Saturday, December 10, 2011
From No More Deaths:
More than 60 to petition for closure of immigration cases at Tucson Immigration and Customs Enforcement office; hundreds to rally in support
What: Community action, procession and rally
Date: Monday, December 12, 2011
Who: No More Deaths, We Reject Racism and Keep Tucson Together Campaign
Where: 1 p.m. at Santa Monica Parish (212 W. Medina, near S. 6th Ave and Valencia); 1:30 p.m. procession to I.C.E. office at 6431 S. Country Club; 3 p.m. presentation of exhibits to I.C.E. prosecutors
TUCSON, AZ- On Monday, December 12 more than 60 undocumented individuals, their families and supporters will personally petition Tucson Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to immediately close their immigration cases.
The petitioners will, en masse, present fully-developed exhibits documenting their cases and community ties to I.C.E. officials. All are admissible for deferred action under President Obama’s guidelines, yet their cases remain open – carrying the threat of immanent separation from their homes and loved ones.
In June 2011, the Obama administration announced new guidelines shifting I.C.E. enforcement away from “low-priority” cases. But many who qualify for deferred action under these guidelines continue to face the threat of deportation and separation from their families. We Reject Racism and Keep Tucson Together would like to see immigration relief for all those facing the threat of deportation and detention in the broader Tucson community.
Hundreds of family members, Tucson community leaders and supporters will join in solidarity with those presenting their cases to I.C.E. Among the 60+ petitioners are the parents of 54 U.S. citizen children; many of the petitioners would qualify for relief under the DREAM Act; and some are themselves children, the youngest being 8 years old.
The December 12 event will begin with a ceremony at Santa Monica Parish (212 W. Medina, near S. 6th Ave and Valencia) and proceed to a rally at the Tucson I.C.E. office, 6431 S. Country Club, with the presentation of cases to take place at 3 p.m.
Two immigrant rights activists recently walked into a Border Patrol office in Mobile, Alabama to bring attention to immigration enorcement practices. Here is an article about their experience.
Maricopa County, Arizona Sherriff Joe Arpaio (a/k/a America's Toughest Sheriff) often has graced the ImmigrationProf blog because of his aggressive immigration enforcement efforts. It appears that Sheriff Arpaio is not equally tough on sex offenses. Huffington Post reports that Sheriff Arpaio has apologized to victims for his office's botched investigations of a large number of sex-crimes cases. Earlier this week, Arpaio held a news conference to discuss the investigations a day after the Associated Press ran an article about the bungled cases.
Miami Marlins' reliever Leo Nunez has visa problems. AP reports that he has been playing, and secured a visa, under a false name. Nunez's real name is Juan Carlos Oviedo. Oviedo was arrested outside the U.S. Consulate in Santo Domingo, where he had been trying to get a new visa under his real name so he could return to the United States. He was arrested for using a false name but later Dominican authorities announced that he would not be prosecuted. Oviedo had played professional baseball as Nunez since 2000. Officials in the Dominican Republic confirmed his real name and that he is 29, a year older than listed in the Marlins' media guide .
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Good, the Bad, and the Undocumented College Students: 2011 State and Federal Developments by Michael A. Olivas University of Houston Law Center
There have been many recent changes in the college law provisions of both accomodationist and restrictionist residency policies. In fact, there have been so many that it is hard to tell the traffic without a road map or Google-map. At the bottom of this note, is such a map, current as of November 1, 2011. Recent activities at the state level include Wisconsin (repealed resident tuition statute), Maryland (passed resident tuition statute; “frozen” while certified for state ballot measure); Rhode Island (state Board responsible for residency tuition policy enacted rule allowing residency tuition in 2012); Illinois (passed state statute allowing schools to award non-state-funded scholarships to the undocumented); California (passed three state statutes: allowing schools to award non-state-funded scholarships, providing state financial assistance, and making special provisions for undocumented student leaders [A.B. 130, 131, and 844]); Connecticut (passed resident tuition statute).
