ImmigrationProf Blog

Michelle Brané To Receive 11th Annual Daniel Levy Memorial Award for Outstanding Achievement in Immigration Law

The 2012 honoree for the Daniel Levy Memorial Award for Outstanding Achievement in Immigration Law is Michelle Brané. Michelle Brané is one of the nation's foremost experts on U.S. immigration detention and reform. As the Director of the Detention and Asylum program at the Women's Refugee Commission, Michelle Brané advocates for the critical protection needs of immigrant women, children and other vulnerable migrant populations in the United States. In addition to frequently writing on key issues concerning immigration detention and reform, she authored the 2007 Women's Refugee Commission landmark report on family detention, Locking Up Family Values and the 2009 report on unaccompanied migrant children, Halfway Home, and is the senior editor of all the Detention and Asylum Program's reports.

The award presentation and reception will be held Wednesday, June 13, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the AILA National Conference in Nashville.  A member of the Editorial Board of Bender's Immigration Bulletin, Daniel Levy died at the age of 48 on Sept. 14, 2001, in Los Angeles after a long battle with cancer. Mr. Levy was a prolific author, litigator, and scholar, and was widely known and loved by many in the immigration bar.

With this annual award Matthew Bender seeks to honor an individual who emulates the values that informed Mr. Levy's life and work:

- enthusiastic advocacy on behalf of immigrant clients;

- deep scholarship in immigration law; and

- an expansive vision of justice.

Prior honorees were Ann Benson (2005), Lisa Brodyaga (2003), Jayne Fleming (2009), Javier Maldonado (2006), Nancy Morawetz (2007), Christopher Nugent (2004), Michael J. Ortiz (2011), Brent Renision (2010), Philip Schrag (2008) and Charles Wheeler (2002).

KJ

Most Children Younger Than Age 1 are Minorities, Census Bureau Reports

Last week, the U.S. Census Bureau released a set of estimates showing that 50.4 percent of our nation's population younger than age 1 were minorities as of July 1, 2011. This is up from 49.5 percent from the 2010 Census taken April 1, 2010. A minority is anyone who is not single-race white and not Hispanic. The population younger than age 5 was 49.7 percent minority in 2011, up from 49.0 percent in 2010. A population greater than 50 percent minority is considered “majority-minority.” These are the first set of population estimates by race, Hispanic origin, age and sex since the 2010 Census. They examine population change for these groups nationally, as well as within all states and counties, between Census Day (April 1, 2010) and July 1, 2011. Also released were population estimates for Puerto Rico and its municipios by age and sex. There were 114 million minorities in 2011, or 36.6 percent of the U.S. population. In 2010, it stood at 36.1 percent. There were five majority-minority states or equivalents in 2011: Hawaii (77.1 percent minority), the District of Columbia (64.7 percent), California (60.3 percent), New Mexico (59.8 percent) and Texas (55.2 percent). No other state had a minority population greater than 46.4 percent of the total. More than 11 percent (348) of the nation's 3,143 counties were majority-minority as of July 1, 2011, with nine of these counties achieving this status since April 1, 2010. Maverick, Texas, had the largest share (96.8 percent) of its population in minority groups, followed by Webb, Texas (96.4 percent) and Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska (96.2 percent).

KJ

Fingerprints, DNA, and Immigrant Communities

From the Immigration Policy Center:

**Telephonic Briefing – Wednesday, May 23, 2012 – 1 p.m. EST/10 a.m. PST**
Fingerprints, DNA, and U.S. Immigrant Communities:
How and Why the Government Collects Biometric Data
 
The collection of biometric data in the United States—whether by law enforcement or at the nation’s borders—has expanded drastically in the years since September 11, 2001, and immigrant communities are the increasingly affected by this expansion.  

What does this mean for the privacy and security of citizens and non-citizens alike?  The Immigration Policy Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are hosting a teleconference briefing on biometrics and immigration on Wednesday, May 23 at 1 p.m. EST/10 a.m. PST.

The conference call is part of the launch of From Fingerprints to DNA: Biometric Data Collection in U.S. Immigrant Communities and Beyond, a joint white paper from Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Immigration Policy Center. The paper outlines the current state of U.S. government collection of biometric data—including the privacy risks and security problems that stem from the bulk collection of information like face prints, iris scans, and other biometrics.

