As CNN reports, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke announced his U.S. Senate campaign on Friday in Louisiana, promising to defend the rights of European Americans. Here is the campaign website, which includes a discussion of immigration in a section named "Stop the Ethnic Cleansing of America!".
"Thousands of special interest groups stand up for African-Americans, Mexican Americans, Jewish Americans, etc.," he said in a YouTube video. "The fact is that European Americans need at least one man in the United States, one man in Congress, who will defend their rights and heritage."
Duke, who previously praised Trump's candidacy, said he's "overjoyed" by Trump's campaign. "The New York Times admitted that my platform became the GOP mainstream and propelled Republican control of Congress," he said. "I'm overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues that I've championed for years. My slogan remains 'America First.'"
It was the day after Donald Trump accepted the Republican nomination that Duke declared his candidacy as a Republican for Senate in Louisiana. In his announcement, Duke stated that Trump's campaign has helped push Duke's ideas into the national political discourse.
The backlog of pending cases in immigration court is at an all time high of 500,051. Judge Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and San Francisco IJ attributes the numbers to:
few available immigration judges, immigration laws that have grown more complicated over the years, and changing migration patterns...
Hillary Clinton announced that her running mate will be Senator Tim Kaine (D-Virginia). ImmigrationProf readers might be asking what Kaine's positions have been on immigration. Some of you may recall that Kaine made history in 2013, "becoming the first senator of the modern era to deliver a Senate floor speech entirely in Spanish as he explained his support for a bipartisan immigration bill up for consideration."
"A look into Tim Kaine’s past positions on immigration reveal that he has supported steps towards reforming America’s immigration system, has spoken out against punitive, anti-immigrant measures at the state level, and has made significant efforts to reach out to the immigrant community.
In 2010, while serving as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee he admonished Arizona’s notorious, anti-immigrant measure SB 1070, calling it “small-minded and short-sighted.”
Cyrus Mehta on The Insightful Immigration Blogconsiders Donald Trump's frequent allegations about immigrant criminality. "Trump began his Presidential campaign last year by accusing Mexican immigrants who cross the border as being criminals and rapists, and ended it his acceptance speech of the Republican nomination by thundering that `nearly 180,000 people with criminal records ordered deported from our country are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.'”
I just watched Donald J.Trump accept the GOP nomination and his speech was a delivery device for white supremacist rhetoric. Trump’s speech proved popular with that audience, as David Duke, noted white supremacist, tweeted his congratulations:
Great Trump Speech, America First! Stop Wars! Defeat the Corrupt elites! Protect our Borders!, Fair Trade! Couldn't have said it better!
The language Trump used, terms like “too politically correct,” “law and order,” “war on police,” the “illegal immigrants spilling over” borders, murdering “innocent young girls,” and, of course, the repeated use of “our country” in an auditorium filled with whiter-shade-of-pale white people, are all dog whistles that signal a core white supremacist message: White people built this nation, white people are this nation.
The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during the first eight months of FY 2016 the government reported 25,680 new criminal prosecutions for illegal entry, and 20,628 new criminal prosecutions for illegal re-entry. Illegal re-entry charges under Title 8 Section 1326 of the United States Code are a felony, while illegal entry prosecutions under Title 8 Section 1325 are only a petty misdemeanor. These comparisons of the number of defendants charged with offenses are based on case-by-case information obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse(TRAC) at Syracuse University.
Illegal Entry. If the pace of criminal prosecutions during the first eight months of FY 2016 continue at the same rate, the annual number of prosecutions for illegal entry will total 38,520 for this fiscal year. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by TRAC, this estimate is up 7.7 percent over the past fiscal year when the number of illegal entry prosecutions totaled 35,770.
Illegal Re-Entry. In contrast, the pace of prosecutions this year for illegal re-entry is down. For these more serious felony prosecutions, TRAC estimates their number will total 30,942 for this fiscal year, assuming the same pace continues for the rest of FY 2016. This would represent an 8.4 percent decline from the past fiscal year when the number of illegal re-entry prosecutions totaled 33,795.
Long Term Trends. The long term trend in prosecutions for these matters going back to FY 1996 is shown more clearly in Figures 1 and 2. The vertical bars in each time series graph represent the number of prosecutions of this type recorded each fiscal year. Projected figures for the current fiscal year are shown. Each presidential administration is distinguished by the color of the bars.
Abstract: New Jersey presents unique immigration circumstances. The American Immigration Council reports that 21% of New Jersey’s residents are immigrants, whereas immigrants comprise only 12.9% of the entire U.S. population. Approximately half of New Jersey’s immigrant population is comprised of naturalized U.S. citizens, and this group accounts for 18.8% of the state’s voters. In 2011, 29% of New Jersey’s business owners were foreign-born. In 2006, New Jersey’s immigrants contributed approximately $47 billion to the gross state product.