There have been states that have done the opposite: having enacted statutes or policies to prevent the undocumented from receiving resident tuition (redundant, as 1621 and 1623 require affirmative passage of state laws to accord the status), and a small number of states ban them outright, including Alabama, Indiana, and Ohio in 2011. For these, see Table Two. Although the recent Alabama bill would have restricted even refugees from enrolling—showing how the rush to exclude the undocumented often misses the mark— it has been enjoined by the federal district judge, for now. See HICA v Bentley (2011) [Sec 8 (colleges)]. I wrote about this: Michael A. Olivas, Sweet Home Alabama?, InsideHigherEd.com, October 13, 2011
New Jersey has denied state financial aid to a student who is a U.S. citizen, but whose mother is undocumented. The ACLU is representing the student. Here are links to the ACLU (which includes their June, 2011 brief) and to a news piece, albeit Fox:
On October 20, 2011, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed Ruiz v. Robinson, which would require Florida to extend its in-state tuition rates to citizen residents who qualify, even if their parents are undocumented.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/19/2462421/us-citizens-denied-right-to-in.html#ixzz1bKcg4Ebl (Miami Herald news story, 10/19);
http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/florida-lawsuit-forces-issue-of-illegal-immigrant-tuition-into-the-courts/37366?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en (Chronicle of Higher Education news story).
Finally, in November, there were developments in the issue of Deferred Action (DA) and the extent to which the Administration would extend it to DREAM Act students and others in the country without legal status. The Obama administration will review immigration cases in Baltimore and Denver with an eye toward freezing deportations of illegal residents who have no criminal records and then expanding the program nationwide; the plans are to target: the elderly, children who have been in the country more than five years, students who came to the U.S. under the age of 16 and are enrolled in a college degree program, and victims of domestic violence are among those whose deportations could be put on hold under the test program. DA, however advantageous, is not a true resolution of undocumented immigration status, and will likely leave many DREAMers unaided and ineligible. Brian Bennett, Obama administration showing leniency in immigration cases, Chicago Tribune, November 18, 2011, available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-immigration-review-20111118,0,4285298.story
These will appear, just in time for thoughtful Christmas gift-giving, in Michael A. Olivas, No Undocumented Child Left Behind (NYU Press, 2011): http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=8271.
Table One: State Laws Allowing Undocumented College Students to Establish Residency
2011 Texas, H.B. 1403, 77th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2001) [amended by S.B. 1528, 79th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2005), relating to student financial aid];
TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 54.052 California, A.B. 540, 2001-02 Cal. Sess. (Cal. 2001);
CAL. EDUC. CODE §68130.5; A.B. 30 (2011), amending CAL. EDUC. CODE §68130.7 and adding §66021.7, relating to nonstate funded scholarships); A.B. 131, October 8, 2011 (amending Section 68130.7 of and adding Sections 66021.6, 69508.5, and 76300.5 to the Education Code, relating to state financial aid);
A.B. 844, October 8, 2011 (amending Section 72023.5 and adding Sections 66016.3 and 66016.4 to the Education Code, relating to state financial aid to certain student leadership positions)
Utah, H.B. 144, 54th Leg., Gen. Sess. (Utah 2002); UTAH CODE ANN. § 53B-8-106 New York, S. B. 7784, 225th Leg., 2001 NY Sess. (NY 2002);
N.Y. EDUC. LAW §355(2)(h)(8)
Washington, H.B. 1079, 58th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2003); WASH. REV. CODE ANN § 28B. 15.012
Oklahoma, S.B. 596, 49th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (OK 2003) [financial assistance provisions rescinded, Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (H.B. 1804)]; OKLA. STAT.ANN.TIT. 70, § 3242
Illinois, H.B. 60, 93rd Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ill. 2003); 110 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. [amended by S.B. 2085, 97th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ill. 2011); 110 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN.]
Kansas, H.B. 2145, 2003-2004 Leg., Reg. Sess. (KS 2004); K.S.A. §76-731a New Mexico, S.B. 582, 47th Leg. Reg. Sess. (2005);
N.M.STAT. ANN. §21-1-1.
