What do you think about this news Big Brother? John Kelly, the new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified that foreign travelers coming to the United States could be required to give up social media passwords to border officials as a condition of entry. "We want to say, for instance, which websites do you visit, and give us your passwords, so we can see what they do on the internet," he said at a Feb. 7 House Homeland Security hearing, his first congressional hearing since his Senate confirmation. "If they don't want to give us that information, they don't come in."
In some ways, this is old news -- it has been consistently shown to be the case in study after study that "Immigrants Do Not Increase Crime, Research Shows." In this piece, a group of criminologists (Charis Kubrin, Graham C. Ousey, Lesley Reid, Robert Adelman). show the claim of a link between crime and immigration is false. President Trump relies on this alleged link in his two January 25 immigration Executive Orders.
The issue before the Ninth Circuit is the district court's ruling staying the implementation of President Trump's January 27 Executive Orderbarring for 90 days the admission of new entrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries and suspending for 120 days all refugee admissions.
It always is hazardous to predict the outcomes of a case based on oral arguments. As one observer put it, "At different times during oral arguments in [Trump v. Washington] it looked like either Washington state attorney Noah G. Purcell or Justice Department attorney August E. Flentje had the upper hand." AP offers a capsule summary of the arguments that are described as "contentious." Law.comsummarizes the argument as welll
I found three issues of special interest in the arguments:
Standing: There was considerable questioning of the attorneys about whether the states of Washington and Minnesota has standing under Article III to challenge the Executive Order. I had thought that the arguments for standing in this case were stronger than in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), in which the Supreme Court held that the state of Massachusetts had standing to challenge the Busgh administration's failure to act with respectto greenhouse gases) and in United States v. Texas, the case in which the Supreme Court deadlocked but the lower courts found that Texas had standing to challenge President Obama's Deferred Action fo Parents of Americans program based on the alleged costs of issuing driver's licenses to recipients of deferred action).
Scope of the Relief: District Court Judge Robart stayed the implementation of the Executive Order for the entire nation. The United States argued for a much more limited order (in effect, limiting the stay to lawful permanent residents who are seeking readmission into the country, a group that it now says is not subject to the order. The judges, especially Judge Clifton, questioned the nationwide nature of the relief. Whether a district court can issue a nationwide injunction in these circumstances is something that federal courts and civil procedure scholars have been arguing about on listserves over the last few days.
Does the Executive Order Constitute a "Muslim Ban"? Judge Clifton emphasized that the order was limited to the admission of noncitizens from seven nations, although nations admittedly with predominantly Muslim populations. Still, the order was limited to nations thought to be most likely to harbor terrorists, as determined by Congress a few years ago. The order does not bar all Muslims from entering the United States. So is it a "Muslim ban"? If so, then the courts would find it challenging to justify the ban under modern constitutional law (assuming that there is judicial review and that the plenary power doctrine is not applied). But even if not a ban, it would seem that rationality review under the Equal Protection Clause would kick in under Keindienst v. Mandeland similar cases.
Stay tuned. The Ninth Circuit will likely rule by the end of the week. If forced to guess, I would predict Judges Canby and Friedland ruling that the district court stay of the Executive Order remain in place, with a dissent (in whole or part) by Judge Clifton.
Abstract: This Essay argues the shortcomings of a debt-based market solution to the problem of global refugee responsibility sharing, shortcomings that originate in the fact of widespread xenophobia, and the legal fiction of state sovereignty. In Competing for Refugees: A Market-Based Solution to a Humanitarian Crisis, Joseph Blocher and Mitu Gulati argue that global refugee admissions would be improved if refugee-receiving countries could enforce “refugee debt” against refugees’ countries of origin for each refugee admitted by the receiving countries. This Essay responds to that proposal, simultaneously addressing themes of general and significant importance in international refugee scholarship. Fact and Fiction’s first contribution is to bring important nuance to the problem of refugee admissions that has implications for the success of refugee debt in solving the global refugee admission deficit. This nuance concerns who the priority targets of a proposal such as refugee debt ought to be in light of global displacement trends. I show why — if equity and sustainability concerns are taken into account — the priority targets of a proposal to increase refugee admissions are countries in the global north. Thereafter I argue that the problem of xenophobia — especially in the global north — makes it highly unlikely that the changes in rational incentives at the heart of refugee debt would result in a corresponding increase in refugee admissions. Identifying this efficacy concern is the second contribution of this essay. The final contribution of Fact and Fiction it to challenge the normative appeal of the world that refugee debt would create. I show how the legal fiction of state sovereignty, which operates centrally in the refugee debt concept, interacts with the geopolitics of refugee displacement to generate counterproductive consequences. Holding refugees’ countries of nationality solely liable and culpable for refugee displacement ignores the reality that refugee displacement often implicates multiple sovereigns. This creates a complex accountability matrix within which liability and culpability cannot fall solely on the territorial sovereign. I argue that refugee debt risks reproduction of the very dynamic that compromises global refugee protection today: global south countries would continue disproportionately to bear the cost of global refugee protection, while hegemons in the north would escape liability for (and perhaps even profit from) their direct involvement in producing refugee displacement.
