Friday, March 1, 2013
From the Bookshelves: Three Worlds of Relief: Race, Immigration, and the American Welfare State from the Progressive Era to the New Deal by Cybelle Fox
Three Worlds of Relief examines the role of race and immigration in the development of the American social welfare system by comparing how blacks, Mexicans, and European immigrants were treated by welfare policies during the Progressive Era and the New Deal. Taking readers from the turn of the twentieth century to the dark days of the Depression, Cybelle Fox finds that, despite rampant nativism, European immigrants received generous access to social welfare programs. The communities in which they lived invested heavily in relief. Social workers protected them from snooping immigration agents, and ensured that noncitizenship and illegal status did not prevent them from receiving the assistance they needed. But that same helping hand was not extended to Mexicans and blacks. Fox reveals, for example, how blacks were relegated to racist and degrading public assistance programs, while Mexicans who asked for assistance were deported with the help of the very social workers they turned to for aid.
Drawing on a wealth of archival evidence, Fox paints a riveting portrait of how race, labor, and politics combined to create three starkly different worlds of relief. She debunks the myth that white America's immigrant ancestors pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, unlike immigrants and minorities today.
Three Worlds of Relief challenges us to reconsider not only the historical record but also the implications of our past on contemporary debates about race, immigration, and the American welfare state.
Cybelle Fox is assistant professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
From the Bookshelves: Doing Good Racial Tensions and Workplace Inequalities at a Community Clinic in El Nuevo South by Natalia Deeb-Sossa
Throughout the "New South," relationships based on race, class, social status, gender, and citizenship are being upended by the recent influx of Latina/o residents. Doing Good examines these issues as they play out in the microcosm of a community health center in North Carolina that previously had served mostly African American clients but now serves predominantly Latina/o clients. Drawing on eighteen months of experience as a participant- observer in the clinic and in-depth interviews with clinic staff at all levels, Natalia Deeb-Sossa provides an informative and fascinating view of how changing demographics are profoundly affecting the new social order. Deeb-Sossa argues persuasively that "moral identities" have been constructed by clinic staff. The high-status staff—nearly all of whom are white—see themselves as heroic workers. Mid- and lower-status Latina staff feel like they are guardians of people who are especially needy and deserving of protection. In contrast, the moral identity of African American staffers had previously been established in response to serving "their people." Their response to the evolving clientele has been to create a self-image of superiority by characterizing Latina/o clients as "immoral," "lazy," "working the system," having no regard for rules or discipline, and being irresponsible parents. All of the health-care workers want to be seen as "doing good." But they fail to see how, in constructing and maintaining their own moral identity in response to their personal views and stereotypes, they have come to treat each other and their clients in ways that contradict their ideals.
University of Arizona anthropologist Robin Reineke, who came here to research the growing migrant deaths, was surprised by the lack of humanitarian presence to which she had grown accustomed in Arizona: Groups that set out water, erect warning signs to deter crossings, connect with families searching for the missing. For more on why South Texas appears to be overtaking Arizona as the place where more border crossers die, click here.
Sounds like this may be a case for prosecutorial discretion.
A woman is facing deportation proceedings after getting arrested over complaints that her dogs were barking too loudly, California daily La Opinión reports.
Ruth Montaño, a Mexican immigrant living in the town of Bakersfield outside Los Angeles, returned home on New Year’s eve with her three children after going shopping for dinner to find police at her door.
Montaño, a 38-year-old farmworker who has lived in the United States for 14 years, says the police scolded her for not knowing how to speak English, La Opinión reports.
An altercation ensued when the police asked for her driver’s license, with Montaño saying one of the cops rough-handled her. The police report says Montaño get upset and kicked a deputy, which she denies, according to Bakersfield Eyewitness News. She was charged with a misdemeanor for resisting arrest and an infraction for having an animal that makes too much noise, the news report says.
“I begged him not, crying, not to arrest me, not to separate me from my children,” Montaño told La Opinión.
She spent a week in Bakersfield county jail, where she was slapped with an immigration detainer and moved to a detention center for two days in California City. Read more...
Brian Lawson reports that the State of Alabama will not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on its efforts to collect immigration information on public school students, Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman said this morning. It has sought review of some other provisions of H.B. 56, its state immigration enforcement law.