Nebraska, L.B. 239, 99th Leg. 1st Sess. (Neb. 2006); NEB REV. STAT. ANN. § 85-502
Wisconsin, 2009 Assembly Bill 75 (2009 WISCONSIN ACT 28); WIS. STAT. § 36.27 [repealed by AB 40, June 26, 2011]
Maryland, S.B. 167, 2011 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Md. 2011); MD. CODE ANN. § 15-106.8 [“suspended,” pending state referendum: MD Const. XVI, Sec. 2]
Connecticut, H.B. 6390, 2011 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Conn. 2011); CONN. GEN. STAT. § 10a-29
Rhode Island, S. 5.0, R.I. Board of Governors for Higher Education, September 26, 2011
Source: http://www.law.uh.edu/ihelg/documents/Statute2011.pdf [current as of November 19, 2011]
Table Two: States Restricting Access to Postsecondary Education, 2011 By statute:
Alabama, H.B. 56, 2011 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ala. 2011); ALA. CODE § 31-13-8 [added section barring undocumented students from enrolling in or attending any institutions of postsecondary education; Enjoined by federal district court, October, 2011]
Arizona, S.C.R. 1031, § 3, Proposition 300, approved election Nov. 7, 2006, eff. Dec. 7, 2006 (Ariz. 2006); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15-1803 [amended to ban in-state tuition for undocumented students]
Colorado, H.B. 06S-1023, 63rd Gen. Assemb., 1st Spec. Sess. (Colo. 2006); COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 24-76.5-103 [added section to ban in-state tuition for undocumented students]
Georgia, S.B. 492, 149th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2008); GA. CODE ANN. § 20-3-66(d) [amended to ban in-state tuition for undocumented students]
Indiana, H.B. 1402, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2011); IND. CODE ANN. § 21-14-11 [added Ch. 11 to title 21, banning in-state tuition for undocumented students]
Ohio, 129th General Assembly File No. 28, HB 153, § 101.01; O.R.C. 3333.31 (D), (E) (2011),
South Carolina, H.B. 4400, 117th Gen. Assem. Reg. Sess. (S.C. 2008); S.C. CODE ANN. § 59-101-430 [added section 430 to bar undocumented students from attending public institutions of higher learning, and also bar them from being able to receive in-state tuition]
By policy or regulation:
Georgia Board of Regents, October, 2010 Section 4: Student Affairs 4.1.6 Admission of Persons Not Lawfully Present in the United States A person who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible for admission to any University System institution which, for the two most recent academic years, did not admit all academically qualified applicants (except for cases in which applicants were rejected for non-academic reasons). (http://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section4/policy/4.1_general_policy/#p4.1.6_admission_of_persons_not_lawfully_present_in_the_united_states) (affecting Georgia College & State University, Medical College of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and University of Georgia) 4.3.4 Verification of Lawful Presence Each University System institution shall verify the lawful presence in the United States of every successfully admitted person applying for resident tuition status, as defined in Section 7.3 of this Policy Manual, and of every person admitted to an institution referenced in Section 4.1.6 of this Policy Manual. (http://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section4/policy/4.3_student_residency/#p4.3.4_verification_of_lawful_presence)
University of North Carolina Board of Governors: Chapter 700 700.1.4[G] Guidelines on the Admission of Undocumented Aliens Undocumented aliens are eligible to be considered for admission as undergraduates at UNC constituent institutions  based on their individual qualifications with limitations as set out below: 1. An undocumented alien may be considered for admission only if he or she graduated from high school in the United States. 2. Undocumented aliens may not receive state or federal financial aid in the form of a grant or a loan. 3. An undocumented alien may not be considered a North Carolina resident for tuition purposes; all undocumented aliens must be charged out-of-state tuition. 4. All undocumented aliens, whether or not they abide in North Carolina or graduated from a North Carolina high school, will be considered out of State for purposes of calculating the 18 percent cap on out of State freshmen pursuant to Policy 700.1.3. 5. When considering whether or not to admit an undocumented alien into a specific program of study, constituent institutions should take into account that federal law prohibits the states from granting professional licenses to undocumented aliens.  The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics admits and enrolls only legal residents of the state of North Carolina. G.S. 116-235. (http://www.northcarolina.edu/policy/index.php?pg=vb&node_id=451) (all provisions current as of December 10, 2011)
The CFMS Summer Institute is a six-day, non-degree earning seminar intended for researches, policy makers, academics and practitioners working in issues of forced migration, resettlement and humanitarian assistance.