Ten Bay Area and Washington, DC. nonprofit organizations have received a total of $200,000 to date from the MTYKL Foundation, which was founded by five San Francisco lawyers in 2015.
The grants are part of the foundation’s Immigrant Rights Initiative and support programs aimed at women and children detainees; immigrant rights fellowships; research on implicit bias; labor trafficking; and education, legislation, and media campaigns to change hearts and minds and reform policy.
The following organizations each received $20,000 from the MTYKL Foundation’s Immigrant Rights Initiative:
Legal Aid at Work (formerly Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center), San Francisco
In 2014, five partners at boutique firm Minami Tamaki LLP -- Minette Kwok, Dale Minami, Donald Tamaki, Jack W. Lee, and Brad Yamauchi -- pooled together $1 million from their personal funds to start the MTYKL Foundation to support progressive causes.
This extraordinary commitment was spurred by the attorneys’ increasing concern about the rising volume of anti-immigrant messages from political candidates. Their concern was justified in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.
“We anticipated the real possibility of mass deportations, the wholesale elimination of DACA, an uptick in workplace raids, special registration for Muslims, and a relentless targeting of immigrants,” says Minette Kwok, MTYKL Foundation board member. “We’re dealing with an administration steeped in xenophobia and anti-immigrant racism.”
“Our Foundation hopes that other legal community leaders and funders will explore similar ways to support and defend our country’s disenfranchised,” said Tamaki.
Many of the foundation’s grantees are on the frontlines of efforts to counter the Trump administration’s discriminatory policies. Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus is holding a series of emergency informational sessions in the community to address concerns and questions about upcoming travel and the impact of the “Muslim Ban.” The American Immigration Council filed a nationwide, class action lawsuit challenging the travel ban. The Equal Justice Society released a report on how implicit bias, racial anxiety, and misuse of stereotypes factor contribute to anti-immigrant racism and xenophobia.
The MTYKL Foundation has also provided a special grant to the Fred T. Korematsu Institute, which is aimed at educating and advancing racial equity, social justice and human rights. Its namesake is civil rights hero Fred Korematsu who refused to comply with Executive Order 9066, signed in 1942 by President Franklin Roosevelt, which authorized the U.S. military to forcibly remove 120,000 people of Japanese descent, including U.S. citizens, and put them in prison camps. After he was arrested and convicted of defying the order, he appealed his case to the Supreme Court, which ruled against him. Korematsu’s conviction wasn’t overturned until 1983. Dale Minami and Donald Tamaki were part of Korematsu’s legal team on his case.
About the MTYKL Foundation Immigrant Rights Initiative
The Immigrant Rights Initiative (http://immigrantrights.co) of the MTYKL Foundation supports organizations advancing and protecting the rights of our vulnerable immigrant communities as well as existing efforts to re-shape the national debate on issues such as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), family detention, new statewide legislation, and human trafficking.
About the MTYKL Foundation
Dale Minami, Donald Tamaki, Brad Yamauchi, Minette A. Kwok, and Jack W. Lee formed the Minami Tamaki Yamauchi Kwok & Lee Foundation to combine their philanthropy into a charitable nonprofit that can grow to be greater than the sum of their individual giving.
Minette A. Kwok is a partner at Minami Tamaki LLP and leads the firm’s immigration practice. A leader in the immigration bar, she currently serves on the national Board of Trustees of the American Immigration Council, on the Advisory Board for the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California at Hastings School of Law, and on the board of Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach (APILO).
Dale Minami is a partner at Minami Tamaki LLP and leads the firm’s personal injury practice and is recognized as one of the top personal injury lawyers in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has been involved in significant litigation involving the civil rights of Asian Pacific Americans and other minorities, such as Korematsu v. United States.
Don Tamaki is a partner at Minami Tamaki LLP and leads the firm’s corporate and nonprofit practice. He served on the legal team that reopened the landmark Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. the United States. Mr. Tamaki is President of the board of directors of the San Francisco Japantown Foundation.
