Tuesday, July 18, 2017
There are many immigrants in the health care industry. This Migration Information Source Spotlight (Immigrant Health-Care Workers in the United States) offers data on the approximately 2.1 million immigrants work in health-care occupations in the United States, comprising nearly 17 percent of the 12.4 million doctors, nurses, dentists, and other health-care professionals. Learn more about immigrant health-care workers in the United States with this data-rich article, including top occupations nationally and by state, countries of origin, educational levels, visa pathways, and much more.
The BBC is reporting on the detention and deportation of more than 100 Iraqi Christians (Chaldean Catholics) in Michigan.
The niece of one man detained said this: "My entire community voted for Donald Trump. Our priest, our church, everyone wanted us to vote for him. We all rooted for him and we were really happy when he got elected. But we did not think he would do this to our people."
Her priest, Father Kassa, countered: "No the Chaldean community does not regret its voting for President Trump. I would say that we are asking for him to, we have hope that he's hearing our situation..."
That situation, as Father Kassa sees it, is not just "persecution" of Chaldean Catholics in Iraq. Their deportation is a "death sentence."
One of Cuba's many old cars on a street in Havana. (Photo: Pedro Szekely)
The Migration Information Source profile on Cuba (Cuban Migration: A Postrevolution Exodus Ebbs and Flows) look at immigration from Cuba to the United States. The Cuban Revolution unleashed a massive exodus from the island. Cuba is now among the top origin countries of immigrants in the United States—where for decades they have received preferential treatment—with smaller numbers across Europe and Latin America. This article explores the evolution of Cuban migration, particularly within the context of the Cold War and shifting U.S. policies toward the country.
Cyrus Mehta: Supreme Court’s Heightened Standard for Revoking Naturalization Should Apply to All Immigration Benefits
In a blog post entitled Supreme Court’s Heightened Standard for Revoking Naturalization Should Apply to All Immigration Benefits, immigration attorney Cyrus D. Mehta analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in Maslenjak v. United States, which involved the question when a misrepresentation in the naturalization process may lead to loss of U.S. citizenship. Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb, lied during her naturalization process about her husband’s service as an officer in the Bosnian Serb Army. When this was discovered, the government charged her with knowingly procuring her naturalization contrary to law because she knowingly made a false statement under oath in a naturalization proceeding. A lower courts ruled that to secure a conviction, the government need not prove that her false statements were material to, or influenced, the decision to approve her citizenship application. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Guest Blog Post by Professor Rebecca Sharpless: Justice Delayed but Not Denied: Eleventh Circuit on Deliberate Misrepresentation
The Eleventh Circuit has ruled in Alfaro v. U.S. Attorney General that a trailer in a jungle run by contra insurgent fighters during the Nicaraguan civil war is not a prison. Roger Alfaro—a Nicaraguan man who was recruited at age 17 to fight for the Contras—did not misrepresent when he answered “no” to a question on the 1982 version of the adjustment application asking whether he had ever been “confined to a prison.” As Mr. Alfaro explained during his pro se removal proceedings, the contras had put him in a jungle trailer while they conducted an investigation into an incident involving a Sandinista soldier.
Mr. Alfaro litigated his case without the help of an attorney, while detained, for over three years. First to the judge and then to the Board of Immigration Appeals, he argued that the trailer run by the contras and was not part of the Nicaraguan government’s “jail system.” But no one—not the immigration judge, the government trail attorney, or the single Board member who denied his appeal—was able to see that a rebel-run trailer is not a prison. The attorney from the Office of Immigration Litigation, in a desperate bid to justify the Board decision, articulated for the first time at oral argument the unspoken, jingoist logic of the agency: The confinement must have been based on lawful authority because the U.S. had backed the Contras. Rejecting this reasoning took the Eleventh Circuit no effort at all.
Mr. Alfaro counts as yet another victim of the Reagan era’s war on communism. And his struggle is not over. The next battle will be returning Mr. Alfaro to his wife, children, and grandchildren in Florida. While there is reason to hope that the government will do the right thing by Mr. Alfaro, ICE has a poor track record on bringing wrongly deported people home. See National Immigration Project practice advisory.
