Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Presenting Scholarship

Last year, I received a copy of the Virginia Journal, featuring an in-depth profile on the scholarly work of immprof Kerry Abrams. You can find it on pages 11-34 of the linked .pdf.

It's exceedingly well done. It begins with an introduction to Abrams herself, how she got started on her scholarship path, a summary of her work, and how she views its importance. This introduction is followed by excerpts from her key articles as well as a bibliography.

I bring this piece to your attention not to highlight Abrams' work - although it is interesting. Rather, I encourage you to see it as a model for you or your school to follow in creating a summary of your own body of scholarship.

Just this month, I received a similar write-up about the work of Prawf (but not immprof) John Inazu of Washington University. Inazu's booklet was not produced by Wash U but by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture where he had been a visiting faculty member. Unfortunately, I could not find that booklet online, but I encourage you to contact John to see if he has extras to send your way. (He writes on the First Amendment's Assembly Clause, FYI, and we could all use the occasional break immigration readings.)

I look forward to the flurry of scholarship summaries that will hopefully come my way!


August 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

ABA applauds California federal court ruling on immigration detention of children

Showing how out of touch the Obama administration's immigration enforcement positions are, American Bar Association President Paulette Brown on Tuesday commended the ruling by Judge Dolly Gee of by the federal district court for the Central District of California in Flores v. Lynch, which ruled that a 1997 settlement governing the treatment of unaccompanied immigrant children detained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security also applies to those children who are held and accompanied by a parent.

“This decision is a clear victory for the rights of children and provides ample recognition that children have particular needs and vulnerabilities that are severely hampered by even short periods of detention,” Brown said in a statement. Please click here to view Brown’s full statement.

The ABA released a report last week on the expansion of immigration detention, focusing on the government's response to the 2014 influx in arrivals of Central American mothers with young children to the southwestern U.S. border. The report concluded that the federal government’s use of family detention violated applicable laws and human rights norms; it is at odds with the presumption of liberty; and it impinges on the families' due process right to legal counsel.


August 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Germany condemns neo-Nazi violence outside asylum shelter




Ferment over immigration in Europe continues.  Al Jezeera reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke out yesterday against violent protests against asylum seekers in the eastern German town of Heidenau over the weekend.  Hundreds of right-wing protesters attacked police in front of an asylum shelter near Dresden in the early hours of Saturday, many hurling bottles and stones, angry about the arrival of asylum seekers. At least 31 German police officers were hurt in scuffles when rioters blocked the shelter as about 600 asylum seekers were scheduled to move in.


August 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Jeb on Trump on Immigration: "Catastrophic"

Immigration Article of the Day: The Cuban Rafter Crisis Revisited by Christina M. Frohock

Christina Frohock_crop

The Cuban Rafter Crisis Revisited by Christina M. Frohock,University of Miami - School of Law, April 20, 2015 CABA Briefs Magazine, pp. 16-21, Spring-Summer 2015 University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-10

Abstract: Published on the 20th anniversary of the 1994-95 Cuban rafter crisis in Guantánamo, this article analyzes the main case of CABA v. Christopher as both a public memory and a legal precedent for Guantánamo issues that continue to arise.