Please join:
Jennifer Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Jonathan Weinberg, Wayne State University Law School
Michele Waslin, Immigration Policy Center

When: Wednesday, May 23 at 1 p.m. EST/10 a.m. PST.
RSVP: For dial-in directions send an email to Wendy Sefsaf at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org.

bh

NOT COMING TO AMERICA: NEW REPORT SHOWS HOW OTHER COUNTRIES ARE ATTRACTING THE IMMIGRANTS THAT DRIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH

The Partnership for a New American Economy and Partnership for New York City today released the results of a first-ever comparative study of how foreign countries are shaping immigration policies to boost their economies, while the United States remains mired by a broken immigration system that turns away the high and low-skilled workers it needs for continued economic growth. The report – “Not Coming to America: Why the US is Falling Behind in the Global Race for Talent” – also details common-sense reforms to U.S. immigration policy that are necessary to boost the nation’s economy. The report was released today.

KJ

Immigration Article of the Day: "Get on the Omnibus: Immigration Reform and the Electoral Motivations of State Legislators" by JOSHUA ZINGHER

"Get on the Omnibus: Immigration Reform and the Electoral Motivations of State Legislators" by JOSHUA ZINGHER, State University of New York at Binghamton.

ABSTRACT: In this paper I argue that the Republican Party is using immigration reform as a means of dividing the Democratic Party both in the legislature and the electorate. Over the last several years a number of Republican controlled state legislatures have passed highly restrictive omnibus immigration reform bills. Omnibus immigration legislation such as SB 1070 in Arizona has been widely popular among the majority of the voters but highly unpopular among Latinos. Why has the Republican Party being willing to seemingly alienate Latinos, the United State’s largest ethnic minority group? My answer to this question is that the issue of immigration has effect of dividing the Democratic Party both in the legislature and the electorate. The ability of the immigration to divide the Democratic Party, but not the Republican Party, lies in the combination of the disparity in opinion between Latinos and whites on immigration reform and the predominately Democratic partisanship of non-Cuban Latinos. Across states, the divide in the Democratic Party on immigration is reflected by the fact that Democratic legislators are highly divided on the final passage votes on omnibus immigration reform. Moreover, using a series of fixed effects logit models I find that the divide among Democratic state legislators on omnibus immigration reform votes is a product of the demographic composition of the legislator’s district. My analysis reveals that the issue of immigration frequently divides the Democratic Party, which makes immigration an appealing legislative issue for the Republican Party when they control the agenda.

KJ

An Immigrant Blacklist? Alabama Legislature Amends H.B. 56, the Toughest State Immigration Enforcement Law

Passed last year, the Beason-Hammon Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, or H.B. 56, is the state of Alabama's effort to be even tougher on undocumented immigrants than Arizona’s controversial S.B. 1070. On Friday, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed into law revisions to Alabama’s immigration enforcement law that, surprisingly enough, in certain respects make a tough-on-immigrants law even tougher. 

Gov. Bentley unsuccessfully tried to persuade lawmakers to change two provisions, one that requires schools to check the immigration status of enrolling schoolchildren, anda “Scarlet Letter” provision that requires the creation of a public computer database listing the names of undocumented immigrants who appear in court.

As we have previously reported on ImmigrationProf, the amended H.B. 56 has provoked controversy and it is unlikely to subside anytime soon.  The following is a statement from Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum.

“Alabama policymakers have officially turned back the clock on civil rights in the Heart of Dixie. The revised immigration law has achieved a new low in discriminatory and overreaching policy, targeting schoolchildren in order to frighten their parents and creating a big-government, taxpayer-funded ‘immigrant blacklist.’

“It is disappointing that Governor Bentley gave in to the legislature and signed the mean-spirited substitute law, despite his own concerns about its severity and potential impact. Indeed, Governor Bentley missed an opportunity to show responsible leadership and heed the pleas of farmers, religious and civil rights leaders calling for a repeal of the immigration law. These diverse voices oppose the latest immigration bill in Alabama because it damages the overall economy of the state and because it is a direct attack on our American values of fairness and equal treatment.

