Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Cahan, Miriam R. Note. An impossible choice: denial of parent's derivative asylum claims based on their citizen daughter's risk of female genital mutilation. 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 545-565 (2009).
Edwards, Alice. Human security and the rights of refugees: transcending territorial and disciplinary borders. 30 Mich. J. Int'l L. 763-807 (2009).
Enriquez Andres, John. Note. The raiding of the pearl: the effects of trade liberalization on Philippine labor migration, and the Filipino migrant worker's experience. 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 523-581 (2009).
Fandl, Kevin J. Immigration posses: U.S. immigration law and local enforcement practices. 34 J. Legis. 16-37 (2008).
Junior, Simi N.A. Note. Many strands: immigration reform and the effect of Mexican migration on African American unemployment. 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 487-521 (2009).
Liebmann, Theo S. Keeping promises to immigrant youth. 29 Pace L. Rev. 511-521 (2009).
Shachar, Ayelet. The shifting border of immigration regulation. 30 Mich. J. Int'l L. 809-839 (2009).
Weiss, Adam. Transnational families in crisis: an analysis of the domestic violence rule in E.U. free movement law. 30 Mich. J. Int'l L. 841-879 (2009).
Yeh, Rick Fang-Chi. Today's immigration legal system: flaw and possible reforms. 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 441-467 (2009).
From America's Voice:
This Time, Rep. Steve King Throws the Free Market Under the Bus, Along with Immigrants
Washington, DC – In the latest attempt to derail health care reform by blaming immigrants, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is up to the same old tricks – only this time, King wants to restrict access to the free market by individuals willing to pay for their own healthcare.
What set King off were two “Dear Colleague” letters circulating in the House of Representatives, where nearly two dozen Democrats made the case for allowing taxpaying, legal immigrants to access health care, and undocumented immigrants to purchase private health insurance in the “exchange” – with their own money, not taxpayer funds.
As Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA), one of the letters’ authors, stated: "Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room.”
In typical fashion, Rep. King read the word “immigrant” and jumped on it, telling the Washington Times: "If anybody can, with a straight face, advocate that we should provide health insurance for people who broke into our country, broke our law and for the most part are criminals, I don't know where they ever would draw the line.” Never mind the fact that no one was advocating taxpayer assistance to undocumented workers, but simply the right to purchase health insurance with their own money. Since when were Republicans like King so opposed to the free market? Oh right – when it involves undocumented immigrants, who “for the most part are criminals,” according to King.
Of course, the actual details matter little to Rep. King and his water carriers in the media, who pushed the story throughout the day yesterday. According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, “It doesn’t seem to matter that healthcare legislation states clearly and unequivocally that those in the U.S. without authorization will not be eligible for taxpayer funded health care. It doesn’t seem to matter that the White House and the Senate Finance Committee have gone so far as to prohibit undocumented immigrants from using their own money to purchase private insurance via health exchanges. It doesn’t seem to matter that there are stringent verification procedures in place and that expanding them only costs taxpayers and excludes citizens. What seems to matter is that Republicans like Steve King and Joe Wilson cannot resist the siren call of nativism, and their bankrupt strategy of trying to distort the health care debate with shameless demagoguery. When it comes choosing between trumpeting the virtues of the free market vs. trumping up fake issues and bashing immigrants, immigrant-bashing wins.”
Daphne Eviatar for the Washington Independent writes that "Latino lawmakers had long ago given up on the idea that illegal immigrants would receive any sort of subsidized health insurance under a health care reform bill, even if there are strong economic, public health and moral arguments to support the idea. But what they hadn’t expected – at least not before Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst earlier this month – was that immigrants would be so scapegoated in the health care debate that undocumented immigrants would be denied the opportunity even to purchase market-based private health insurance with their own money. That development, and other possible provisions of the Senate Finance Committee health care bill introduced by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that may exclude even some legal immigrants from the benefits of a new health care system, threatens to undermine Latino support for Democratic lawmakers in the 2010 elections."
The need for health care for all U.S. residents is great. A Pew Hispanic Center report released on September 25 found that six of ten Hispanic adults in the United States who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents lack health insurance. Again, as we do with the issue of immigration enforcement, the nation faces the question -- Who are we as a nation? What do we stand for as a people? How will history record what we did here today?