August 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

What was Arpaio v. Obama really about? by Vicky Yau

 As recently blogged by Professor Hing, the Court for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona and rejected challenges to DACA and DAPA. In Arpaio v. Obama, Sheriff Arpaio appealed the district court’s decision in his suit against the Department of Homeland Security. He argued that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and its progeny, Deferred Action for Parents of American and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs were unconstitutional. Sheriff Arpaio argued that DACA and DAPA, which allows undocumented immigrants who pass background checks and arrived in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2010 to defer their removal proceedings for up to 3 years. In that time, these immigrants may apply for work authorization. The DHS initiated these programs in light of the practical obstacles of removing the over 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. Currently, the DHS only has the means to remove about 400,000 of these immigrants per year. Thus, these programs would help the DHS prioritize the removal of more dangerous illegal immigrants.
In his suit, Sheriff Arpaio argued that these two policies directly harm him as Sheriff of Maricopa County, an area just a few miles from the U.S.-Mexican border. Arpaio challenged that these two policies would force him to increase spending in order to effectively police the county and its jails since the policies would essentially act as magnets, attracting more criminal immigrants to his county.
The Court of Appeals began its analysis by reviewing the rule of standing: the Sheriff must be able to allege that the harm he suffered is fairly traceable to the policies and that enjoining (eliminating) the policies would provide him relief from that harm. After analyzing Sheriff Arpaio’s arguments, the Court decided that Arpaio’s alleged injury of the policies attracting more criminal immigrants to his county, making it harder for him to perform his job, was not fairly traceable to the policies. The Sheriff’s alleged theory was too speculative as DACA/ DAPA would not apply to new immigrants; only those who came to the U.S. prior to 2010 stand to benefit from the policies. Moreover, beneficiaries would need to pass background checks. Those with criminal backgrounds would not be eligible for deferred removal.
The court also addressed the potential that perhaps the Sheriff’s magnet theory meant that more undocumented immigrants would enter the U.S. and his county in the hopes that perhaps these policies mean there’s high potential for future favorable policies towards them. But considering the dangers and difficulties with illegal immigration, the court found that it would be doubtful an undocumented immigrant would go through those challenges on a mere hope that they could benefit from a potential future policies.
Furthermore, the court distinguished this case from the recent case of Texas v. United States. in which Texas brought suit because DAPA would require the state to issue driver licenses to eligible beneficiaries. Since the state already loses $130.89 per license issued, the increase in the number of licenses the state would need to issue would directly harm the state. The harm would be a “direct and predictable effect” of the policies. On the other hand, the Sheriff is merely speculating that the policies would increase the number of undocumented immigrants, who would then come into his county, commit crimes, and become involved in the criminal justice system in a substantial manner, such that he would have to increase his police force or otherwise increase spending to maintain order in his county. This theory remains much too theoretical to give the Sheriff standing to bring the suit. As a result, the Court upheld the district court’s decision, ruling that Sheriff Arpaio lacked standing to challenge the DHS’s DACA/ DAPA programs.
Vicky Yau is a second year law student at UC Davis School of Law.

August 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Jeb Bush: 'Chill Out' on Criticism of 'Anchor Baby' Term -- Its an Asian Thing


Carrie Dann on CNN continues to report on the Jeb Bush blow up over his use of the term "anchor babies." Bush says that it is "ludicrous" that he is being accused of using a term that insults immigrants. "Nothing about what I've said should be viewed as derogatory towards immigrants at all," the GOP presidential candidate said after meeting with local officials near the U.S.-Mexico border in McAllen, Texas. "And by the way, I think we need to take a step back and chill out a little bit as it relates to the political correctness that somehow you have to be scolded every time you say something."

Bush said that he used the term "anchor babies" specifically to refer to fraud -- sometimes called "birth tourism" -- in a "specific targeted kind of case" involving mothers who travel to the United States only to win citizenship for their unborn children. "Frankly it's more Asian people," he added.


August 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 24, 2015

Meme Analysis: Bobby Jindal and Birthright Citizenship

On August 17, Republican Presidential hopeful Bobby Jindal tweeted:

Screen Shot 2015-08-24 at 2.50.16 PM

Nice. The internet responded with this meme:


The meme, however, has some problems.

First, as you can see from the tweet, Jindal didn't use the phrase "anchor babies." It distorts his words, which really don't need embellishment.

Next, the facts. Jindal's parents, Amar and Ray, did move to the United States four months before his birth. And they were noncitizens when he was born. But they were not "illegal immigrants," which is the population whose access to birthright citizenship Jindal would like to restrict.

Also, Jindal's parents could not have used Jindal's citizenship "to become Americans" because his mother became a citizen in 1986, five years after Jindal's birth, and his father became a citizen in 1986, when Jindal was just 15. As readers know, a USC must be 21 in order to sponsor noncitizen parents.

Perhaps the meme is meant in a less lawyerly, more loose context. Maybe the argument is that Jindal's birthright citizenship helped support his parents' applications for naturalization in some way. But I don't think that's the true message.

When there are such fertile legal and factual grounds to challenge a candidate's position on the issues, I hate to see folks get carried away.


August 24, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Immprof Kari Hong on Deporting Noncitizen Criminals


Immprof Kari Hong tackles the thorny issue of deporting noncitizen criminals in an op-ed recently published by The Boston Globe.

She writes: "although deporting [noncitizens who have criminal records] may seem like a common sense solution, the way we do it is costly and misguided."