“Just last week, reports indicated that Alabama farmers were cutting back on food production. They feared crops would rot in the fields for a second straight year, a product of the farm labor shortage Alabama’s heavy-handed immigration measures have caused. Alabama’s own newspapers have reproached the immigration laws because they ‘give economic recruiters in other states all the ammunition they need to keep industries and businesses from locating in Alabama’ and because they ‘present Alabama as a closed, intolerant, unwelcoming state.’

“The new iteration of the immigration law is just meaner and more reckless. It is a bad sequel aiming to bring intimidation and fear to Alabama’s classrooms and courtrooms. Until Alabama policymakers right this wrong by repealing the law or the courts overturn it, all Alabamians will continue to suffer the economic and moral consequences.”

A legal challenge to H.B. 56 is pending in the court of appeals as the court awaits the Supreme Court's ruling in Arizona v. United States.

KJ

Vermont Protests Obama as the "Deporter In Chief"

From Migrant Justice:

VERMONT PROTESTS OBAMA “DEPORTER IN CHIEF” FOR IMPOSITION OF CONTROVERSIAL “SECURE COMMUNITIES” IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
 
    Obama Receives Failing grade on Immigration from Vermont

WHAT: Migrant workers, allies and other community members will hold a protest and press conference to condemn President Obama, “DEPORTER IN CHIEF”,  for imposing the disastrous “Secure Communities” program in Vermont.

WHEN:   Tuesday, May 22nd, 5pm Protest, 5:30pm Press conference

WHERE:  Burlington, VT. Obama Campaign Vermont Headquarters. 209 Battery St (near corner Battery St and Maple St).

WHY:  On Tuesday May 22nd, the widely discredited and controversial Secure Communities (S-COMM) program is being imposed on Vermont by the Obama Administration without any consultation or public dialogue. Secure Communities is Obama’s tool to advance his inhumane deportation quotas of 400,000 annually, which have resulted in 1.4 million deportations, more than any other president. In Vermont, Secure Communities threatens to increase deportations and drive a wedge between immigrant communities and police, who have come a long way in Bias-Free Policing .

As Danilo Lopez of Migrant Justice explains, “We are protesting because we don’t want S-COMM in Vermont or anywhere. Obama has imposed the program on us despite it resulting on the deportation of hard working families, friends and neighbors rather than targeting dangerous criminals as it claims.”

Migrant workers and community allies will call for the immediate termination of S-COMM and deliver President Obama a large failing Immigration Report Card for having promised immigration reform only to promote criminalization and mass deportations through programs like “S-COMM”.

bh

Domestic Workers Demand Wages Owed by Millionaire

From the Brazilian Immigrant Center:

Belmont, MA— Domestic workers and workers' rights advocates will be holding a protest in the center of Belmont on May 22, 2012, calling on John Cranney, CEO of Shaklee Corporation, to pay the workers the back wages they are owed.  These five workers allege that Cranney, a Belmont resident and millionaire, has refused to pay for the house work and home care they provided for him and his wife.

After attempting to talk with Mr. Cranney, the workers ended up filing suit. The court hearing will be May 24, 2012.  All of the workers are standing together to support each others claims of wage theft. A total of five workers are seeking wages. Four are being represented by the Domestic Worker Law and Policy Clinic, and another worker just came forward with the hopes of filing suit.
 
"We worked really hard, I missed Christmas with my family to work for him and I just want to get paid." N. Cabral
 
"We have sent three letters to Mr. Cranney, asking for him to pay these workers for their hard work, yet we have received no response. We are shocked at his blatant disregard for U.S. labor laws and for their rights of these women who spent hours working in his home," said Natalicia Tracy, Executive Director of the Brazilian Immigrant Center.
 
"It is deplorable that a man of such great wealth like Mr. Cranney would refuse to pay his workers." said Russ Davis, Executive Director of Massachusetts Jobs with Justice. "The average amount owed to each worker is about $3,000. Mr. Cranney's house alone has a worth of $3.8 million, so we are confident that he has the resources to pay his workers.

Please join Brazilian Immigrant Center, Jobs with Justice, WILD, Matahari and the Massachusetts Coalition for Domestic Workers as  we

STAND WITH THE WORKERS!!!!!