This report affirms that case outcomes for immigrants seeking permission to remain on U.S. soil are closely tied to the availability of legal representation, and highlights the paucity of legal resources available to meet immigrants’ needs in New Jersey.
During the time period covered in the study, approximately 66% of those detained throughout their immigration court proceedings never secured legal representation, in contrast with about 20% of those who were not detained at any point during proceedings. Immigrants with representation, detained or otherwise, were at least 3 times as likely to obtain a successful outcome as those who were not represented. For example, among those who were detained throughout and unrepresented, only 14% avoided removal, whereas detained individuals who secured representation prevailed in 49% of the cases. The report also assesses the level of resources available to New Jersey’s immigrant population, surveying approximately one dozen nonprofit organizations that provided low- or no-cost representation to individuals in removal proceedings before the New Jersey immigration courts in 2013 and 2014.
The survey responses indicate that most of the nonprofit organizations staff between two and four attorneys, and levels of funding varied among public and private grants and donations, and indicate that New Jersey lacks sufficient salaried attorney positions to address even a small percentage of the total cases entering the courts.
The report, prepared by Seton Hall Law School’s Center for Social Justice, was published on behalf of the Working Group on Immigrant Representation in New Jersey. The Group was assembled and chaired by Judge Michael. A. Chagares of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and comprises a consortium of organizations seeking to increase access to quality free and low-cost immigration legal services in the state of New Jersey. Entities represented in the Working Group include the U.S. Department of JusticeExecutive Office for Immigration Review, American Friends Service Committee, Casa Esperanza, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New Jersey, Kids in Need of Defense, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Human Rights First, Legal Services of New Jersey, Lowenstein Sandler, Make the Road New Jersey, Rutgers University School of Law, and the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights.
Seton Hall Law students Branca Banic ’16, Justin Condit ’15, Holly Coppens ’16, Amy Cuzzolino ’16, Jaime DeBartolo ’15, Anthony D’Elia ’16, Danielle King ’16, Victoria Leblein ’16, and Vani Parti ’15 prepared the report under the supervision of Professors Nessel and Anello.
As NBC News explains, Donald Trump accepted the GOP's nomination in the same way he launched his campaign: slamming immigrants and linking them to crime. Trump didn't budge from his combative immigration stance as he wrapped up the Republican National Convention. He officially accepted the GOP nomination for president by telling a pumped-up crowd that the nation's security is under threat from immigrants and illegal immigration.
During the speech, Republican National Convention delegates chanted "build the wall" as Trump discussed immigration. Trump relayed a story of a young college graduate allegedly killed by an immigrant.
Dana Zzyym wanted to apply for a U.S. passport. Thee application, however, offered only two gender choices: male or female.
For Zzyym, neither was accurate. Zzyym was born with ambiguous genitalia and identifies as intersex, neither male nor female. Zzyym was denied a passport after the State Department declined to let Zzyym use the gender marker “X.”
Zzyym, a Navy veteran, has sued the State Department, saying the federal government violated the Constitution’s guarantees of due process rights and discriminated against Zzyym based on gender. The suit names Secretary of State John F. Kerry as a defendant and alleges that in order to get a passport, Zzyym would have had to lie under penalty of perjury.
The conference is not subject specific, but usually includes panels on immigration, international law, and criminal law. From experience, I can report that CSLSA provides a friendly, intimate, and collegial setting in which to present scholarship. It's open to both junior and senior scholars.
Although CSLSA is a regional association of law schools, membership is not a prerequisite to attend and present. Faculty from all schools are welcome.
For those who hope to visit all 50 states, this is a rare opportunity to cross North Dakota off your bucket list.
The Associated Pressreports that the backlog in the federal immigration court system has hit half a million pending cases. has learned. The Executive Office for Immigration Review said that there are currently 500,051 pending immigration cases in the agency's courts. The backlog has been steadily rising in recent years. Since 2011 more than 200,000 cases have been added to the court's docket and backlog is likely to continue growing.
George Soros writes in Foreign Policy about the impact of the contemporary refugee crisis on cooperation among the governments of Europan nations:
"The refugee crisis was already leading to the slow disintegration of the European Union. Then, on June 23, it contributed to an even greater calamity — Brexit. Both of these crises have reinforced xenophobic, nationalist movements across the continent. They will try to win a series of key votes in the coming year — including national elections in France, the Netherlands, and Germany in 2017, a referendum in Hungary on EU refugee policy on Oct. 2, a rerun of the Austrian presidential election on the same day, and a constitutional referendum in Italy in October or November of this year.
Rather than uniting to resist this threat, EU member states have become increasingly unwilling to cooperate with one another. They pursue self-serving, discordant migration policies, often to the detriment of their neighbors. In these circumstances, a comprehensive and coherent European asylum policy is not possible in the short term, despite the efforts of the EU’s governing body, the European Commission. The trust needed for cooperation is lacking. It will have to be rebuilt through a long and laborious process.