Migration Policy Institute’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy has announced that the application period for the 2010 E Pluribus Unum Prizes opens tomorrow, October 1. The E Pluribus Unum Prizes national awards program provides four $50,000 awards annually to exceptionally successful immigrant integration initiatives. The awards recognize initiatives that have an outstanding record of helping immigrants and their children adapt, thrive, and contribute to the United States or that have successfully brought immigrants and native-born residents together to build stronger, more cohesive communities. The awards are open to individuals, nonprofit and community organizations, businesses, religious groups, and government entities, agencies, or officials operating in the United States. The deadline to apply is December 10, 2009 at 5 pm EST. Application rules and procedures and profiles of the 2009 winners can be found at www.integrationawards.org.
To join the U.S. Immigrant Integration Network go to: http://immigrant-integration.ning.com/?xgi=9yeX0n1 or to request an invitation to join send a message to [email protected].
A couple of weeks ago, more than 40 organizations, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, submitted a letter to Richard L. Skinner, US Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, requesting an audit of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). The negative impacts of NSEERS on the Arab-American, South Asian-American and Muslim-American communities continue, which has provoked the call for an audit.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has announced that Crystal L. Williams has been named as its new Executive Director. AILA is the national association of more than 11,000 attorneys and law professors who practice and teach immigration law. Over the past four years, Williams has been serving AILA in the position of Deputy Director for Programs. Williams will be the third Executive Director of AILA since the formation of its national office in 1982.
Williams has been involved in immigration for more than 25 years: as a practicing immigration attorney, as a law publisher, as a pro bono program director, as a government official, and, for most of the past decade, as a program leader within the AILA national office. In the course of her years of practice, she served as chair of the Atlanta chapter, and on a variety of liaison, policy and program committees for the national association. She is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and the State University of New York at Oneonta.
Symposium Announcement: Law, Gender and Citizenship: Contemporary Issues for American Indians and American Immigrants
The Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society has announced that its 2010 Symposium: Law, Gender and Citizenship: Contemporary Issues for American Indians and American Immigrantswill be on March 5, 2010 at the University of Wisconsin Law School. The organizers are seeking original scholarship, from both scholars and practitioners, that addresses the intersections of law and gender in the daily lives of two populations, each of which occupies a unique space in American law: American Indians and Immigrants. Interested parties should send an abstract to [email protected] by November 15, 2009. Those selected for the Symposium will be notified in early January 2010. The Journal’s Symposium issue will be published in Winter 2010. Questions can be addressed to Symposium Editor Dan Lewerenz, [email protected], or Deputy Symposium Editor Kate Frigo, [email protected].
There is an interesting juxtaposition of immigration stories in the N.Y. Times today. Julia Preston writes about the controversey surrounding the 1800 immigrants losing their jobs in Los Angeles at the American Apparel, a garment manufacturer. Nina Bernstein in the N.Y. Times writes about the by-gone era of Chinese "paper sons," another time when migrants seeking to come to the United States attempted to evade the restrictive (and blatantly discriminatory) immigration laws. Today, most observers admit that the Chinese exclusion laws were an incredible mistake and do not begrudge the paper sons for attempting to circumvent the law.
How will we view our treatment of undocumented immigrants a century from now? It is noteworthy that a report released today documents the increase in border deaths, deaths that a direct result of increased U.S. border enforcement efforts. The report, which is available here, was prepared by the American Civil Liberties of San Diego and Imperial Counties and the National Commission of Human Rights; it is entitled Humanitarian Crisis: Migrant Deaths at the US/Mexico Border.
Craig Ferguson (born May 17, 1962) is host of CBS's The Late Late Show, a role that earned him an Emmy nomination in 2006. Before his career as a late-night talk-show host, Ferguson was best known in the United States for his role as the office boss, Nigel Wick, on The Drew Carey Show from 1996 to 2003. He is the author of the 2006 novel Between the Bridge and the River and his 2009 memoir American on Purpose. He both starred in and co-wrote three films, including The Big Tease (2000). Ferguson is a naturalized U.S. citizen and continues to also hold UK citizenship.
For a recent N.Y. Times story about Ferguson, click here.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
New Press has announced the paperback publication of Ex Mex: From Migrants to Immigrants, an examination of the complex issues surrounding Mexican immigration to the United States from former Mexican foreign minister Jorge G. Castañeda. From the massive nationwide rally in support of immigrant rights in May 2006 to protests against the increasingly frequent immigration raids across the country, the public debate on immigration reform has largely centered on Mexican immigrants. Yet, in the United States, we rarely hear the Mexican perspective on the issue. In portraits that defy American stereotypes of who is a Mexican immigrant, Castañeda describes just who makes up the newest generation of immigrants from Mexico, why they have chosen to live in the United States, where they work, and what they ultimately hope to achieve. Drawing on his wide-ranging experience, Casteñeda examines the century-long historical background behind the labor exchange between Mexico and the United States, while offering an insider’s account of the official conversations and secret negotiations between the two countries in recent years. As the public debate on immigration reform continues, Ex Mex is essential reading for all who want to make sense of the complex issue from the Mexican perspective.