Resettlement has long been one of the durable solutions for refugees. While there have been large-scale resettlements to the US and Northern States over the past few decades, most refugees are hosted and will remain in the world’s poorest countries; countries that lack the capacity or will to absorb refugees, do not have established asylum systems, and in which refugees have little access to most of the rights and protection mechanisms enshrined in international refugee and human rights laws. The theme ‘unsettling resettlement’ offers a framework under which to explore these rights and the protection of the world’s refugees.
The curriculum of the CFMS Summer Institute will address ideas of global burden-sharing, the role of UNHCR and other NGOs, access to legal representation, refugee mental health, and current resettlement systems; all within the greater discussion and study of the sociological, political and historical context in which refugee situations are created and addressed. Through lectures, focused discussions, workshops and simulation exercises, the Institute held at Northwestern University's campus in Evanston, IL, will provide a forum to exchange ideas, build relationships, develop new approaches and policy recommendations and learn about new developments in the field.
GUEST BLOG POST, NIC SANTANA, Who is Elvis? Meet Elvis. Elvis lives in the shadows of America. This is his story.
I have taken it upon myself to produce and direct a short narrative film dealing with the controversial and highly unpopular topic of immigration. I say unpopular because I’ve been following the GOP debate. And, well, we’ve all heard or read Rep. Michelle Bachman say she would see to it that every undocumented immigrant in the country be deported if elected president.
Elvis is the story of Dominican teen, Elvis Delgado. After living in New York City for thirteen years, his life is turned upside down when his father is picked up by the police for a minor violation and gets sent to an immigration detention center. Elvis wants to see his father but learns that he, too, is undocumented. He, too, runs the risk of deportation.
People ask me where I got the inspiration to write the story of a fifteen-year-old unauthorized New Yorker. The politically correct response is that an article in the New York Times a few months back piqued my interest. Truth is, it's a story close to home.
Ten years ago, my cousin was a high school senior. I knew he was born in Mexico and he knew it as well. What we didn’t know was that he was an unauthorized U.S. citizen. It was a topic my family didn’t discuss. I remember asking him about his plans after high school and with great enthusiasm he told me he wanted to be an architect. His dreams quickly faded as he discovered it was going to be impossible to apply for financial aid. He couldn’t afford tuition. He gave up.
When I recently started writing this short screenplay, I tried to put myself in my cousin’s shoes. What was it like for him when he felt all opportunities were closed? Just like Elvis, my cousin had to adapt to living under the radar. At a time when adolescent passage into adulthood is marked by achieving certain milestones, the Elvises of this country have to adapt to living in the shadows.
In my story, Elvis discovers his citizenship status as his family is being torn apart. Does he risk everything to see his father one last time? I won’t spoil the ending, you’ll just have to wait and see. I will tell you what became of my cousin. He received his citizenship and just turned 28 years old. What future awaits him now is uncertain.
As for the future of this short narrative film, it all depends whether I can meet my fundraising goal. I am raising money to produce the short film and need your support. This story deserves to be told for all those children and their families who make a life in the shadows of this country. Please share this with all your friends and consider making a pledge if you can.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
We’re writing to let you know that the Immigrant Child Advocacy Project (ICAP) has a new name: The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights. The new name reflects the scope of our work, eight years since inception: serving as Child Advocate (best interests guardian ad litem) for unaccompanied children in Chicago, South Texas and select cases around the country. The mission remains the same, to promote the best interests—safety, permanency and well-being—of unaccompanied immigrant children according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and state and federal child protection laws.
The new name, The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, pays tribute to the children we serve by naming the organization after one of our first clients. Young Zheng was smuggled by ruthless traffickers from China at the age of 14, and was expected to work off a debt of $60,000. In fear for his life, Young endured more than two years of legal battles to remain in the United States. His Child Advocate stood by his side, fought for his release and against his deportation. Today, Young Zheng is a lawful permanent resident and college student. He has graciously lent his name to this organization.
Through the extraordinary service of our law students, social work students and volunteers, we have served as Child Advocate for hundreds of unaccompanied children. We will continue to do this work on behalf of individual children and we will also continue to advocate for the rights of immigrant children—trafficking victims, unaccompanied children, children in state proceedings—to ensure their voices are heard and that decision makers receive information about their best interests.