This is unfortunate, because a comprehensive policy ought to remain the highest priority for European leaders; the union cannot survive without it. The refugee crisis is not a one-off event; it augurs a period of higher migration pressures for the foreseeable future, due to a variety of causes including demographic and economic imbalances between Europe and Africa, unending conflicts in the broader region, and climate change. Beggar-thy-neighbor migration policies, such as building border fences, will not only further fragment the union; they also seriously damage European economies and subvert global human rights standards."
Soros calls for cooperation in Europe on refugees:
"The refugee crisis is not the only crisis Europe has to face, but it is the most pressing. And if significant progress could be made on the refugee issue, it would make the other issues — from the continuing Greek debt crisis to the fallout from Brexit to the challenge posed by Russia — easier to tackle. All the pieces need to fit together, and the chances of success remain slim. But as long as there is a strategy that might succeed, all the people who want the European Union to survive should rally behind it."
Abstract: The United States has engaged in shifting decisions about the mass detention of immigrant families from Central America. Faced with a “surge” of women and their children crossing the border without authorization, the United States dramatically increased its capacity to detain immigrant families from about a hundred to over three thousand. Immigration officials vowed to hold the family members, most of whom were seeking asylum, until their cases were complete. Yet six months after opening a mammoth family detention center, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that the U.S. government was making “substantial changes” to its family detention policy and would discontinue long-term detention of women traveling with their children who had made a threshold showing for asylum. Lawyers, law students, and other advocates mobilized to represent the families and played a pivotal role in reversing the decision to detain the families for the long term. Today, families continue to cross the border and, at least for now, U.S. immigration authorities are abiding by their more humane detention policy.
This Article employs the cosmopolitan political theory of Seyla Benhabib as a framework for understanding the U.S. government’s shifting decisions about family detention and immigration policy change more generally. The United States’ decisions about how to treat the surge families reflects different ways of resolving what Benhabib identifies as a constitutive tension of liberal democracies: that between principles of universal application, like human dignity and freedom of movement, and concerns relating to self-determination, like border control. Benhabib subscribes to a discourse theory of democratic change that is both normative and descriptive about the role of rationality in establishing norms and institutions in liberal democracies. But the shift in family detention policy was largely the result of strategic lawyering, mobilizing, and resistance strategies, not rational dialogue within government and civil society. This Article examines the limitations, and radical possibilities, of how immigrants and their advocates might edge the United States toward Benhabib’s vision of a cosmopolitan democracy with more porous boundaries.
Law student Katie Kelly writes this summary of the latest application of the "feet we/feet dry policy" as applied to Cuban migrants:
Movimiento Democracia, Inc., et al. v. Jeh Charles Johnson (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2016) centers around twenty-four Cuban migrants who were spotted on a vessel and approached by the Coast Guard to be detained. The migrants armed themselves with metal pipes, jumped into the ocean, and swam to the American Shoal Lighthouse, seven miles south of Sugarloaf Key, Florida, within United States sea territory. The water beneath the Lighthouse is at least four feet deep. The Coast Guard determined that the presence at the Lighthouse fell under wet-foot rule, and the migrants would be processed at sea, rather than as dry-foot migrants on land. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service concluded that the migrants were due no protection and could be returned to their home country. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to be declared to have reached dry U.S. land and provided relief as Cuban refugees.
Did the Coast Guard abuse its discretion in finding the migrants to be wet-foot, thus denying the migrants protection under the Cuban Adjustment Act?
Are these Cuban migrants entitled to due process and equal protections rights under the Constitution?
No, the Coast Guard did not abuse its discretion by denying protections to the migrants because the Coast Guard did not act unreasonably in determining that Plaintiffs were “wet foot,” despite reaching the Lighthouse.
No, having been properly screened and afforded due process, these migrants are not entitled to constitutional protections because aliens interdicted on the high seas (outside of the U.S.) are not entitled to protections under the Constitution.
Using Gonzalez deference, the Court determined that the Coast Guard’s decision regarding the migrants’ wet-foot/dry-foot status was reasonable, finding that the Lighthouse was merely a navigation tool and did not constitute dry land of the United States. Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1344 (11th Cir. 2000). The Lighthouse has never been connected to dry land, and the migrants would require transport in order to reach the mainland to survive, thus landing at the Lighthouse was virtually no different than having been interdicted at sea. The Court also notes Plaintiff’s armament before arriving at the Lighthouse. Plaintiff’s argument that arrival on the Lighthouse, a federal structure, indicated their presence in the U.S. fails because that interpretation of the definition of “United States” is too broad for Congress’s intent of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which only defines the U.S. as “the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the U.S., and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(38). As the Coast Guard was implementing Executive orders, the Court remains deferential to those orders and neither approves nor disapproves of them.