Jorge G. Castañeda is the author of several books, including Perpetuating Power, The Mexican Shock and Utopia Unarmed. Having served as Mexico’s foreign minister from 2000 to 2003, he is currently Global Distinguished Professor of Politics and Latin American Studies at New York University. He divides his time between Mexico City and New York City.
Teresa Watanabe and Anna Gorman write in the LA Times:
U.S. immigration officials are considering another possible round of fee increases and budget cuts next year, prompting concern among immigrant rights groups.
Alejandro Mayorkas, the new director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said during a visit to Los Angeles on Wednesday that "financial challenges" have caused the agency to consider potential fee increases but no decision has been made.
The agency is facing a $118-million revenue shortfall this year in part because applications for citizenship and skilled worker visas are below projections, according to officials.
Citizenship applications plunged to 58,000 last year from 254,000 the previous year in the Southern California district. Most experts blame the decline on a fee increase of 69% to $675 in 2007.
But immigration officials said the agency is required by law to be self-supporting and that the fee increase was required because a special congressional appropriation to help reduce application backlogs had run out.
To help close the shortfall, Mayorkas said, the agency has requested $206 million from Congress.
"It is financially responsible to examine all of the options that are available . . . as the agency confronts financial challenges," Mayorkas said.
Immigrant advocates said, however, that any additional fee increase would severely hamper legal immigrants from pursuing citizenship.
"Right now the high cost of citizenship is putting the dream of naturalization out of reach of low- and moderate-income legal permanent residents, and any future increase will just make the situation worse," said Rosalind Gold of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund in Los Angeles. Click here for the rest of the story.
A group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access. In two letters joined by about 20, Democrats argue that it is unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements. The Democrats' letters, however, do not issue ultimatums or threaten to withhold support for the bills if their requests aren't met. Click here for the full story,
Jack Weinstein denied a motion to suppress but acknowledged that "there is some force in the defendant's argument that because of increased criminal penalties and prosecutions arising out of post-9/11 border inquiries, Miranda warnings are appropriate when a person entering the country is questioned in a secondary inspection area." United States v. Lnu (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2009). Download Immig__and_date_geq__09_16_2
Monday, September 28, 2009
Here (Download Decision) is a decision on naturalization from the Second Circuit. NYC immigration attorney Paul O'Dwyer states that "It agrees with the Fourth and Ninth Circuits [Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2007) and United States v. Hovsepian, 359 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).] that the District Court has exclusive juridiction over a naturalization action filed pursuant to 8 USC Section 1447(b), and that USCIS lacks jurisdiction to deny a naturalization petition once a district court action has been commenced. USCIS routinely fails to timely render decisions within 120 days of a naturalization interview, as required by Secion 1447(b), instead, issuing a denial of the naturalization application after the applicant commences an action for naturalization in the District Court, and then moving to dismiss the District Court action for failure to administratively appeal the denial within USCIS. This decision holds that USCIS cannot do this type of end run around the judicial process."
Ruben Navarette Jr. summarizes what President Obama has done on immigration so far: "President Obama has placed the immigration reform community at the back of the bus."
As I have said before, all we have gotten from the President so far on immigration is enforcement now, enforecment forever.
From Michele Waslin:
Report: Good Immigration Policy Helps the Middle Class
The myth that immigration is bad for U.S. workers has sullied the immigration debate for far too long. A new report by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI), “Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle Class: 2009 Edition,” sets the record straight. In the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and in anticipation of a new round of legislative debates on comprehensive immigration reform, DMI’s report makes a rational, concise argument for why comprehensive immigration reform is needed to improve the conditions for middle class Americans.
DMI states that “good immigration policy should be good for every American,” and designs a two-part litmus test to evaluate immigration policies: 1) Immigration policy should bolster—not undermine—the critical contributions immigrants make to our economy as workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers; and 2) Immigration policy must strengthen the rights of immigrants in the workplace. Using these two guidelines, Congress can create and implement an immigration policy that is good for middle class Americans.