Today is the deadline for Alabama to ask the high court to take up its challenge of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in August blocking the schools measure from going into effect. After Alabama passed H.B. 56 in 2011, its public schools reported significant absences as families fled the state or kept children home from school in apparent fear of the status checks.
Specifically, Alabama has chosen not to ask for review of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling that Section 28 requiring immigration checks in K-12 schools, was unconstitutional. Seeking review might have allowed the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in Plyler v. Doe (1982), which held that undocumented students had a right to K-12 education.
Today, the Progress 2050 project at the Center for American Progress released a new infographic detailing the increased influence that Latino voters will have in future presidential elections. As the immigration and sequester debates move forward in Congress, Americans of all backgrounds are watching. Latinos, African Americans, and other voters of color have much at stake in both of these debates. As we have seen in the 2012 election, these voters can have a significant impact on election results, and as both parties look ahead to the 2014 and 2016 elections, they should take note of changes in the electorate that are happening at the local level.
“Latino voters are poised to be even more influential for years to come—not just in national elections but also in key state races. Leaders from both parties should take note that the electorates waiting for them in 2014 and 2016 will be remarkably different than in years past,” said Vanessa Cardenas, Director of Progress 2050.
Abstract: The character of the American immigration regime has remained remarkably stable over many decades. It changes, to be sure, sometimes granting migrants benefits and at other moments cracking down. However, the broad trend is unmistakable: immigration law and the way it is implemented is increasingly harsh and inhumane. This article argues that this long-term trend is likely to continue — even in the event of comprehensive immigration reform — unless the immigration reform agenda reconciles itself with the structural elements responsible for this trend and imagines ways to counteract them. In particular I urge a reconsideration of the relationship between the immigration reform agenda and the democratic will. Rather than focus on finding ways to quash anti-migrant policies that are responsive to the democratic will, reformers should develop creative, democratically legitimate ways to alter the demands that citizens make.
This paper has been previously highlighted on the Legal Theory Blog.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
But the powerful industry quickly brought in some heavy political guns, especially Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who prevailed upon State to postpone the ban for the 2012 season.
Now National Journal is reporting that Begich may tie his vote on "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation to more concessions from State and the Obama administration. Begich wants Alaskan canneries to have access to the large supply of cheap foreign labor that enters the United States with J-1 visas provided by the Summer Work Travel (SWT) program.
Today, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard clarified misleading reports that “hundreds” of undocumented immigrants had been “released” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – stories which have prompted expressions of outrage by House Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner.
In reality, in response to the impending cuts required by the sequester, ICE placed low-risk detainees in secure Alternatives to Detention (ATD). These measures, which include ankle bracelets and telephonic monitoring, offer a more humane, cost-effective option for many non-criminal immigrants than traditional incarceration. “The sequester is forcing ICE to do what it should have been doing already – placing people who don’t pose a threat to their communities or our country into the proven Alternatives to Detention Program,” said Rep. Roybal-Allard. “Whereas locking up an immigrant costs the American taxpayer more than $150 a day, these proven supervision programs cost about $10 a day. More importantly, with success rates above 90 percent, they deliver strong results. If Republicans were really serious about fiscal responsibility and about fixing our broken immigration system, they would join me in applauding ICE’s decision.”
Congresswoman Roybal-Allard is the author of HR 639, the Immigration Oversight and Fairness Act. In addition to strengthening the standards that govern our immigration prisons, the bill would dramatically expand Alternatives to Detention, especially for vulnerable populations, such as elderly, pregnant and sick immigrants.The Constitution Project today applauded the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) recent decision to rely on alternatives to detention for hundreds of individuals held in immigration detention centers.
The Migration Policy Institute’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy has compiled new, national, state-, and county-level data on the number, share, and linguistic diversity of Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals in the United States.
Today, 25.2 million individuals over the age of 5 in the United States (9 percent of the total population) have limited proficiency in English, compared with 14 million (6 percent of the total population) in 1990. This growth has been accompanied by a broad-ranging dispersal of immigrants and refugees to dozens of states and hundreds of counties across the United States.