Born in Sierra Leone, ballet dancer Michaela DePrince was orphaned at the age of three. Born Mabinty Bangura to a Muslim family, she was sent to an orphanage where the "aunties" who cared for the children believed that her skin condition, vitiligo, was a curse and called her the "devil’s child." In 1999, DePrince was adopted by a U.S. couple. Inspired by a picture of a ballerina she saw on a magazine in Sierra Leone, DePrince trained as a ballet dancer, winning a scholarship for the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis School at the American Ballet Theatre. In 2013, she joined the Dutch National Ballet.
DePrince tells her story in the book Taking Flight: From War Orphan to Star Ballerina.
Immigration Article of the Day: Understanding Secondary Immigration Enforcement: Immigrant Youth and Family Separation in a Border County by Nina Rabin
Understanding Secondary Immigration Enforcement: Immigrant Youth and Family Separation in a Border County by Nina Rabin, University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law
47 Journal of Law & Education ___ (2018 Forthcoming)
Young people in immigrant families are often characterized as a separate population in debates over immigration reform, with distinctive claims and interests as compared to their parents. Bifurcating the undocumented population between children and parents over-simplifies how immigration enforcement impacts families. This article challenges the dichotomy between children and parents by studying how young people who are not direct enforcement targets are nevertheless impacted by immigration enforcement policies, regardless of their own immigration status. These impacts, which I call “secondary immigration enforcement,” often manifest as family separations. To render secondary immigration enforcement visible, I studied 38 young people in Arizona who are living on their own – without either biological parent – at least in part because of immigration enforcement policies. Drawing on in-depth interviews and self-assessments of psycho-social functioning, I describe what secondary immigration enforcement looks like and how it operates. I illustrate that deportation statistics alone fail to capture the extent of immigration enforcement because they do not encompass the complex impacts of secondary enforcement. In addition to the acute disruptions caused by deportations of family members, the young people in the study also experienced family separation as a result of immigration enforcement’s interaction with three other key factors: family dysfunction, extreme poverty, and educational aspirations.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Jennifer Medina writes in the New York Times about immigration attorneys pursuing justice for immigrant communities and who are themselves undocumented. The article features the experiences and perspectives of California-based attorney Lizbeth Mateo (pictured, Twitter: @lizbethmateo), who has emerged as a leader in the undocumented immigrant youth movement, as well as her attorney, Reyes Savalza of Pangea Legal Services. Ms. Mateo is unique amongst other undocumented law students/attorneys in that she does not have DACA, as her application was rejected due to a trip to Mexico that she took in 2013 (which was part of a coordinated action on the part of her and several others).
The article notes that in states like California, although undocumented immigrants without DACA cannot be employed, they can still practice law and start their own legal practices.
“According to a recent study from the University of California, Riverside, cities with these policies have more violent crime on average than those that don’t,” he said, according to a Department of Justice transcript of the speech. But the study didn’t said the opposite.
“There wasn’t actually any relationship between the passage of a sanctuary policy and that city’s crime rate,” Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, one of the study’s authors, told Inside Higher Ed. “All of the data to date suggests that either there’s no relationship, which is what our study found, or there’s an inverse relationship.” Gonzalez O’Brien about the findings of the study on The Washington Post’s “Monkey Cage” blog in October. The post was titled, bluntly, “Sanctuary Cities Do Not Experience an Increase in Crime.”
President Trump Intervenes to Ensure that Robotics Team from Afghanistan is Issued Visas, Can Compete in Global Robotics Competition in the US
Here is a much-needed "feel good" immigration story -- and, in a turn of events that might surprise some, President Trump helped make it happen.
Moriah Balingit of the Washington Post reports on the inspirational journey to the United States of a group of young women from Afghanistan who will be participating in the FIRST Global Robotics Challenge. Their dream of traveling to what has been billed as the “Olympics of Robotics” had been shot down when their visas were denied, despite two grueling trips from their home in Herat to Kabul for interviews with the U.S. State Department. Invoking the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, the State Department refused to comment about why the visas were initially denied. After the story made international headlines, President Trump intervened to ensure that the visas were issued. The Afghani robotics team arrived in the United States on Saturday.
Balingit reports on the competition:
"The three-day competition draws teams from 157 countries — and some multinational teams representing continents. One group — Team Hope — is composed of refugees. FIRST has long hosted competitions in the U.S., but this is the first year it is hosting an international competition. The team representing the U.S. is composed of three girls, who marched into the auditorium for the parade of nations to the Woody Guthrie song `This Land is Your Land.'”