Kari highlights the fact that the civil detention of noncitizens with criminal records is expensive. And that the process captures "criminals" who are, it turns out, often not dangerous. She also notes that "the seriousness of an offense is based on crude categories rather than how criminal courts view the crime," leading to unjust deportation decisions.

The piece not only critiques the current system, it offers a solution. Kari suggests that every migrant who commits a crime should have a "meaningful hearing" before an immigration judge who could determine who merits a second chance "and whose conduct was serious enough to forfeit the right to remain here."


August 24, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Should "Birthright Citizenship" Be Abolished?

Doubling Down on Racial Discrimination: The Racially Disparate Impacts of Crimmigration Law

I have a post on CASETEXT.com based on a longer article.  The U.S. immigration removal system targets noncitizens who are involved in criminal activity. Relying on state and local police action, which many claim is racially biased due to such practices as racial profiling, the U.S. government removes nearly 400,000 noncitizens a year, with more than 95 percent from Mexico and Latin America (even though the overall immigrant population is much more diverse). State and local governments have resisted some of the federal government’s aggressive removal efforts through “sanctuary laws,” which are designed to build the trust in immigrant communities necessary for effective law enforcement by local police. Reforms in the immigration laws are necessary to reduce the racially disparate impacts of reliance on the criminal justice system for immigration removals.


August 24, 2015 in Books | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Citizenship Structure of the Latino Population in the United States

 The National Institute for Latino Policy compiled this basic information to remind the nation that not all Latinos are subject to removal from the United States.


August 24, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

John Yoo Defends Birthright Citizenship, Trump not a Conservative


In the National Review, noted conservative law professor John Yoo, a high level official in the the Bush administration, defends birthright citizenship in the face of challenges by Donald Trump and others.  Professor Yoo argues that constitutional law, tradition, and fairness all argue in favor of birthright citizenship.

Professor Yoo begins

"Donald Trump stoked the immigration fires that are burning up the Republican party by proposing an end to birthright citizenship. This week he claimed that children of aliens who are born on U.S. territory `do not have American citizenship” and that their right is “not going to hold up in court.' Trump’s argument runs headlong into the Constitution. His proposal shows, once again, that while he may be running as a Republican, he is not running as a conservative. Conservatives believe in following the Constitution’s text, as understood by those who wrote and ratified it and with due regard for the course of American history and traditions. They reject the notion of a living Constitution whose meaning can change to fit the popular demands of the moment. Trump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship can survive only with a plastic, malleable Constitution."


August 24, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Trump campaign manager responds to 'white power' shout, hate crimes against against Latinos, Trump's immigration plan

Immigrant of the Day: Jarryd Hayne (Australia), San Francisco 49ers


 Born in Sydney, Jarryd Lee Hayne who plays for the San Francisco 49ers of the National Football League. He previously starred playing professional rugby for the Parramatta Eels of the National Rugby League.

ESPN has kept its eyes on Jarryd Hayne, the Australian rugby star attempting to cross over as an NFL player.  In the 49ers preseason game last night against the Dallas Cowboys, Hayne again impressed as a punt returner and running back. The 49ers beat the Cowboys 23-6.  In ESPN's words,

"A surprise player who looks amazing: The Jarryd Hayne Show continued. A week after the Australian rugby star accounted for 120 total yards in Houston, Hayne returned three punts for 84 yards, with each return eliciting more oohs and ahhs. His first punt return, though, was especially epic in that he made like Willie Mays with an over-the-shoulder catch before bringing it back 27 yards. He also had eight carries for 54 yards while flashing his stiff-arm to Cowboys safety Jeff Heath in the open field on a 23-yard run to the left. So, in two preseason games, the Aussie has 258 total yards, averaging 9.0 yards per carry, 21.6 yards per punt return and 33.0 yards per kickoff return."


August 24, 2015 in Current Affairs, Film & Television, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)

Immigration Article of the Day: The Last Preference: Refugees and the 1965 Immigration Act by Brian Soucek


The Last Preference: Refugees and the 1965 Immigration Act by Brian Soucek, University of California, Davis - School of Law, August 17, 2015 Forthcoming in The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965: Legislating a New America (Gabriel J. Chin & Rose Cuison Villazor eds., 2015).