On December 6, the New York Times reported about the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to furnish some 72 Indonesians living in New Jersey with one-way plane tickets to Indonesia, cancelling supervision orders they had been previously issued by DHS. “Prosecutorial discretion” refers to law enforcement’s authority to decide whether or not to impose the laws against a party, and DHS’s decision to cancel the supervision orders reflects one form of this discretion. For more than thirty years, the immigration agency has utilized prosecutorial discretion to balance its finite resources and also recognize the compelling humanitarian issues faced by certain noncitizens living in the United States. DHS’ decision to deport these Indonesians despite a long-time residence, family and professional ties in the United States and no criminal histories is puzzling and inconsistent with the DHS’ own policy. Some of the Indonesians facing deportation entered the United States on valid visas and registered under a controversial post 9/11 program (Download NSEERSexamples) known as “special registration” or the “National Security Entry and Exit Registration System” (NSEERS). The NSEERS program was created in the wake of 9/11 and designed to find future terrorists by interrogating, fingerprinting and photographing certain foreign nationals admitted into the United States on temporary visas. The NSEERS program was expanded to reach certain visa holders in the United States who were men of certain ages and from a list of 25 Muslim-majority countries (including Indonesia) designated by the government—the program was controversial because it targeted people based on characteristics Americans would ordinarily consider unacceptable (nationality, sex and religion) and was implemented without proper resources or safeguards. In exchange for their compliance with the NSEERS program, thousands of registrants were detained, denied access to a lawyer and/or served with charging papers for a deportation hearing. Recognizing the program’s harsh human consequences and minimal national security benefit (terrorists do not voluntarily report themselves to the government), the DHS suspended portions of the NSEERs program in 2003 and this past April, published a rule that effectively terminated the program for nationals and citizens categorically subject to NSEERS. As illustrated by the story of the Indonesian community in New Jersey, the NSEERs program continues to affect many families who have lived in the United States for now more than 10 years, been gainfully employed, built families and/or contributed in meaningful ways to the United States. Without a full repeal of the NSEERS program and formal relief for those unjustly targeted it is critical that DHS exercise prosecutorial discretion favorably towards those affected by NSEERS.
Here is an abstract of my new article: Immigration Sanctuary Policies: Constitutional and Representative of Good Policing and Good Public Policy, __ UC IRVINE L. REV. ___ (Forthcoming 2012). The entire article draft can be downloaded from ssrn here.
Sanctuary ordinances or policies that constrain local authorities from assisting in federal immigration enforcement do not receive the same political and media attention as anti-immigrant laws enacted by states and local governments. In the political struggle over the rights of undocumented immigrants in the United States, the greater media and political focus on anti-immigrant measures, such as Arizona’s S.B. 1070 and similar policies in cities like Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Farmers Branch, Texas, is understandable.
With much less fanfare, the legality of sanctuary policies also has been challenged. In this article I review the case law that specifically has involved the constitutionality of sanctuary polices and the relevant principles of preemption and states’ rights. That process necessarily forces some comparison with the legal challenges over anti-immigrant local and state laws. In my view, while the principles of federalism represented in the Supreme Court’s approach to the Tenth Amendment and preemption drive a stake in the heart of subfederal anti-immigrant laws, those same principles guide us to the conclusion that sanctuary policies are on safe footing.
Understanding why sanctuary policies are constitutional is important to the raging debate over immigration. Seemingly on a daily basis, anti-immigrant measures are proposed or enacted by state and local governments. In contrast, some jurisdictions that regard gaining the trust of immigrant communities as a necessity for public safety or who view themselves as immigrant friendly choose an approach that de-emphasizes the immigration status of those encountered in the course of police work. Additionally, the proliferation of litigation challenging the constitutionality of anti-immigrant ordinances raises the question of whether one set of subfederal immigration-related approaches (sanctuary policies) can be constitutional, while a different set (anti-immigrant legislation) is not. To put it bluntly, can those in the immigrant rights community that promote sanctuary ordinances and attack anti-immigrant proposals have it both ways constitutionally?
I conclude that in the immigration field, the concept of preemption is an appropriate check on overzealous subfederal enforcement efforts that directly affect immigration regulation, while the Tenth Amendment is a check on federal intrusion on a local jurisdiction’s attempt to be more protective of individual rights when the locality has a legitimate nonimmigration-related purpose, such as public safety.