When:  Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 1:00pm!

Where:  Belmont Town Hall, 455 Concord Ave, Belmont

Contact:  Lydia Edwards at legal@braziliancenter.org or 617 783 8001 ext. 113

bh

Rubio Attacks Immigrant Children

From the Center for American Progress:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has talked ... and talked ... and talked about introducing a bill that would provide legal status to, as he says, blameless undocumented individuals who were brought to the United States as children. We have welcomed the Florida senator’s entry into this important discussion and have been anxious to see his bill and the strong Republican support that he has promised. As described in his numerous interviews about the subject, it should be an easy bill to write since it is structurally so similar to the DREAM Act, a bill first introduced 10 years ago that would provide undocumented youth an opportunity to earn citizenship. And yet, two months later, there is still no bill and no evidence of political support from his Republican colleagues.

So it was quite the surprise to immigration advocates when the bill he actually introduced this week was not his promised DREAM-like proposal, but rather a bill that attacks “blameless” low-income American children. His bill, which is designed to restrict eligibility for the additional child tax credit, the refundable portion of the federal child tax credit, landed like a heavyweight’s blow to the chin of low-income immigrant families.

In his press release about the bill, Sen. Rubio claims that his proposal will end a “scam that costs American taxpayers $4.2 billion” by blocking refundable credits from going to U.S.-citizen or legally resident children who have an undocumented parent provider. But the child tax credit was enacted in 1998 without regard to the immigration status of the parents for a good reason.

Read more here.

bh

Supremes Defer to BIA in Companion Cases

The Supreme Court today decided Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers, which was previewed by Professor Jill Family in a link posted on ImmigrationProf before oral argument in the case.  Justice Kagen wrote for a uninimous Court deferring to the Board of Immigration Appeals' construction of the cancellation of removal statute.  Here are the basics about th edecision from the syllabus to the case.

The Immigration of Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a), authorizes the Attorney General to cancel the removal of an alien from the United States who, among other things, has held the status of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years, § 1229b(a)(1), and has lived in the United States for atleast seven continuous years after a lawful admission, § 1229b(a)(2).

The companion cases concern whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIAor Board) should impute a parent’s years of continuous residence or LPR status to his or her child. That issue arises because a child may enter the country lawfully, or may gain LPR status, after one of his parents does—meaning that a parent may satisfy § 1229b(a)(1) or §1229b(a)(2), while his child, considered independently, does not.

In In re Escobar, 24 I. & N. Dec. 231, the BIA concluded that an alien must meet §1229b(a)’s requirements on his own. But the Ninth Circuit found the Board’s position unreasonable, holding that § 1229b(a)(1) and § 1229b(a)(2) require imputation.  concluded that Martinez Gutierrez qualified for relief because of his father’s immigration history, even though Martinez Gutierrez could not satisfy § 1229b(a)(1) or § 1229b(a)(2) on his own. Relying on Escobar, the BIA reversed. The Ninth Circuit then granted Martinez Gutierrez’s petition for review and remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration in light of its contrary decisions.

Held: The BIA’s rejection of imputation is based on a permissible construction of § 1229b(a).

 (a) The Board has required each alien seeking cancellation of removal to satisfy § 1229b(a)’s requirements on his own, without relyingon a parent’s years of continuous residence or immigration status.That position prevails if it is a reasonable construction of the statute,whether or not it is the only possible interpretation or even the one a court might think best. See e.g., Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844, and n. 11. The BIA’s approach satisfies this standard. The Board’s position is consistent with the statute’s text. Section 1229b(a) does not mention—much less require—imputation. Instead, it simply calls for “the alien” to meet the prerequisites for cancellation of removal. Respondents contend that this language does not foreclose imputation, but even if so,that is not enough to require the Board to adopt that policy. 