Brad Yamauchi is a former partner at Minami Tamaki LLP. He’s served on the boards of organizations such as the National Employment Lawyers Association, California Employment Lawyers Association, Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California, and the National Asian Pacific Bar Association.
Jack W. Lee is a partner at Minami Tamaki LLP and leads the firm’s consumer and employee rights practice. He is a former Chair of the Judicial Advisory Committee for U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, a committee that recommends nominees for federal judgeships in California.
While the worlds deals with an ongoing and escalating refugee crisis, the United States is shutting its door on seven countries. Already states and local governments are seeking ways to challenge the new administration’s orders. The show exploree the historic, global and legal context with our experts. [ dur: 43mins. ] Guests include:
Amid widespread public attention—in the United States and internationally—on the “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” executive order signed by President Trump on January 27, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) today released a brief that outlines the major provisions of the executive order and compares them to current and prior policy regarding admission of refugees and noncitizens from its seven designated countries. The brief, Trump Executive Order on Refugees and Travel Ban: A Brief Review, represents the first in a series that will examine key provisions of the immigration-related executive orders signed to date. In addition to the executive order suspending the U.S. refugee resettlement program and pausing admission of noncitizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, President Trump also has signed executive orders dealing with immigration enforcement at the U.S. border and in the U.S. interior.
On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that indefinitely suspends the resettlement of Syrian refugees, pauses the overall refugee resettlement program, and temporarily bars noncitizens from seven majority-Muslim nations from entering the United States. The “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” executive order has been the subject of numerous legal challenges.
This fact sheet, presented in an easy-to-reference side-by-side chart, outlines the key provisions in the executive order and compares them to current and prior policy and practice, providing context where relevant.
84 Lumber's Super Bowl ad centers on a mother and daughter traveling through Mexico. This is the full ad, which includes the portion Fox deemed too controversial to air during the Super Bowl.84 Lumber's Super Bowl ad centers on a mother and daughter traveling through Mexico. This is the full ad, which includes the portion that the Fox network deemed too controversial to air during the Super Bowl. (84 Lumber)
Thomas Heath in the Washington Post explains how building supplies company 84 Lumber sparked controversy with its Super Bowl ad featuring a Mexican mother and daughter embarking on a difficult journey north. It ends with the written words: “The will to succeed is always welcome here.” The Super Bowl ad asked viewers to visit the 84 Lumber website if they wanted to find out how the journey ended. The website version included a five-minute “director’s cut” version that concludes with the pair entering the United States through a door in the border wall, which looks more ominous and foreboding than beautiful. I found the ending to be powerful and moving. 84 Lumber’s site was overwhelmed by the traffic.
That and other commercials spurred a backlash on social media..
I did not know of 84 Lumber before the Super Bowl commercial. Now, I do and feel better for it.
By voice vote, the ABA House of Delegates, the association’s policy-making body, adopted resolution 10C calling on the executive branch to ensure full, prompt, and uniform compliance with court orders addressing the executive order.
The House––made up of 589 members representing state and local bar associations, ABA entities and ABA-affiliated organizations––also urged the administration to take care that all executive orders regarding border security, immigration enforcement and terrorism:
respect the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and due process rights;
not use religion or nationality as a basis for barring an otherwise eligible individual from admission to the United States;
adhere to the U.S.’s international law obligations relating to the status of refugees and to the principle of non-refoulement; and
facilitate a transparent, accessible, fair and efficient system of administering the immigration laws and policies of the United States and ensure protection for refugees, asylum seekers, torture victims and others deserving of humanitarian refuge;
In Resolution 10B, the House also reaffirmed the ABA’s support of legal protection for refugees, asylum seekers, torture victims, and others deserving of humanitarian refuge. It urged Congress to adopt additional legislation to appropriate funds for refugee applications and processing, and mandate that refugees receive an appropriate individualized assessment in a timely fashion that excludes national origin and religion as the basis for making such determination.
Today, the University of Minnesota Law School announced a transformational $25 million gift from the Robina Foundation. The grant—the single largest philanthropic gift in the Law School’s history—will fund the newly named James H. Binger Center for New Americans, establish a James H. Binger Professorship in Clinical Law, and provide Law School student scholarship support.
The gift will provide permanent financial support to the University of Minnesota Law School for the ongoing operations of the James H. Binger Center for New Americans. The Center brings about transformative change by creating a national model for the provision of comprehensive and cohesive legal services for immigrant communities through a variety of means, including improving federal immigration law and policy through impact litigation; protecting detainee rights and improving access to legal representation for refugees and immigrants; educating noncitizens about their legal rights; creating dynamic and comprehensive immigration clinics for students; and collaborating with others on immigration issues. During its four-year pilot program—supported by the Robina Foundation—the Center won a landmark case at the U.S. Supreme Court; won political asylum for clients from around the world; and won release for detained immigrants in Minnesota.
