choice. Putting forth a rehabilitative ideal risks promoting an individualistic and moralizing view of crime that obscures the role of economic and political context. Arguments like “moral reform should play a guiding role in incarceration rather than simply warehousing” (87) and “incarceration should be used to rehabilitate offenders to be better caregivers and citizens” (99) are welcome corrections to destructive retributive approaches. However, they may unintentionally support stigmatizing views that those in prison are morally deficient and require personal transformation. This perspective keeps the focus on the perceived weaknesses of the offender as the problem, rather than on the larger social context in which they are expected to survive. The argument that “society has a responsibility to help those who are at risk of offending, to treat their behavioral illnesses, and to rehabilitate them into productive social roles” (23) contributes to the idea that people are in prison because of their own flaws. This perspective fails to address the many structural impediments to people being “productive” in extremely inequitable societies that are dependent on the disposability and marginalization of entire populations.

Likewise, the argument that “reintegration should be the goal of punishment for offenders, allowing them to reassume roles as caregivers, providers, and contributing members of society” (8) fails to adequately take into account broader circumstances. The goal of reintegration often ignores the highly exclusionary social context that people are being asked to “reintegrate” into: for many, this social context was likely a major contribution to why they were subjected to punitive policies in the first place.

Ultimately, these are small points to raise in what is an unequivocally important project that provides unique insights and connections into how we can address the cruel harms inflicted on the dependents of accused caregivers. This book is a valuable resource for those interested in theories of punishment and citizenship. It is a significant contribution to those working at the intersection of international and domestic policy—and a must-read for anyone concerned with what we owe to the most vulnerable members of our society.