The team from Gambia also reportedly had issues with their visas, according to the Associated Press, before their applications were also ultimately approved. Because of sanctions, Global FIRST was unable to ship a robotics kit to Iran, where a group of teenagers was awaiting the parts to build a robot.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
From the Bookshelves: Diary of a Reluctant Dreamer: Undocumented Vignettes from a Pre-American Life by Alberto Ledesma
United Farm Workers President Arturo S. Rodriguez, Cesar Chavez family members, and farm workers are taking part in the opening ceremony for the first Farm Worker Exhibit in the 164-year history of the California State Fair today in Sacramento. The exhibit can also be visited any day during the fair, which runs from July 14 to July 30—Monday-Thursday at Cal Expo & State Fair, 1600 Exposition Blvd., Sacramento.
The State Fair has celebrated California agriculture since the mid-19th Century. This is the first time professional farm workers who have played a central role in the industry will be recognized.
A Pakistani-American comic falls in love with an American graduate student, but because of cultural pressures from his family, he is forced to keep the relationship a secret. It is only when she becomes mysteriously ill and is put into a medically induced coma that he decides to tell his family about the woman he loves.
That is the plot of the new film The Big Sick, but it is also the story of how the film's co-writers, Kumail Nanjiani and Emily V. Gordon, met and fell in love in real life. Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air interviewed the co-writers and talked about their real life story.
Married co-writers Emily V. Gordon and Kumail Nanjiani based the romantic comedy The Big Sick on their own love story. Angela Weiss/Getty Images
Immigration reforms passed by Congress in 1996 created “expedited removal,” see Immigration and Nationality Act § 238, 8 U.S.C. § 1228, a process of abbreviated procedures and judicially unreviewable deportation decisions. Before 2017, expedited removal had been limited to noncitizens (1) apprehended within 100 miles of the U.S. border; and (2) in the country for less than two weeks. Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 Fed. Reg. 48877 (Aug. 11, 2004). Noncitizens apprehended near the U.S. borders who have been in the United States for a relatively short period of time are likely to have fewer established ties to this country, such as family, friends, employment, and community, than longer term residents; such limited ties to the United States make it easier to justify speedy removal with limited process. Nonetheless, expedited removals of any noncitizens without judicial review raise serious constitutional questions. See, e.g., Gerald L. Neuman, The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause After Boumediene v. Bush, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 537, 571-77 (2010). For criticisms of expedited removal as implemented, see U.S. Comm’n on Int’l Religious Freedom, Report on Asylum Seekers in Expedited Removal (2005).
Sections 11(b) and (c) of President Trump’s January 25, 2017 Border Security Order promise to greatly expand the current scope of expedited removal. The order eliminated the geographic limits to expedited removal and made the procedures applicable to noncitizens in the country for as long as two years. By so doing, the order effectively extends the border for purposes of summary immigration enforcement. Summary deportations of persons, with family (including U.S. citizen children), friends, community, and a job — put differently, ties to the United States -- raise substantial Due Process and related questions.
I have been of the opinion that, if the Trump administration seeks to implement the expanded expedited removal provisions of the executive order through regulations, legal challenges on constitutional and other grounds are likely. The Fifth Amendment guarantees Due Process rights to all immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, physically present in the United States. The Supreme Court has generally held that, before they can be removed from the United States, noncitizens physically present in the country – no matter the length of time or immigration status (i.e., undocumented immigrants have due process rights) – are entitled to a hearing that comports with Due Process. See, e.g., Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 (1945); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 603 (1953); Yamataya v. Fisher (The Japanese Immigrant Case), 189 U.S. 86, 99-100 (1903). The Court has consistently found that, because of the significant interests of the noncitizen physically present in the United States at stake, a removal hearing with full Due Process rights is required by the Constitution. See, e.g., Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6, 10 (1948) (“Deportation is a drastic measure and at times the equivalent of banishment or exile.”); Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 147 (1945) (emphasizing that “deportation may result in the loss ‘of all that makes life worth living’”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Consequently, the Supreme Court on several occasions has ruled that, even when Congress appeared to eliminate all judicial review of an order, removing a noncitizen from the country the Constitution requires some kind of judicial review. See, e.g., INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 135, 147 (2001).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982); which involved the denial of entry into the United States of a long-term lawful permanent resident who had left the country for a weekend in Mexico, is the modern touchstone for determining the scope of Due Process rights of noncitizens. It likely will be at the center of any Due Process challenge to expanded expedited removal.