Abstract: The 1965 Immigration Act is remembered — and celebrated — for having replaced an immigration system driven by national origins with a preference system privileging family ties and occupational skills. But while the rest of the 1965 Act, in President Johnson’s words, welcomed immigrants “because of what they are, and not because of the land from which they sprung,” the last of its preferences, given to refugees, emphatically did not. Not only did the 1965 Act fail to embrace the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention’s protection for refugees persecuted because of their nationality, the Act itself discriminated on the basis of refugees’ nationality. To qualify, those persecuted had to hail from a “Communist or Communist-dominated country” or “the general area of the Middle East.” A separate provision allowed for entry of those “uprooted by catastrophic natural calamity as defined by the President.” By tying refugees’ status to “the land from which they sprung,” to America’s anti-Communist foreign policy and national security interests, and, importantly, to the discretion of the President, the 1965 Act’s refugee provision suggests a counter-narrative to descriptions of the Act as part the domestic anti-discrimination agenda of the mid-1960s, or as a reassertion of Congressional control over immigration. The 1965 Act turned refugee policy into another weapon of the Cold War, to be deployed largely as the President chose. It would be another fifteen years before Congress again attempted (or at least purported) to do for refugees what the 1965 Act did for most other immigrants: end national origin discrimination and formalize the criteria and procedures governing admission to the United States.


August 24, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, August 23, 2015

More Flip-Flopping by Presidential Hopeful Scott Walker

Photo via WisPolitics.com

We've talked about Scott Walker's flip-flopping on immigration issues before. And before that, too.

So it should come as no surprise that Walker is embroiled in yet another flip-flop morass.

Journalist Jenna Johnson (no relation) breaks it down for us in the Washington Post:

Walker said Monday that he supports ending birthright citizenship, then said later in the day that the problem could be addressed by enforcing other laws. On Tuesday, a prominent donor confronted Walker on the topic and walked away satisfied that the candidate wouldn't do away with birthright citizenship. On Friday, Walker said he didn't have a position on the issue. Then Sunday, Walker said he does not want to alter the 14th Amendment.


August 23, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Alabama Sen. Sessions Backs Trump’s Immigration Platform

Misery for refugees at Greece-Macedonia border


Video from Youtube

 CNN reports scenes of misery as thousands of migrants -- most of them fleeing Syria's bitter conflict -- remained stranded yesterday in a no-man's land on the border between northern Greece and Macedonia. A CNN team saw armored vehicles on the Macedonian side of the border, preventing the border crossing of men, women and children crammed up against the wire that demarcates the border. As some started rushing the razor fence and opened up a section of it, Macedonian military fired two stun grenades.

Al-Jazeera reports today that a regular flow of refugees is now being permitted to enter Macedonia.


August 23, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Immigration Article of the Day: Chae Chan Ping v. United States: Immigration as Property by Rose Cuison Villazor


Chae Chan Ping v. United States: Immigration as Property by Rose Cuison Villazor, University of California, Davis, August 17, 2015, Oklahoma Law Review, Forthcoming UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 445

Abstract: In this symposium Essay, I explore an overlooked aspect of Chae Chan Ping v. United States: Ping's argument that his exclusion from the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act violated his property right to re-enter the United States. In particular, Ping contended that the government-issued certificate that he acquired prior to leaving the United States gave him the right to return to the United States. Such right was based on “title or right to be in [the United States] when the writ issued.” Importantly, Ping claimed that this right could not be “taken away by mere legislation” because it was “a valuable right like an estate in lands.” Similar to his other claims, the Supreme Court rejected this property argument. The Court’s treatment of his property claim is understandable because Ping’s contention may perhaps be described as “new property,” which did not become legible to courts until several decades later. In reconsidering Ping’s property arguments, I aim to achieve two goals. First, as a thought piece, this Essay aims to show what the plenary power doctrine might have looked like had Ping succeeded in convincing the Court that his right to return constituted a property right. Second, this Essay highlights the intersections between property law and immigration law and the ways in which individual property rights might serve as limiting principles to the Supreme Court’s formulation of the nation’s absolute right to exclude non-citizens from the United States.

Professor Villazor's paper will be published as part of a symposium in the Oklahoma Law Review commemorating the 125th anniversary of Chae Chan Ping v. United States (also known as the Chinese Exclusion Case).   The symposium issue should be out soon.


August 23, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)