Bolstering Immigrant Contributions
DMI refutes the myth that our economy is a closed, zero-sum system. When immigrants are working in the U.S., many assume they simply take jobs away from Americans. The fact is that immigrants contribute to the growth of the economy as workers, taxpayers, and consumers. The middle class relies on the goods and services produced by immigrants, and benefits from the generalized economic growth immigrants stimulate. Immigrants spend money, thereby creating demand and jobs. Immigrants pay taxes, helping to shore up Social Security and other programs middle class workers depend upon.
Enforcement-only policies only undermine the contributions that immigrants make. Rather, immigration reform should harness the positive contributions of immigrants, thus improving the lives of middle class Americans.
Strengthening Rights in the Workplace
Under the current system, undocumented workers are vulnerable and exploitable, living at the mercy of their employers—to the detriment of both the immigrants and middle class Americans. The current recession increases employers’ incentive to cut costs by taking advantage of cheaper undocumented workers.
As long as a cheaper and more compliant pool of immigrant labor is available to employers who are willing to wield the threat of deportation against their workers, those same employers will be less willing to hire U.S.-born workers if they demand better wages and working conditions.
Ensuring that immigrant workers and native workers are on a level playing field—the same enforceable rights, the same ability to complain—makes for better conditions for everyone. If immigrants are empowered to exercise workplace rights, they can improve their own working conditions, making the jobs more desirable, and more jobs can become “middle class jobs.”
DMI concludes that comprehensive immigration reform, including permanent legal status for immigrant workers, is necessary. Perhaps Lou Dobbs, self-appointed champion of the American middle class worker, should read the fact included in DMI’s report and discover he’s got it wrong—immigration reform would be a boost for American workers he claims to speak for.
To start the week on an upbeat note, here is a "feel good" immigration story from the Baltimore Sun ("A child's life, a lawyer's humanity: Asylum helps boy escape wrath of Salvadoran gang"). In reading the often depressing immigration news, it is important to remember that sometimes good, hardworking people make good things happen for immigrants.
Hat tip to Dan Kowalski!
Stephanie Rose, who was one of the prosecutors in the controversial Postville raid cases last year, is headed to the U.S. Senate for confirmation as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. To this point, concerns expressed by immigrant rights advocates have failed to derail the nomination.
Here are some new immigration articles from the Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com):
"Reflective Equilibrium and Constitutional Method: Lessons from John McCain and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause" MITCHELL N. BERMAN, University of Texas School of Law. ABSTRACT: How should we settle on a theory of constitutional interpretation? Take the debate over originalism. How should we determine which of the contending views is correct? Presumably, the correct view of constitutional interpretation must be at least consistent with the truth about other adjacent matters too - like, say, the nature of law. But how should we go about reaching the correct theory of constitutional interpretation in a manner that best ensures this consistency condition is satisfied? A common approach, especially favored by some subset of contemporary originalists, is fairly described as foundationalist. For example, some originalists argue: that the practice of constitutional interpretation is the interpretation of a particular text; that interpretation just is the effort to ascertain the meaning that the text’s author intended to communicate; and therefore, that constitutional interpretation just is the effort to ascertain the meaning that the Constitution’s authors intended their text to communicate. Other originalists hold that originalism follows from the facts that a written constitution is designed to be authoritative or normatively binding and that law can have this authoritative character only by dint of the authority of its authors. These are some ways to reason about constitutional interpretation, but not the only ones. This essay explores the possibility that we can draw lessons about candidate normative theories of constitutional interpretation by assigning a more prominent role than is customary to purportedly shared convictions about the proper legal resolution of particular cases. It does so by adapting the Rawlsian method of reflective equilibrium to the constitutional domain and by focusing, as a case study, on the question of whether Senator John McCain is constitutionally eligible to serve as President consistent with the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizenship Clause. [BLOGGER'S NOTE: JACK CHIN WROTE A MUCH-PUBLICIZED ARTICLE CONTENDING THAT MCCAIN WAS INELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY.] The method of reflective equilibrium maintains that our beliefs in a range of domains will be better justified if we seek coherence among considered judgments of general principles and of case outcomes, among other things, and that none of these different types of judgments is uniquely epistemically privileged: in principle, all judgments are revisable in light of all others. If this model applies to the constitutional domain, then the direction of argument between constitutional theory and constitutional case holdings would not be wholly unidirectional. While the correct outcomes in constitutional cases will often follow from applying the correct constitutional theory, the constitutional theory we deploy should itself be answerable to whatever strong considered judgments we may have about correct legal outcomes in particular cases. The ambition to use strong intuitions or convictions about particular cases to drive (provisional and rebuttable) conclusions about interpretive constitutional theory might seem circular on the supposition that our legal judgments about cases should be the products, not the grounds, of our constitutional theories. But perhaps that need not always be true. And it is not true, I argue, with respect to the question of McCain’s eligibility for the presidency. In short, careful attention to the question of McCain’s eligibility might reorient our thinking about how to think about methods of constitutional interpretation more generally, and provides further basis to doubt originalism.