The discussion on the legality of sanctuary policies will reveal that the reserved police powers and local economic decisions under principles of federalism play a major part in the analysis. For that reason, a deeper understanding of the rationale for sanctuary policies is critical. We will find that in jurisdictions with sanctuary policies, local policy makers and law enforcement officials have made thoughtful and deliberate public safety decisions, taking great pains to do the right thing for the entire community. Those decisions are critical to principles of inclusion in our ever-growing diverse communities. For that reason, the sanctuary framework is good public policy—especially in contrast to the anti-immigrant examples of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 or Hazleton, Pennsylvania. See ssrn for more.
Immigration Article of the Day: Birthright Citizenship Controversy: A Study of Conservative Substance and Rhetoric by Allen R. Kamp
Birthright Citizenship Controversy: A Study of Conservative Substance and Rhetoric by Allen R. Kamp The John Marshall Law School
Abstract: This essay is a critique of the conservative rhetoric used in their attack on birthright citizenship — as granted by Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The rhetoric of that attack violates the traditional canons of conservative argumentation and interpretation, such as original intent and plain meaning. As such, their arguments call into question the seriousness of their allegiance to these canons.
David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan Wizard, Louisiana State Representative, and current right-wing activist now faces deportation from Germany, where he was arrested in Cologne hours before a scheduled lecture to a group of about 60 extremists. Vowing to fight the deportation, Duke noted on his website that he would need financial assistance from his supporters.
Although it is not completely clear on what grounds German authorities arrested Duke, officials noted that Duke is “not entitled” to stay in Germany. Duke faced troubles in 2009 in Austria, where he was arrested and expelled for denying the Holocaust, something that is a crime in many countries, most notably Germany.
In fact, according to a Nola.com article, Duke’s association with neo-Nazism earned him an exclusion order from Switzerland several years ago under what is known as the Schengen Agreement. The exclusion effectively prevents Duke from visiting other member countries who have signed the1985 open-border agreement. As such, Duke technically was not allowed to stay in Germany, although enforcement of the exclusion order has been lax, considering Duke had lived openly in Austria, a Schengen member, for several years.
Duke, however, argues that German authorities want only to silence his message, and that he was not arrested simply because of his violation of his travel ban. In a message to his supporters, Duke notes that he was "imprisoned by a gross twisting of travel laws in a blatant attempt by the government to prevent a private and peaceful gathering of about a 100 German citizens eager to hear my message of heritage and freedom."
Regardless of whether German police arrested and expelled Duke purely because of the travel ban, or whether he was arrested in an attempt to stop his speech to his followers, it is unlikely that Duke will successfully win his bid to reverse deportation. Since World War II, Germany and many other European countries have had little tolerance for those who openly support ideas associated with the Nazi party.
Duke’s arrest and expulsion comes at a time during which German authorities must contend with a growth in visible, organized neo-Nazi groups. The BBC reports on an investigation in which ten racially-charged murders committed from 2000 to 2006 have been linked to Germany’s burgeoning neo-Nazi underground.
Duke’s whereabouts currently are uncertain. A woman who answered Duke’s Louisiana cell phone, purporting to be his assistant, noted that she knew he was no longer in Germany but did not know more information beyond that fact.
Byline: This is a guest post by Kimberly Wilson. Kimberly is from accredited online colleges, she writes on topics including career, education, student life, college life, home improvement, time management etc.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Doyle McManus writes in the Los Angeles Times:
By the time the election rolls around in November, I'm betting the Republican candidate will sound more like the Mitt Romney of 2007. "The 12 million or so that are here illegally should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship," Mr. Romney said then, "but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to stay here."
There's a lot of electioneering to come between now and then, and a lot of time for the GOP to do itself more damage. But this is an issue on which most Republican voters are more sensible than their candidates. Read more...