(b) Neither does the statute’s history and context mandate imputation. Section 1229b(a) replaced former §212(c) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (INA), which allowed the Attorney General to prevent the removal of an alien with LPR status who had maintained a “lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years” in this country. Like § 1229b(a), § 212(c) was silent on imputation. But every Court of Appeals that confronted the question concluded that, in determining eligibility for § 212(c) relief, the Board should impute aparent’s years of domicile to his or her child. Based on this history,

(c) Respondents advance two additional arguments for why the Board’s position is not entitled to Chevron deference. First, they claim that the Board’s approach to § 1229b(a) is arbitrary because it isinconsistent with the Board’s acceptance of imputation under other,similar provisions that are silent on the matter. But the Board’s decision in Escobar provided a reasoned explanation for these divergent results: The Board imputes mattersinvolving an alien’s state of mind, while declining to impute objectiveconditions or characteristics. Section 1229b(a) hinges on the objective facts of immigrationstatus and place of residence. So the Board’s approach to § 1229b(a) largely follows from one straightforward distinction.

Second, respondents claim that the BIA adopted its no-imputationrule only because it thought Congress had left it no other choice. But Escobar belies this contention. The Board did explain how § 1229b(a)’s text supports its no-imputation policy. But the Board also brought its experience and expertise to bear on the matter: It noted that there was no precedent in its decisions for imputing status orresidence, and it argued that allowing imputation under § 1229b(a)would create anomalies in the statutory scheme. Escobar thus expressed the BIA’s view that statutory text, administrative practice, and regulatory policy all pointed toward disallowing imputation. In making that case, the opinion reads like a multitude of agency interpretations to which this and other courts have routinely deferred.

I am looking forward to digesting the case but, at first glance, it appears to me like a run-of-the-mill Chevron deference case.

KJ

Immigration Law Professor to Receive Honorary Degree

Professor Karen Musalo (UC Hastings) will receive an honorary degree at the commencement ceremonies later this month at the City University of New York. Professor Musalo written numerous articles on refugee law issues, with a focus on gender asylum. She was the lead attorney in Matter of Kasinga (fear of female genital cutting as a basis of asylum), which continues to be cited as authority in gender asylum cases by tribunals from Canada to the United Kingdom to New Zealand. Her recent litigation victories include Matter of R-A-, and Matter of L-R-, two cases which establish that women fleeing domestic violence may qualify for refugee protection. Her current work examines the linkage between human rights violations and migration, with a focus on the phenomenon of femicides in Guatemala, and El Salvador, and its relation to requests for refugee protection from Guatemalan women.

KJ

Immigration Article of the Day: Cascading Constitutional Deprivation: The Right to Appointed Counsel for Mandatorily Detained Immigrants Pending Removal Proceedings by Mark L. Noferi

Cascading Constitutional Deprivation: The Right to Appointed Counsel for Mandatorily Detained Immigrants Pending Removal Proceedings by Mark L. Noferi Brooklyn Law School, Michigan Journal of Race & Law, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2012 (forthcoming).

Abstract: When a Department of Homeland Security officer mandatorily detains a green card holder without bail pending his removal proceedings, for a minor crime committed perhaps long ago, the immigrant’s life takes a drastic turn. If he contests his case, he likely will remain incarcerated in substandard conditions for months or years, often longer than for his original crime, and be unable to acquire a lawyer, access family whom might assist, or access key evidence or witnesses. In these circumstances, it is all but certain he will lose his deportation case, sometimes wrongfully, and be banished abroad from work, family, and friends. The immigrant’s one chance to escape these cascading events is the off-the-record “Joseph” hearing challenging detention. If he wins, is released, and can secure counsel, he likely will win his case to stay in America. Yet pro se and detained, he may not even be told the “Joseph” hearing exists, let alone win the hearing involving complex statutory analysis on facts, witnesses, and evidence relating to the conviction, now all outside his reach. It is rare in modern American law that a non-lawyer’s decision causes so much to hang in the balance in such complex yet informal proceedings without a lawyer to challenge it. Indeed, the modern immigration detention system is uniquely rare, in peacetime or war, in providing for preventive pretrial detention without counsel pursuant to underlying proceedings without counsel. It creates a cascading risk of wrongful detention and deportation – one cognizable under modern procedural due process theories, even notwithstanding traditional plenary power over immigration laws. In a post-Padilla v. Kentucky world with an increasingly functionalist Constitutional view of deportation, and where criminal defenders now must advise on the same issues litigated at the Joseph hearing, a right to appointed counsel for mandatorily detained immigrants pending removal proceedings is constitutionally viable, practically feasible, and morally necessary.