The county-level data shows this geographic spread and offer two different counts — as a percentage of the total county population as well as in absolute numbers — of the number and principal languages of LEP individuals across 3,221 counties in the United States (including Puerto Rico). The analysis shows that in 1,323 counties, or 41 percent of all counties in our data, there were at least 500 LEP individuals speaking a single language – Spanish, for example. Further, the data show that of the 3,221 counties in our analysis, 18 percent (or 572) had at least one LEP population (speaking a single language) that constituted 5 percent or more of the overall population.
The National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy compiled this data to assist the array of stakeholders who are working to address language access issues at the county level. Find out about the available data at the Language Portal.
The American Immigration Council invites you to celebrate the remarkable accomplishments of immigrants and advocates from around the country at an inspiring and thought-provoking ceremony at the Washington Court Hotel on April 11, 2013.
This year marks our 18th Annual Washington, DC Immigrant Achievement Awards and we are excited to announce that we will be honoring immigrants and advocates who have contributed to our nation through their service and leadership.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Immigration and Customs Enforcement released some people from immigrant detention facilities across the country on Monday in response to looming federal budget cuts.
"In order to make the best use of our limited detention resources in the current fiscal climate and to manage our detention population under current congressionally mandated levels, ICE has directed field offices to review the detained population to ensure it is in line with available funding," agency spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said in a statement.
ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are analyzing spending as congressional inaction increases the likelihood of so-called budget sequestration -- across-the-board spending cuts that begin on March 1. Detaining immigrants is an expensive business, with an average daily cost of $122 to $164 per person, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Alternatives, including ankle bracelets and parole, are far cheaper.
Christensen declined to say how many undocumented immigrants were freed on Monday or to give their locations. She said they have been "placed on an appropriate, more cost-effective form of supervised release." ICE did not drop the cases against the individuals and will still deport them if ordered by an immigration judge, she said.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano foreshadowed the announcement earlier in the day at a press briefing. She said ICE "will be forced" under sequestration to reduce detention and removal of undocumented immigrants.
"All I can say is, look, we're doing our very best to minimize the impacts of sequester," Napolitano told reporters at the White House. "But there’s only so much I can do. I'm supposed to have 34,000 detention beds for immigration. How do I pay for those?"
Immigrant rights groups began buzzing Monday with reports from detention centers, where they said low-priority detainees had been released in large numbers. Activists have long called for ICE to release some detainees, either to allow them to stay in the United States or to keep them out of prison-like detention centers until they are deported. The rights groups have argued that the Obama administration has violated its stated principle of focusing on the most dangerous undocumented immigrants in favor of padding numbers by going after low-level offenders instead, as reported by USA Today earlier this month. Read more...
Although still only in draft form, recently leaked legislative language for a White House immigration reform bill provides a clearer picture of President Barack Obama’s immigration reform priorities than was available previously. The proposed legislation would create a viable road to U.S. citizenship for many immigrants, and it includes much-needed reforms to labor laws affecting immigrants in the workplace. However, the draft legislation also raises significant questions for the bipartisan Senate “Gang of Eight” to answer.
We’ve analyzed the three draft titles, and links to these more in-depth summaries/analyses, as well as the language of the draft titles, can be found at the end of each section of this summary. Below is a brief overview of the president’s proposal.
Title I: Border Security, Detention, and Deportation
This title rightly recognizes that enforcement along our borders already receives more federal dollars than any other law enforcement endeavor. As a result, net migration from Mexico is now zero.
Nevertheless, the title calls for increased technology at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The language also takes some steps towards addressing human rights violations at the border. However, it remains to be seen how effective these procedures will be. This title also fails to provide border communities with the necessary tools to hold abusive Border Patrol agents accountable, nor does it provide border communities with meaningful input into the policies affecting them.
This title also narrows definitions of “aggravated felony” (a ground of removability under immigration law), “conviction,” and “sentence.” Narrowing these categories will result in fewer people facing removal from the U.S. However, other grounds of removability, including deportation for possession of a minor quantity of drugs, are not addressed.
Proposed language allows people facing deportation to be better able to defend themselves in court.
This change is both necessary and long overdue. Immigrants are rarely equipped to defend themselves against deportation, even if they have strong ties to the United States.
Although the title establishes that certain individuals should receive access to counsel, much more should be done to protect judicial fairness and due process.
The title also makes it less likely that immigrants will be subject to detention. However, much more can and should be done to end the over-incarceration of immigrants who are fighting to remain with their loved ones.