U.S. General Accountability Office, Visa Waiver Program: Additional Actions Needed to Address Risks and Strengthen Overstay Enforcement
U.S. General Accountability Office, Visa Waiver Program: Additional Actions Needed to Address Risks and Strengthen Overstay Enforcement (Dec. 7, 2011) analuzes the need for improvement for enforcement (i.e., removal) of visa overstays. Recall that roughly 40% of the undocumented population of 10-11 million in the United States is comprised of visa overstays. More border enforcement through fences and the like, do not address the visa overstay component of the undocumented population.
I came across an interesting book titled "This is Our Story" by Wendi J. Adelson, Visiting Clinical Professor, Florida State University College of Law.
The book chronicles her clients’ experiences with human trafficking. Click here and here for more information.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Immigration Article of the Day: The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions by Hein de Haas & Tineke Fokkema
The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions by Hein de Haas & Tineke Fokkema
Abstract: While return migration is receiving increasing attention, there is still insufficient insight into the factors which determine migrants’ intentions and decisions to return. It is often assumed that integration in receiving countries and the concomitant weakening of transnational ties decreases the likelihood of returning. However, according to alternative theoretical interpretations, return migration can also be the outflow of successful integration in receiving countries. Drawing on a dataset of four African immigrant groups in Spain and Italy, this article reviews these conflicting hypotheses by assessing the effects of integration and transnational ties on return migration intentions. The results of the analysis suggest that sociocultural integration has a negative effect on return migration intentions, while economic integration and transnational ties have more ambiguous and sometimes positive effects. The results provide mixed support for the different hypotheses but question theoretical perspectives that unequivocally conceptualize return migration and transnationalism as causes and/or consequences of “integration failure.”
Bryan Llenas writes for Fox News Latino:
While most families are gearing up for the holidays, a family in Texas is planning a funeral, after an 18-year-old committed suicide the day after Thanksgiving. Joaquin Luna took his life, his family claims, because his aspiration to study engineering was dashed after Congress' failure to pass the DREAM Act.
“One of my favorite subjects by far is math,” he writes."They [his family] have unconditionally supported me and will continue to do so for the benefit of my brothers as well. I want to demonstrate to them that all that agricultural work done and all those days of giving their best would have been worth it. The sound of being the first one of my family graduating from college makes me want it more because I want to prove not only to myself but to many other people especially my own sisters that even because we don’t have the financial support doesn’t mean we need to quit in fulfilling want we always wanted to. That right there would really complete my dream.”
“His world just closed. He took the decision and decided to do this – to sacrifice himself,” Mendoza said. “I think he did it to have politicians have more heart, and give other kids the opportunity he thought he was never given. If this DREAM Act would have passed this would have never have happened."
Mendoza, 35, says Luna dressed up on Friday night and put on his tie as if he was going to church. He made his rounds through the house, saying goodbye to his family members heading to bed.
His family thought nothing of it, Mendoza said.
That’s when Marie Mendoza, Luna’s cousin, says Luna told his older brother, Carlos, 29, “he could become something in life, but he would never become anything in life because of his status.”
Moments later, Luna was found dead in the bathtub of his home after an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Read more....
In an essay obtained by Fox News Latino entitled “Fulfilling a dream in waiting…” dated January 11, 2011, Luna writes about his aspiring goals. “One of my favorite subjects by far is math,” he writes."They [his family] have unconditionally supported me and will continue to do so for the benefit of my brothers as well. I want to demonstrate to them that all that agricultural work done and all those days of giving their best would have been worth it. The sound of being the first one of my family graduating from college makes me want it more because I want to prove not only to myself but to many other people especially my own sisters that even because we don’t have the financial support doesn’t mean we need to quit in fulfilling want we always wanted to. That right there would really complete my dream.”
TMZ reports that reality televion star Kim Kardashian has been placed on an Australian immigration watch List. The Department reportedly put her on on a watch list following three separate visa-related incidents.
Monday, December 5, 2011
"Arrests of [unauthorized] migrants trying to cross the southern U.S. border have plummeted to levels not seen since the early 1970s, according to tallies released by the Department of Homeland Security last week, a historic shift that could reshape the debate over immigration reform. The Border Patrol apprehended 327,577 [unauthorized] crossers along the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2011, which ended Sept. 30, numbers not seen since Richard Nixon was president, and a precipitous drop from the peak in 2000, when 1.6 million unauthorized migrants were caught."
Washington Post, Dec. 2, 2011.