KJ

From the Bookshelves: Escape from Texas: A Novel of Slavery and the Texas War of Independence by James W. Russell

Escape from Texas: A Novel of Slavery and the Texas War of Independence by James W. Russell

ABSTRACT:  In 1828 James, a slave, arrives in Texas, brought by his owner, Samuel Bingham. Texas is then a part of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas. James comes to Texas because he has no choice. But once there, he finds a postrevolutionary country where slavery is on the way out and his freedom is a real possibility. His owner, though, is determined to take advantage of the low cost of land in Texas to build up a farm into a cotton plantation with the use of slave labor. Over the next nine years James will experience and participate in a series of wrenching events that marked the origins of the Lone Star State. Set in the years surrounding the 1836 Texas War of Independence, Escape from Texas is a solidly researched examination of the clashing aspirations of slaves, slave owners, Indians, and Mexicans during a turning point of the westward expansion of the United States. While there are a number of novels set in this period of Texas history, Escape from Texas is the only novel that has a slave as a key protagonist and incorporates prominently that point of view of the turbulent events. Its provocative underlying thesis is that the extension of slavery was the true underlying cause of the Texas War of Independence, not yearnings for freedom by the Texas frontiersmen, as American folklore has traditionally had it. Escape from Texas is to the understanding of the Texas War of Independence as Howard Fast's Freedom Road was to the understanding of the post-Civil War period of Reconstruction.

KJ

New Border Patrol Strategy Changes Rhetoric More than Substance

The U.S. Border Patrol’s newly released strategic plan is a decidedly mixed bag when it comes to border security—just like the Border Patrol’s last strategic plan, released in 2004. On the plus side, both documents advocate an intelligence-driven, risk-based approach to border security which focuses on the greatest security threats. Both plans also call for disruption of the smuggling networks which bring unauthorized immigrants, drugs, and other contraband into the United States. On the down side, each plan embraces the simplistic “prevention through deterrence” mentality in which it is believed—or hoped—that heightened border enforcement will scare off unauthorized immigrants and smugglers alike. More broadly, both documents are a reflection of the federal government’s continued misguided emphasis on securing the territory between ports of entry, even though most smuggling now occurs through ports of entry.  For more of this story, click here.

KJ

Michigan Pushes plan tp WELCOME Immigrants

While some states pushed for punitive immigration measures over the last year—measures designed to drive immigrants away —others, like those in Michigan, were busy putting together a plan that welcomes immigrants and their revitalizing power to the state. This month, leaders in Michigan—including state Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit) and U.S. Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit)—helped launch “Welcoming Michigan,” a statewide initiative that seeks to welcome immigrants and their entrepreneurial talents to Michigan.  Read more of this story on Immigration Impact.

KJ

Cracking Down on Border Cartels

From the Immigration Policy Center:

Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases How To Fix a Broken Border: Follow the Money by Terry Goddard, part three of a three-part series on the Southwest Border. In this series, former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard assesses current threats to our border security and calls for a coordinated, multi-dimensional, bi-national approach to cracking down on cartels. Goddard's suggestions for Federal action include targeting cartel money, closing money-laundering loopholes, pursuing cartel leaders, and focusing border security on ports of entry.

Using his experience fighting cartels in Arizona as an example, Goddard argues that “the next step must be national. Using the same leads Arizona derived from wire-transfer data, federal authorities are in an ideal position to coordinate among the states and with Mexican law enforcement to close down the criminal exploitation of the wire-transfer system.” But despite awareness about the money-laundering loopholes, Goddard says the government has not addressed the problem as they should. “Huge amounts of funds flowing illegally out of this country could be stopped," he said, "if financial institutions and government agencies focused on the problem.”

To view the paper in its entirety, click here.

bh

Article of the Day: Academic SAILERS: The Ford Foundation and the Efforts to Shape Legal Education in Africa, 1957-1977 by Jayanth K. Krishnan

Academic SAILERS: The Ford Foundation and the Efforts to Shape Legal Education in Africa, 1957-1977 by Jayanth K. Krishnan Indiana University Maurer School of Law, American Journal of Legal History.