The Washington Post reports that the Trump administration is considering the implementation of expanded expedited removal as outlined in the executive order. The Post reportedly obtained "a 13-page internal agency memo" detailing the changes. "Two administration officials confirmed that the proposed new policy, which would not require congressional approval, is under review. The memo was circulated at the White House in May, and DHS is reviewing comments on the document from the Office of Management and Budget, according to one administration official familiar with the process . . . . "
The Post story states that an expansion of the expedited removals process would be “a recipe for disaster,” according to Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants Rights Project.
“If you have to give people genuine due process, you can’t just move people out of the country with the snap of your fingers,” Gelernt said. “But once you start instituting summary removal processes all over the country, then you can start seeing mass deportations.”
“Right now, someone apprehended in St. Louis would be entitled to a full hearing,” he said. “With expedited removal, you pick a person up, and they could be gone immediately.”
Expanded expedited removal would be a big step for the Trump administration. Stay tuned for updates on further developments.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Sister Pat Murphy and Sister JoAnn Persch are passionate advocates for immigrant and refugee rights. DePaul University has created three short films about the sisters' decades of work ministering to those communities. Here's the first:
Check out CNN's coverage of the life of a teenage refugee in Europe. The report includes photographs taken of the teen, Milad, and his story is told in an engaging way. Unusually, it also includes some of Milad's own drawings, such as this one depicting his journey from Afghanistan to Germany.
There are also photographs taken by Milad in Germany, with drawings and annotations.
With this story, CNN delivers unusually deep and multi-layered coverage of a topic that's of keen interest to our readers.
Law School Teams Up With California State University Campus to Provide Legal Services to Immigrant Students
In 2015, the University of California opened an Immigrant Legal Services Center providing legal services to immigrant students and their parents. The Center, which serves students on all the UC campuses, is housed at UC Davis School of Law.
Other law schools are stepping up to help immigrant students. Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, in partnership with Cal State Northridge, has announced (and here) that it is opening a legal clinic to serve students at the university needing assistance with immigration issues.
Julia Vázquez, supervising attorney for the law school’s Immigration Law Clinic and a lecturer, will lead the effort. The Community Lawyering Clinic is a five-unit, graded semester course starting in the fall that will allow Southwestern students to provide legal assistance for an underserved population under Vázquez’ supervision.
The meaning of the specifics of Supreme Court's per curiam order in the travel ban litigation has been the subject of considerable debate, controversy, and litigation. Amy Howe on SCOTUSBlog explains the latest controversy:
"Within a few days of the Supreme Court’s June 26 order, the federal government issued guidance on the kinds of “close” family relationships that would allow travelers from the countries affected by the ban to seek visas. The government’s definition included spouses (and fiancés or fiancées), children and parents (including by marriage) and siblings, but did not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, cousins or siblings in law.
The challengers in the Hawaii case went back to court, asking U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to clarify that the second group of relatives also qualified as “close” family relationships for purposes of the Supreme Court’s June 26 order. Judge Watson initially declined to do so, but – on appeal – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit suggested that he had the authority to enforce or modify an existing order blocking the implementation of the ban. When the challengers returned to his court, Judge Watson did exactly that, adopting an expanded definition of “close” that included the second group of relatives. He also ruled that, for purposes of the June 26 order, the ban would not apply to refugees for whom the federal government has entered into an agreement with a resettlement agency, because those refugees have the kind of genuine relationship with a U.S. institution that the justices envisioned.
On Friday the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to clarify that Judge Watson’s ruling goes beyond the scope of its June 26 order and to block the ruling from going into effect."
Friday, July 14, 2017
From the Bookshelves: Latinos in Criminal Justice: An Encyclopedia, edited by Professor José Luis Morín
This September 2016 conference held at John Jay College of Criminal Justice marked the publication of Latinos in Criminal Justice: An Encyclopedia, edited by Professor José Luis Morín, the first comprehensive text on Latina/os and the U.S. criminal justice system with data, research, analysis, and evidence that sets straight common misperceptions about Latina/os and crime.