The Design Museum in London has awarded IKEA the Beazley Design of the Year for its new, flat-pack refugee shelter. The shelter is made of recycled plastic and can assembled in as few as four hours. It can house a family of five and includes a solar panel to power lights and charge devices. Thousands of units have been produced and the map below shows where they are being put to use.
reconfigured its fifth-floor permanent-collection galleries — interrupting its narrative of Western Modernism, from Cézanne through World War II — to showcase contemporary art from Iran, Iraq and Sudan[.]
Each piece of art is accompanied by the following notice:
“This work is by an artist from a nation whose citizens are being denied entry into the United States, according to a presidential executive order issued on January 27, 2017. This is one of several such artworks from the Museum’s collection installed throughout the fifth-floor galleries to affirm the ideals of welcome and freedom as vital to this Museum, as they are to the United States.”
The Los Angeles Times reportsthat, after a federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump’s ban on Iranians traveling to the United States, the government of Iran has announced that a U.S. wrestling team would be granted visas to compete at a prestigious international tournament in Iran this month. The move was aimed at deescalating tensions with the Trump administration, which had put Iran “on notice” and imposed fresh sanctions after the Islamic republic conducted a ballistic missile test last weekend.Iranian news agencies had reported Friday that Americans would be denied visas to compete in the Freestyle World Cup Feb. 16-17in Kermanshah, Iran. KJ
Does it seem ironic to anyone that President Trump is now embroiled in controversy over his executive actions on immigration when he campaigned in part challenging President Obama's allegedly unconstitutional executive action on immigration? President Obama's last two years in office were marked by legal challenges to the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, with a deadlocked U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Texasallowing a lower court injunction barring the President from putting DAPA into effect.
In his first month in office, President Trump has issued three executive orders on immigration that have caused a firestorm of controversy. The Executive Orders generated a great many legal challenges, with the travel ban on nationals from seven predominately nations has been put on hold, at least for the time being. It seems to me that the constitutional challenges to Trump's executive orders are more substantial and formidable than those leveled at DAPA.
"In late January, Trump’s immigration policy experts gave a 20-page document to top Homeland Security officials that lays out how to ramp up immigration enforcement, according to two people familiar with the memo. A list of steps included nearly doubling the number of people held in immigration detention to 80,000 per day, as well as clamping down on programs that allow people to leave immigration custody and check in with federal agents or wear an ankle monitor while their cases play out in immigration court.
The instructions also propose allowing Border Patrol agents to provide translation assistance to local law enforcement, a practice that was stopped in 2012 over concerns that it was contributing to racial profiling.
In addition, Homeland Security officials have circulated an 11-page memo on how to enact Trump’s order. Among other steps, that document suggests expanding the use of a deportation process that bypasses immigration courts and allows officers to expel foreigners immediately upon capture. The process, called expedited removal, now applies only to immigrants who are arrested within 100 miles of the border and within two weeks of illegally crossing over and who don’t express a credible fear of persecution back home. The program could be expanded farther from the border and target those who have lived in the U.S. illegally for up to two years."
In addition, the 1917 Act added to and consolidated the list of undesirables banned from entering the country t o include "alcoholics", "anarchists", "contract laborers", "criminals and convicts", "epileptics", "feebleminded persons", "idiots", "illiterates", "imbeciles", "insane persons", "paupers", "persons afflicted with contagious disease", "persons being mentally or physically defective", "persons with constitutional psychopathic inferiority", "political radicals", "polygamists", "prostitutes" and "vagrants."
Groups such as the Immigration Restriction League had supported literacy as a prerequisite for immigration for many years. In 1895, Henry Cabot Lodge introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate to impose a literacy test, which would have required prospective immigrants to read five lines from the Constitution. Congress passed the bill but President Grover Cleveland vetoed it. A literacy test was later passed by Congress and vetoed by President Woodrow Wilson.
Anxiety over the fragmentation of American cultural identity, anti-immigrant, and anti-Asian sentiment, led to the Immigration Act of 1917.
Almost immediately after its passage, the Immigration Act of 1917 was challenged by Southwestern businesses. US entry into World War I, a few months after the law's passage, prompted a waiver of the Act's provisions on Mexican agricultural workers. It was soon extended to include Mexicans working in the mining and railroad industries.
Ray Sanchez on CCN conisders looks at the Immigration Act of 1917 and draws paralleles with President Trump's three immigration executive orders.