Abstract: This study examines a major law-and-development project in Africa undertaken by the New York-based Ford Foundation in the decades following the Second World War. By the 1960s, many countries in Africa freed themselves of colonial rule, and Ford eagerly sought to assist these newly emerging states in the nation-building process. One area towards which Ford contributed considerable resources was legal education. Labeling its program ‘SAILER’ – or the Staffing of African Institutions of Legal Education and Research – Ford engaged in a range of initiatives, including sending American lawyers to teach in several different African countries and bringing Africans to law schools in the United States to study. The research here evaluates this Ford initiative by relying primarily on three sources of original data: a review of all of Ford’s archival documents on SAILER; interviews with former affiliates of SAILER residing in the United States; and archival research and interviews conducted in Africa during parts of 2010 and 2011. As the findings reveal, the story of this project is more complicated than the conventional wisdom might suggest. To begin, SAILER was not a single, monolithic program; nor was its mission to advance some grand Cold War, American foreign policy objective. Furthermore, the Africans with whom SAILER-officials worked were not all desperately yearning for assistance from the United States; many were sophisticated individuals simply interested in finding ways to enhance the rule of law in their respective countries. SAILER thus was seen as one potential vehicle for achieving this goal. And importantly, the attitudes of, and strategies employed by, those involved with SAILER – both in the United States and in Africa – were not static; they were nuanced and they evolved throughout the course of the project. By 1977 SAILER officially ended, but as this study concludes, the reasons were layered, and they related to contextual factors within Africa as much as to the internal decisions within Ford itself.

KJ

Revisions to VAWA are an Attack on Women

From Breakthrough:

May 16, 2012 - Mallika Dutt, president and CEO of global human rights organization Breakthrough (www.breakthrough.tv), today released the following statement in response to the U.S. House of Representatives vote on H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012, which removes several key protections included in the version of the bill passed by the U.S. Senate.

"It is impossible to deny that a war on women is being waged in the United States. And as of today, it is impossible to deny that this war on women is a war on _all_ women in the United States, documented or otherwise. The version of the Violence Against Women Act approved today by the House explicitly and baselessly removes protections for those who need it most: immigrant women, LGBT individuals, and native Americans and Alaskans. As a founder of Sakhi, an anti-domestic violence group for the South Asian community, I have seen first hand how important these protections are for immigrant women. These are battles we thought we had won. These are rights we thought we had secured. Can we stand by as a nation while women are told that today only some of them have the human rights to safety and security? It's time for those of us outraged by women’s human rights violations across borders and oceans to step up for all women’s human rights here at home."

VIDEO: Mallika Dutt statement on the war on immigrant women, Birmingham, AL, March 23, 2012

bh

Alabama's HB 56 version 2.0 is a "Monster"

Julianne Hing writes for Colorlines:

Alabama’s HB 56 was already the harshest state immigration law in the nation. But in the waning hours of the state’s 2012 legislative session and above the din of protestors’ interruptions the state passed a revision to HB 56 on Wednesday which took new steps toward making life for the state’s immigrants even more difficult. HB 658, the revision bill, is now on its way to Gov. Robert Bentley’s desk.

HB 658 preserved many of the most heinous provisions of HB 56, including provisions modeled on Arizona’s SB 1070 which are held up right now in a Supreme Court challenge. Despite months of attempts and near daily rewrites to the bill in an effort to refine the language of HB 56, the new law left intact provisions that compel law enforcement officers to question anyone who appears to be undocumented. The state also left intact the provision that bars undocumented students from any public institution of higher education in Alabama, and mandates that K-12 schools gather data about the immigration statuses of students and their parents. A provision which requires private employers to adopt E-Verify, a worker verification database that’s ostensibly designed to crack down on bosses who hire undocumented workers, was unchanged.

On Wednesday, lawmakers also passed a bracing new provision which calls for the state to create a public, searchable database which includes the name and personal information of any undocumented immigrant who appears in Alabama state court for any reason. Immigrant rights advocates have taken to calling it the “scarlet letter” provision because it would unfairly brand immigrants.

In other instances, provisions like one that makes it illegal for undocumented immigrants to rent property, were modified, but only in ways that serve to strengthen the rest of the law as a whole.