Across the world, workers labor without pay for the benefit of profitable businesses—and it's legal. Labor trends like outsourcing and technology hide some workers, and branding and employer mandates erase others. Invisible workers who remain under-protected by wage laws include retail workers who function as walking billboards and take payment in clothing discounts or prestige; waitstaff at “breastaurants” who conform their bodies to a business model; and inventory stockers at grocery stores who go hungry to complete their shifts. Invisible Labor gathers essays by prominent sociologists and legal scholars to illuminate how and why such labor has been hidden from view.
Marion G. Crain is Vice Provost, Wiley B. Rutledge Professor of Law, and Director for the Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Work and Social Capital at Washington University.
WaPo's Scott Clement reports that "a significant share of Democrats and Republicans disagree with their party on potential wedge issues" including immigration.
A whopping 60% of U.S. adults would like to see a path to citizenship.
That number includes "[o]ne in three Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters" who want the next president to "support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants." On the other side of the aisle, one out of six Democratic-leaning registered voters would oppose creating a path to citizenship.
Those who strongly disagree with their party's current stance on immigration and find the issue to be critical may be "persuadable" to vote for a candidate not from their political party. That is, immigration has the potential to be a wedge issue in the upcoming election.
Abstract: In Advancing Executive Branch Immigration Policy Through The Attorney General’s Review Authority, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 841 (2016), former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Patrick Glen provide a rich history and detailed study of the power of the Attorney General to refer and review decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Their account is both descriptive and normative. After a review of contemporary decisions where the Attorney General has exercised review authority, Gonzales and Glen conclude that “[i]n many cases, the Attorney General was able, through referral and review, to provide a clear, cogent, and definitive legal or policy prescription for immigration officials on the issue resolved.” They also argue that Attorney General review should happen more often, contrasting “the robust exercise of [review] authority in the George W. Bush administration to the near-absence of usage in the Obama Administration.” Finally, the authors dismiss objections to the fairness and transparency of Attorney General review. Gonzales and Glen conclude that procedural due process objections, which have been voiced most prominently regarding Attorney General Mukasey’s decision in Matter of Silva-Trevino, are ill-founded, and that reform proposals to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to Attorney General review “are premised mostly on superficial gains in the optics of referral” and not worth pursuing.
My response Essay will explore one key aspect of contemporary Attorney General review authority that is not examined in the otherwise comprehensive account provided by Gonzales and Glen: timing. Both Matter of Compeanand Matter of Silva-Trevino, which were issued by Attorney General Mukasey and later vacated by Attorney General Holder, were decided after President Obama was elected and before he was inaugurated. And Matter of R-A- was referred by Attorney General Ashcroft to himself just as the functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), an agency within the Department of Justice, were transferred to the newly-created Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). These are what administrative law scholars might term “midnight agency adjudications,” although the phrase has not been used because this practice has never been examined. Indeed, the rich literature on the topic of regulations promulgated in times of presidential transitions has not yet considered the adjudication analog of an agency head who refers a controversial issue to himself and renders a decision upending agency precedent on his way out the door.
From an administrative law perspective, this is an important phenomenon. The same concerns voiced about midnight rules arise when an agency head in the incumbent administration refers a case to himself to decide on the eve of a presidential transition, particularly when the decision seems rushed and the outcome upends settled agency precedent and is likely to conflict with the policy preferences of the incoming administration. In addition, two key features distinguish midnight agency adjudication from midnight rulemaking — the comparative ease with which a decision can be reversed, and the absence of procedures that require notice and an opportunity to provide input for those who will be impacted by the agency decision. These features create remarkable flexibility for agency policy formulation via referral and review of agency adjudication, but they also raise concerns when an agency head aims to use midnight adjudication to entrench a policy choice in a time of transition. The failure of Gonzales and Glen to acknowledge the prevalence of midnight agency adjudication in their otherwise comprehensive account undermines their conclusions about the efficacy and procedural fairness of the practice.
From 1916 to 1970, more than six million African Americans moved north from the rural South in what was called the Great Migration. Reasons cited for this movement included harsh Jim Crow laws and a lack of economic opportunity. Many people found relief in Northern and Midwestern cities, which had a great need for industrial workers during the beginning of the 20th century, writes Alexis Buchanan in NPQ.
A hundred years later, many of these cities are witnessing an exodus dubbed “The New Great Migration.” Cities like Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and even New York City have lost many thousands of black residents over the last decade, while Southern cities like Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas have seen a surge of black residents during the same period.
This new migration is being led by college-educated people and retirees, some of whom are returning to the very South they left during the height of the original migration. In the early part of the twentieth century, African Americans looking for opportunity headed north. They could earn more working in factories than they could as sharecroppers. The cities embraced them, glad to have workers to meet the industrial demand. Today, the opposite is occurring.