Title II: Legalization
This title outlines the structure of the road to U.S. citizenship for many of those currently living in the U.S. without proper documentation. The title also lists the restrictions to applying for citizenship.
The draft language broadens the road to U.S. citizenship. For example, a U.S. citizen wife and her undocumented husband will now be able to apply for citizenship without being subject to bars keeping spouses outside the U.S. for up to 10 years.
However, some of the provisions making immigrants ineligible to apply for citizenship remain too harsh. Proposed language would continue to prevent an immigrant who has been convicted of marijuana possession, for example, from being able to live free from fear of deportation.
The proposed legislation calls for a 6 to 8–year waiting period before immigrants can apply to become lawful permanent residents. This temporary period is referred to as “lawful prospective immigrant” status, or LPI.
Immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children, have graduated from high school, and are college students or enlisted in the military would not be subject to the same waiting period.
During this period, immigrants would not be eligible for health care under the Affordable Care Act, but these immigrants could be subject to the mandate to purchase private insurance, forcing immigrants to choose between costly health care or being fined for failure to purchase insurance. This glaring contradiction should be remedied.
Furthermore, immigrants may be excluded for up to 11 years from the social insurance programs they help support by paying taxes. This hole in our social safety net should be fixed.
Immigrants who wish to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident (LPR or “green card”) status would have to pay a fine as well as back taxes. Having paid back taxes should be required only for the adjustment-to-LPR stage rather than for eligibility for the preliminary LPI status. If the cost of the penalty is too high, the road to U.S. citizenship may not be affordable to many low-income immigrants.
In total, a person who first applies for LPI status could have to wait at least 11 to 13 years before being eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship. This is too long a wait for immigrants who have decades-long ties in the U.S.
Title III: Immigration Issues at the Workplace
The proposed language provides for a dramatic increase in interior worksite enforcement by imposing strict new rules upon employers, including a mandate that all employers use an electronic employment eligibility verification system (EEVS; the current federal system is called E 'Verify). This will affect all workers in the U.S. — U.S.-born and immigrant alike — for decades to come.
Our concerns with E-Verify are well documented and can be reviewed here. Any implementation of an EEVS must include strong due process and worker protections to prevent employers from abusing the system and to protect workers who may be falsely deemed ineligible to be employed in the U.S.
This title also addresses the myriad issues affecting immigrants in the workplace and restores employer accountability for labor and immigration law violations.
The title finally removes the perverse incentive for abusive employers to undercut labor law and exploit immigration law to maximize their profits.
The title calls for expansion of U (or crime victim) visas to include victims of labor law violations. This would allow workers to stand up for their labor and civil rights free from fear of deportation.
This title also specifies that, if an employer is found to have violated a worker’s workplace rights, neither back pay nor any other remedy (except any reinstatement remedy prohibited under federal law) available under the law may be denied to the worker based on his or her immigration status. This is a welcome fix to the results of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compound, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002).
Read the draft language of this title here.
THIS DRAFT LEGISLATION represents a start to a longer discussion about how we as a nation welcome those who have been fellow-citizens-at-heart for many years, and who must soon go down the road of becoming citizens-on-paper. The president’s draft language contains some very important advances but also very troubling language that will undoubtedly result in many people being ineligible for this road to citizenship. We are heartened that this is just a draft that can be improved upon. The National Immigration Law Center is committed to work with legislators and the White House to push for legislation that lives up to our societal values of inclusion, equality, and justice.
New Report Exposes How Employers Take Advantage of Broken Immigration System to Exploit Workers
Study details how employers use immigration enforcement to retaliate against workers, and points to opportunities for reform in current immigration debate.
New York—With immigration reform under serious consideration in Congress, a report released Tuesday by the National Employment Law Project exposes how current immigration policies intended to stop employers from hiring undocumented workers have instead allowed unscrupulous employers to evade both immigration and labor laws.
Through nearly two-dozen case studies, the report paints a shocking picture of how employers use immigration enforcement, or the threat of it, to retaliate against workers who seek to exercise their basic workplace rights. In many instances, workers who tried to collect unpaid wages, report safety violations, escape abuse by their employers, or organize in the workplace were detained and deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with little recourse for their labor rights.