"Ignorance is Effectively Bliss: Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions, Silence and Misinformation in the Guilty Plea Process" Iowa Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 1, 2009 JENNY ROBERTS, American University, Washington College of Law, Syracuse University College of Law. [BLOGGER'S NOTE: THIS TOPIC IS OF CRITICAL PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE IN LIGHT OF THE INCREASING EFFORTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO REMOVE "CRIMINAL ALIENS."] Abstract: In the 2009-2010 term, the United States Supreme Court will decide if it matters whether a criminal defense lawyer correctly counsels a client about the fact that the client faces deportation as a result of a guilty plea. Under prevailing constitutional norms in almost every jurisdiction, a lawyer does not have a duty to tell her client about many serious but “collateral” consequences of a guilty plea. Yet, in every jurisdiction that has considered the issue, that very same lawyer will run afoul of her duties if she affirmatively misrepresents a collateral consequence. Every jurisdiction, that is, except Kentucky, where the state Supreme Court recently held that when there is no duty to warn about a consequence because it is collateral, misadvice about that same consequence is not a constitutional violation. The collision of the collateral consequences rule, which imposes no duty to warn, and the affirmative misadvice exception, which imposes a duty to give accurate advice where a lawyer chooses to warn, leads to a perverse incentive structure that signals to defense lawyers (as well as prosecutors and the judge) that it is safest to say nothing at all about “collateral” matters. The Kentucky approach that the Supreme Court will review is equally troubling; it allows false information with no sanction or remedy. A cluttered and contradictory jurisprudence of informational rights in the guilty plea process sits at this intersection of the collateral consequences rule and affirmative misadvice exception. So-called collateral consequences often overshadow the direct penal sentences in criminal cases. In addition to deportation, courts categorize many other severe consequences as collateral, including involuntary civil commitment, sex offender registration, and loss of the right to vote, obtain professional licenses, and receive public housing and benefits. These consequences touch upon every important area of a convicted person’s life, for the rest of his life. They also matter enormously in the United States, which has more than 600,000 individuals exiting the prison system and millions more getting criminal records each year. They enter a society that is struggling to find ways to integrate them despite these considerable obstacles. The constitutional rule has not caught up to the current reality of the effect of these consequences on defendants, their families, and their communities. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to overcome the mythical divide between direct and collateral consequences and to protect the constitutional and ethical values which underlie a defendant’s right to decide whether to plead guilty based on full knowledge of material consequences. The Court will consider important issues of professional responsibility, ethics, transparency, and the right to information in the guilty plea process. This Article exposes the problems with the majority and Kentucky approaches. It argues that only a constitutional mandate of full information about serious consequences of guilty pleas will avoid the problematic incentive structures we have now.
"Rights, Remedies, & Habeas Corpus – The Uighurs, Legally Free But Actually Imprisoned" CAPRICE L. ROBERTS, Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, West Virginia University College of Law. [BLOGGER'S NOTE: THIS MAY BE THE FIRST ARTICLE ON A TOPIC THAT RECENTLY HIT THE NATIONAL NEWS.]. Abstract: For more than seven years, the Uighurs - Turkic Muslims who fled persecution in China only to be sold by Pakistani officials to the U.S. military for a bounty - have languished in the detainment facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Early on, the U.S. government admitted that the Uighurs are not enemy combatants. This summer, four Uighurs finally received extrajudicial relief and now reside in Bermuda; five secured release to Albania in 2006. Thirteen Uighurs remain confined at Guantánamo with their legal issues unresolved. Boumediene v. Bush extends the privilege of habeas corpus to detainees held in the U.S. Navy facility at Guantánamo. The Supreme Court did not articulate a clear remedy for detainees who have established a habeas violation. Any precedential value of Boumediene has been hollow for the Uighurs. The federal judiciary, in Kiyemba v. Obama, abdicated its power and denied the release remedy to the Uighurs despite their proven habeas violation. The court applied a harsh body of immigration cases, which do not fit the Uighurs‘ factual posture, to bar the federal judiciary from remedying the wrong. This article offers a theory of federal court jurisdictional and remedial power that properly balances the competing interests of Congress, the Executive, and detainees. In times marked by asymmetric lines of conflict, the federal judiciary must be watchful of political branch power grabs and should lean in favor of exercising jurisdiction and tailoring an appropriate remedy. Only then will the rule of law and appropriate checks and balances be restored for the American government and justice ensured for groups like the Uighurs.