“Our worst fears were confirmed today,” said Luis Robledo, an organizer with the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, who spoke with Colorlines just after the Senate vote. “It’s just a monster. [Lawmakers] doubled down and made it worse for the community.” Read more...

bh

Guest Post: Professor Kristina Campbell: Barahona v. Holder and "Material Support" to a Terrorist Organization

Yesterday, we posted about a case that Professor Kristina Campbell argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourt Circuit.  Here is a guest post by Professor Campell with more information about the case:

On Tuesday, March 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in Barahona v. Holder. The Petitioner, Mr. Barahona, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that he is inadmissible for having provided “material support” to a terrorist organization, the FMLN, under INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI), back in the early 1980s in his home country, El Salvador.

The Immigration and Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law (UDC-DCSL), of which I am the Director, has represented Mr. Barahona in his removal proceedings since Fall 2010. When our Clinic took Mr. Barahona’s case, we initially assisted him in applying for relief from removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) before the Immigration Court. Much to our shock and dismay, however, the DHS attorney in Mr. Barahona’s case argued that he was not eligible for NACARA relief because, by failing to prevent FMLN guerrillas from occupying his home in El Salvador more than 25 years ago, he was inadmissible for materially supporting terrorism. The Immigration Judge agreed with the DHS, and our Clinic represented Mr. Barahona in his appeal of that decision to the BIA. The BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s decision, and we assisted Mr. Barahona in filing a Petition for Review with the Fourth Circuit in late 2011.

Mr. Barahona has been in the United States since the mid-1980s, working and raising a family after fleeing the violence of the civil war in El Salvador. Though his family home was burned down by the FMLN guerrillas and many family members – including his father – were murdered in the war, Mr. Barahona’s applications for asylum filed in 1987 and again in 1995 were denied. After losing his Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2010, Mr. Barahona was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that summer. Although the Immigration Judge granted Mr. Barahona a bond because he did not present a flight risk and is not dangerous, he has been unable to pay his bond and remains detained.

The legal issues in Mr. Barahona’s case that are being considered are matters of first impression in the Fourth Circuit. The only other Circuit Court of Appeals that has addressed Mr. Barahona’s primary legal argument concerning the meaning of the phrase “material support,” the Third Circuit, held in Singh-Kaur v. Ashcroft in 2004 that Congress intended the statute to be broad enough to encompass small amounts of support provided to terrorist organizations. In 2006, in Matter of S-K-, the BIA held in a precedent decision that while the argument that the word “material” should be given independent consideration in determining the meaning of the statute is not frivolous, they declined to reach that issue and interpret the meaning of “material support” consistent with the manifest intent of Congress.

While Mr. Barahona’s primary argument is that the occupation of his home by the FMLN guerrillas, and their forced use of the kitchen in his home to cook their food does not constitute “material support” within the meaning of the statute, his secondary argument is that the statute is ambiguous as to its application for persons who provided “material support” under duress. Mr. Barahona’s argument is based on the United States Supreme Court’s holding in 2009 in Negusie v. Holder, in which the Court – interpreting the similar “persecutor bars” to admissibility in the INA – remanded the case to the BIA in order for the agency to determine whether Congress intended the statute to apply to persons who assisted in persecution under coercion or duress. Like the persecutor bar, the material support bar in the INA is silent regarding the relevance of duress, and Mr. Barahona argues that the BIA must address whether Congress intended the bar to apply to persons whose conduct occurred under duress or threat of death.

At oral argument on Tuesday, the Court seemed to be concerned with the government’s position that the material support bar in INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) is seemingly limitless, and could be theoretically be applied in a myriad of factual situations presumably not intended by Congress. For example, the government conceded at oral argument that the pilot of a hijacked commercial airliner who safely landed a plane full of civilians with a gun to his head could be inadmissible for providing “material support” to a terrorist organization within the meaning of INA § 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). By the same token, the Court appeared concerned about its ability to review the scope of the material support bar as interpreted by the BIA, which the Court is required to give deference to under the Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., unless the agency’s interpretation is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

The Court should issue a decision in Mr. Barahona’s case in the next several months. In the interim, the audio of the oral argument can be accessed here.

-------

Professor Kristina M. Campbell is Director of the Immigration and Human Rights Clinic at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law.

KJ