Former U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis endorsed the findings of the report. “As U.S. labor secretary, my top priority was to protect the labor rights of all workers, including those seeking a path to citizenship,” Solis said. “We must never allow immigration status to be used as a weapon to silence the courageous individuals who stand up against wage theft and other labor abuses. While I’m proud of the protections that the Labor Department has put in place for immigrant workers, there is still more to do. The protections we pioneered at the Labor Department need to be included as part of immigration reform.”
The report release comes just days after The New York Times editorialized that stronger protections against the exploitation and abuse of immigrant workers need to be a bigger part of the immigration reform discussion. “Such protections, essential to any reform plan, would help rid the system of bottom-feeding employers who hire and underpay and otherwise exploit cheap immigrant labor, dragging down wages and workplace standards for everyone,” the Times argued.
“An immigration enforcement scheme designed to prevent the hiring of undocumented workers has instead given unscrupulous employers a potent weapon to deter immigrant workers from asserting their workplace rights and retaliate against those who do so,” said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project. “These abuses underscore how important it is that reform of our immigration laws ensures full protection of workers’ exercise of their rights.”
The report, entitled “Workers’ Rights on ICE: How Immigration Reform Can Stop Retaliation and Advance Labor Rights,” draws on 22 case studies from around the country, including California, Ohio, Alabama, Texas, Arizona, and New York, representing a range of industries, including construction, day labor, farm work, restaurant, food service, andfood processing. Typical examples of employer abuse of the immigration enforcement system include the following:
· A California employer falsely accuses a day laborer of robbery to avoid paying him wages owed. Police turn him over to immigration enforcement agents anyway.
· An Ohio company, on the eve of an NLRB decision finding it guilty of unfair labor practices, carries out its threat to “take out” union leadership by re-verifying union leaders’ immigration status and work eligibility.
· A Seattle employer threatens workers seeking to recover unpaid wages with deportation, and an immigration arrest follows.
The ramp-up in immigration enforcement in recent years has given unscrupulous employers more tools to use against immigrant workers who assert their labor rights, according to the report. More local police departments have gotten pulled into immigration enforcement, and worksite immigration audits have increased. Although the Obama administration has taken some steps to prevent immigration status–related retaliation—for example, by protecting immigrants who are the victims of crimes in the workplace, exercising prosecutorial discretion in limited cases involving labor disputes, and limiting ICE enforcement actions where labor investigations are pending—they are not enough.
“Bad employers have repeatedly misused the immigration enforcement system to gain the upper hand in an already unfair situation,” said Rebecca Smith, an attorney with NELP and a co-author of the report. “In such a climate of fear, no one is willing to stand up and blow the whistle on terrible workplace abuses. It’s a downward spiral that even drags down law-abiding employers, who are forced to compete with illegal practices. In the end, all low-wage workers suffer as a result,” said Smith.
Immigration reform, however, presents new opportunities to protect immigrant workers.
“By enacting a new immigration policy that includes a broad path to citizenship, equal remedies for all workers subjected to illegal treatment at work, a stronger firewall between immigration and labor law enforcement, and immigration protections for workers actively engaged in defending their labor rights, Congress and the White House can ensure that immigrant workers who stand up for their rights are protected,” said NELP attorney Eunice Cho, also a co-author of the report. “Immigration reform, done right, can ensure improved wages and working conditions for all workers,” said Cho.
Monday, February 25, 2013
On Tuesday, the House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security will hold a hearing entitled, “What Does a Secure Border Look Like?” If I were testifying at this hearing, I would respectfully submit to the members of the subcommittee that they’re asking the wrong question. This question has no answer, it’s a diversion from the essential task of creating an immigration system that works for America, and it misunderstands what the U.S.-Mexico border is. Click here for a NAFSA blog post calling for a shift of the debate to one seeking a "functional border."