This unique compilation of essays and entries provides critical insights into the Latino/a experience with the U.S. criminal justice system.
Concerns about immigration's relationship to crime make accurate information and critical analysis of the utmost importance. Latinos and Criminal Justice: An Encyclopedia promotes understanding of Latinas and Latinos and the U.S. criminal justice system, at the same time dispelling popular misconceptions about this population and criminal activity in the United States.
Unlike a traditional encyclopedia comprised solely of A–Z entries, this work consists of two parts. Part I offers detailed essays on particularly important topics. Part II provides brief, A–Z entries. Topics are crossreferenced to enable easy research. Among the wide range of topics covered are policing and police misconduct, incarceration, the war on drugs, gangs, border crime, and racial profiling. Historically important issues and events relative to the Latino experience of criminal justice in the United States are also included, as are key legal cases.
- Topical essays that provide context to major contemporary issues, such as immigrants and crime, drugs, youth, U.S.-Mexico border crime, policing, and prisons
- Shorter, A–Z entries on a wide range of additional topics
- Extensive bibliographies identifying further readings in the subject area
- Provides vital information at a time when questions and controversies swirl about Latinos in the United States
- Addresses key areas of concern with respect to Latinos and crime, immigration, drugs, gangs, and police policies and practices in Latino and African American communities
- Documents the often-forgotten history of Latinos in the United States, from the Greaser Act and zoot-suit riots to the contemporary experience of Latinos facing racial profiling and controversial immigration legislation
- Contains both long essays that provide context and depth of discussion and shorter essays for quick reference on specific topics
Immigration Article of the Day: Moving Beyond Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Trump: Principles, Interests, and Policies to Guide Long-Term Reform of the US Immigration System by Donald Kerwin
Moving Beyond Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Trump: Principles, Interests, and Policies to Guide Long-Term Reform of the US Immigration System
Center for Migration Studies
This paper introduces a special collection of 15 papers that chart a course for long-term reform of the US immigration system. The papers look beyond recent legislative debates and the current era of rising nationalism and restrictionism to outline the elements of a forward-looking immigration policy that would serve the nation’s interests, honor its liberal democratic ideals, promote the full participation of immigrants in the nation’s life, and exploit the opportunities offered by the increasingly interdependent world. This paper highlights several overarching themes from the collection, as well as dozens of proposals for reform. Together, the papers in the collection make the case that:
- Immigration policymaking should be embedded in a larger set of partnerships, processes, and commitments that respond to the conditions that force persons to migrate.
- The US immigration system should reflect liberal democratic values and an inclusive vision of national identity.
- It is incumbent on policy and opinion makers to publicize the broad national interests served by US immigration policies.
- Policymakers should, in turn, evaluate and adjust US immigration policies based on their success in furthering the nation’s interests.
- The United States should prioritize the gathering and dissemination of the best available evidence on migration and on the nation’s migration-related needs and programs, and should use this information to respond flexibly to changing migration patterns and new economic developments.
- Immigrant integration strengthens communities and represents an important, overarching metric for US immigration policies.
- The successful integration of the United States’ 43 million foreign-born residents and their progeny should be a national priority.
- An immigration federalism agenda should prioritize cooperation on shared federal, state, and local priorities.
- An immigration federalism agenda should recognize the federal government’s enforcement obligations; the interests of local communities in the safety, well-being and participation of their residents; the importance of federal leadership in resolving the challenges posed by the US undocumented population; and the need for civil society institutions to serve as mediators of immigrant integration.
- Immigration reform should be coupled with strong, well-enforced labor standards in order to promote fair wages and safe and healthy working conditions for all US workers.
- Fairness and due process should characterize US admission, custody, and removal decisions.
- Family unity should remain a central goal of US immigration policy and a pillar of the US immigration system.
- The United States should seek to craft “win-win” immigration policies that serve its own interests and that benefit migrant-sending states.
- US immigration law and policy should be coherent and consistent, and the United States should create legal migration opportunities for persons uprooted by US foreign interventions, trade policies, and immigration laws.
- The United States should reduce the size of its undocumented population through a substantial legalization program and seek to ensure that this population never again approximates its current size.