"Passports in the Twenty-First Century" STEPHEN KRUEGER, Author of Krueger on United States Passport Law (2nd ed.) ABSTRACT: Passports are examined only occasionally in legal literature, such as by Professor Reale in 1931 and by Professor Jaffe in 1956. It is time once again to conduct an examination. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, official hindrance of international travel was at its ebb. With the advent of World War I, passports were required. There was some relaxation of passport requirements after that war, but they reemerged with the advent of World War II. Passport requirements remained after that war ended. Termination of the Cold War did not cause a reduction of passport requirements. Not solely in consequence of the Islamic War, the "passport question" (Professor Reale's phrase) and the "passport problem" (Professor Jaffe's phrase) are still with us. In an ideal world, the only criteria for issuance of a passport and for retention of an issued passport would be identity and nationality. That is, an applicant for a passport would have to prove only who he is and his political relationship with the issuing country in order to qualify for a passport. A person who holds a passport would only have to not lose his nationality in order to retain his passport. Reality, in the twenty-first century, is otherwise. Countries perceive passports as having the "real purpose[s]" (Professor Reale's phrase) of travel control and social control. Even in relatively-free countries, passport issuance is deniable not only for inability to prove identity or nationality, and passport retention is terminable not only for loss of nationality. Grounds for denial or termination include a default on a monetary obligation to an issuing government, a failure to pay child support, being the subject of an arrest warrant, being a minor about whom there is a custody dispute, engaging in activities contrary to national security or foreign policy, and being a convicted football hooligan. There will not be abolition of passports, as Professor Reale favored. Passports will be instruments of social control, as Professor Jaffe favored. Despite reality, people with obligations of permanent allegiance to a government will continue to be denominated "citizens." There will be few freemen; most people will be serfs or villeins. A freeman will obtain a passport effortlessly. A serf or villein who wants a passport will just have to keep his nose clean.
"Embodied Borders: The Union of Marital and Immigration Policy for the (Re)Production of Hegemonic US Citizens" SARA ANGEVINE. ABSTRACT: The marriage between a US citizen and non-citizen is one of the most intimate of inter-national relations and represents not only a venue for citizen ‘naturalization’ through the marriage visa, but also reflects the state’s intention for further citizen (re)production. The US policies which have regulated these transnational unions offer an excellent site in which to evaluate the development of the US ‘imagined’ citizen. This paper analyzes US marital policy through the lens of immigration policy, what I call marital immigration policy, and argues that this intersectional analysis illustrates the state’s production and reproduction of the hegemonic US citizen, along the lines of gendered behavior (proper wives and husbands), race (maintenance of white purity), sexuality (heterosexual reproduction), class (preservation of economic hierarchies) and religion (lifetime monogamy). Prior literature has illustrated the impact of these factors separately in the construction of US citizenship. I argue that through an analysis of the development of these two policies in concert, one can clearly distinguish how these factors of gender, race, sexuality, religion, and class police the borders of what types of bodies shall constitute US citizens and how they should behave, demonstrating that indeed ‘love’ does not conquer all.
"Interstitial Policymaking in the U.S. Courts of Appeals" ANNA O. LAW. ABSTRACT: The paper examines kinds of purposive behavior among Courts of Appeals judges in immigration cases and distinguishes this paper from the strategic behavior described in rational choice literature.
"Natural (Native) Born Citizen Defined" DAN Goodman. ABSTRACT: A natural (native) born citizen is one who is born with the territory of a government (country) and subject to its jurisdiction. Under the Constitution of the United States; at Article II, Section 5, Clause 1; a natural born citizen is a person born in the United States of America; in a different state, before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and under the Articles of Confederation or a person born in the United States of America, in an individual State, under the Constitution of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment created two citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 and a citizen of the United States, under the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The proper question to be asked is if a citizen of the United States, after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, can be considered a native born citizen (natural born citizen), under the Constitution of the United States, eligible to be President of the United States of America?