By the way, the witness list for tomorrow's hearing looks a bit one-sided:
Mr. Michael J. Fisher, Chief, Border Patrol, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Mr. Kevin McAleenan, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
RAdm William Lee, Deputy For Operations Policy and Capabilities, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Ms. Rebecca Gambler, Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice, Government Accountability Office
Marc R. Rosenblum, PhD, Specialist in Immigration Policy, Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress
The Mills Legal Clinic of Stanford Law School invites applicants for a staff attorney position with its Immigrants' Rights Clinic ("IRC"). The Staff Attorney will join the thriving clinical community at Stanford Law School where, together with the clinical faculty and staff, she or he will help train law students to work on immigrants' rights litigation and advocacy. The IRC represents individual noncitizen clients in a variety of matters, including immigration court proceedings on behalf of noncitizens with criminal convictions, applications to secure status for noncitizen survivors of domestic violence, and asylum cases. The IRC also litigates immigrants' rights cases in the federal courts, including habeas petitions on behalf of detained noncitizens, appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal courts of appeals, and other impact litigation on behalf of noncitizens challenging Department of Homeland Security policies. In addition to its litigation work, the IRC conducts advocacy on behalf of immigrants' rights organizations in a variety of areas, including advocating for immigrants in detention, working alongside local organizations in grassroots organizing, developing and distributing know-your-rights materials, legislative and regulatory advocacy, international human rights advocacy, and enabling immigrants' rights groups to access legal services.
Click here for the full position posting.
Abstract: Some of the most vexing and persistent questions in U.S. immigration policy involve whether and how to design programs to admit temporary workers. These questions often prompt disagreement, even among those who otherwise agree on many aspects of immigration law and policy. To address these questions, this Article starts with a brief overview of temporary worker admissions in U.S. immigration law today, and then summarizes the main points typically made by supporters and skeptics. It next identifies key questions for those who would design temporary worker programs. The main part of the Article then explains how analysis of temporary worker programs generally reflects some combination of four broad perspectives. One perspective evaluates temporary worker programs as a force in the U.S. economy that benefits many citizens and permanent residents but disadvantages others. A second perspective views admission of temporary workers not only in comparison to its traditional foil — admission of permanent residents — but also to immigration outside the law. A third perspective analyzes temporary worker admissions not only as a vital facet of immigration law, but also as essential to international economic development. A fourth perspective assesses temporary admissions in the context not just of immigration law, but also of citizenship, especially by looking at the integration of future generations. Comparing and evaluating these four perspectives can shed light on current debates by broadening and deepening analysis of temporary worker programs. Overall, the broad assessment provided by a balanced combination of these perspectives generally suggests cautious support for temporary worker programs, but only if they are carefully designed and coordinated with initiatives outside of immigration law.
The Clinical Fellow in the Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Massachusetts School of Law—Dartmouth will work in the Immigration Law Clinic on student supervision, client representation, teaching, developing and enhancing community involvement and advocacy, and occasionally appellate work. The Fellow will work closely with experienced attorneys, clinicians, and academics at the Law School.
For the complete job description, please go here.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Juris Doctorate; Admission to the Massachusetts Bar or eligibility to be waived into practice in Massachusetts upon assuming clinical responsibilities; Previous student/staff experience in a law clinic; however, no prior position as Clinical Law Fellow or one substantially similar. Evening and weekend hours and travel as required. T
o apply please send a letter of interest, current resume and the contact information for three professional references to : Search for Clinical Law Fellow-Law School, Office of Human Resources,285 Old Westport Rd., North Dartmouth, MA 02747. The deadline to apply is April 1, 2013.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Heather Morgan, an American, and Maria del Mar Verdugo, a citizen of Spain, were close friends for 10 years before they fell in love.
“Always in the beginning, we realized we wanted to be together forever,” said Verdugo. She and Morgan got married in New York city two years ago with their friends and families in attendance. “We knew our commitment to each other, but we wanted to make that commitment public, something that even in society’s eyes is a binding commitment to each other,” Morgan said.
They hope to begin a family soon, but Verdugo can’t receive a spousal visa, because she and Morgan are a same-sex couple. She may remain in the U.S. only as long as her work visa is valid.
“Just beyond the challenges any couple has, we have that complete uncertainty and the idea that at a moment’s notice, Mar could be forced to leave,” Morgan said.
Most Americans married to citizens of other countries have the right to seek legal immigration status for their spouses. But same-sex couples like Morgan and Verdugo, although they now may legally wed in nine states, have no such right. Read more...
"In four years, Mr. Obama’s administration has deported as many illegal immigrants as the administration of George W. Bush did in his two terms, largely by embracing, expanding and refining Bush-era programs to find people and send them home. By the end of this year, deportations under Mr. Obama are on track to reach two million, or nearly the same number of deportations in the United States from 1892 to 1997."