Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Inspired by Harvey Milk's 1978 "come out" speech, immigrants' rights activist and Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas is encouraging undocumented immigrants to "come out" of the undocumented closet. As readers of this blog may recall, Vargas famously came out in 2011 a NYT Magazine. As the above picture shows, Vargas was featured with other undocumented Americans in a Time cover story in 2012.
Vargas and his organization, Define American, have launched their "Coming Out" campaign. Vargas notes, "It's time undocumented people and allies come out and share their stories. By doing so, you publicly recognize the humanity of the more than 11 million undocumented Americans who support the immigrant heritage of our nation."
Here's a link to the video: http://bit.ly/da-outfor.
Do you agree that undocumented immigrants should come out and reveal their unauthorized status?
I'll share my thoughts on this question in the next couple of days and blog about the parallels and differences between the LGBT rights movement and immigration justice movement.
photo by Aletia Image Department
Pope Francis is coming to Philadelphia in September. In a speech planned for outside of Independence Hall, the pope will address immigration, "one of his favorite pastoral issues." It will be his first papal visit to the United States.
Pope Francis truly is "The Migrant Pope." His first official trip outside of Rome was to the Italian island of Lampedusa, where he said mass in memory of the thousands of North Africans who died trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea.
Pope Francis himself is the son of immigrants who ventured from Italy to settle in Argentina.
One individual interviewed about the pope's visit to the United States expressed hope that the visit would "challenge Christians to look at immigration in a Christian light." That quote reminds me of a great piece that immprof Victor Romero presented at last winter's immigration symposium at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law - “The Prodigal Illegal: Christian Love and Immigration Reform.” We'll be sure to link you to the article when it reaches SSRN.
Theorizing Immigration Control
The injustices that result from immigration governance are glaring. They are so glaring that normative theorizing about such governance may seem, at best, a low priority. At worst, theorizing may seem a way of legitimizing the illegitimate.
Taken too far, this anti-theoretical attitude would be a mistake. There remains a pressing need to resolve political-moral questions concerning immigration governance.
In particular, the standard view that it is morally proper for states to have broad, possibly unfettered, power to control immigration is a root cause of many of the injustices associated with immigration. This view can only be met by attempts, theoretical in nature, to come to grips with the nature and limits of the power to control immigration.
While it suffers from inadequacies, I believe my book – Justice and Authority in Immigration Governance (2015) – makes progress toward a better understanding of what reasonably just immigration governance would look like. Below, I briefly describe the book’s claims in the presumptuous hope of provoking others to engage with the arguments for these claims.
To begin, I do not deny the right to control immigration; although I believe this right resides with states for essentially contingent reasons. Further, this right is not one of “absolute and unqualified” control. Rather, it is a right to exercise judgment regarding whether an immigrant should be admitted or not to a state’s territory.
To command authority, this judgment must be exercised reasonably. It must take account of both would-be migrants’ circumstances as well as the impact immigration will have on a receiving state. If this power of judgment is not exercised reasonably, migrants will have no obligation to obey immigration law, with all the instability this result implies.
Most rich, liberal states pursue unreasonable immigration policies now. Such unreasonableness is made manifest in the overall inegalitarianism of these policies. The tendency of most rich states to admit the well off and exclude (or exercise greater control over) the worse off leads to a disturbing correlation between disadvantage and the likelihood of suffering. Inegalitarian admissions policies are likely also unreasonable in themselves, evincing profound disregard for the situation of worse off migrants and the impact immigration would have on their lives.
What would it be to exercise the power of judgment over immigration reasonably? I propose four principles in my book.
First, any cap on immigration must be set in accordance with considerations of the need to maintain stability and the need to respect members’ legitimate expectations.
Second, under any such cap, priority of admission must be given to the worst off, where being “worst off” is a function of both the absence of rights and economic disadvantage.
Third, immigration policies must avoid second-order injustice; that is, any policy regarding admission or exclusion must not result in or require for their enforcement such blatant injustices as indefinite detention or the use of excessive force.
Fourth, there are certain migrants that states are obligated to admit to citizenship. Those are the migrants who develop a form of allegiance, which I call “juridical integration”, to the rules and principles of justice embodied and guaranteed by a state.
If you have read this far, this summary will have raised more questions than it answers. It has likely provoked skepticism. Good. I believe the principles above will minimize injustice in immigration governance and allow for the reconciliation of both migrants and non-migrants with the social and political world that results. But I also think the arguments in my book are insufficient. Making them more robust is the long-game in addressing the great evils that result from immigration control by states.
Colin Grey (email@example.com) is professeur régulier en droit des migrations at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM) and a former legal advisor to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canda. His book, Justice and Authority in Immigration Law was published by Hart Publishing earlier this year.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Monday announced the panel of judges who will hear arguments on the merits on the U.S. government's challenge to an injunction halting President Obama's executive actions on immigration. Circuit Judges Carolyn Dineen King, Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Walker Elrod will hear oral arguments in the case on July 10 in New Orleans. Judges Elrod and Smith constituted the majority of the Fifth Circuit panel that denied the government’s motion to stay the injunction in May.
The panel also requested additional briefing pertaining to the state challengers' standing in light of a Supreme Court redistricting ruling issued on the same day.
It is difficult to see how the Obama administration can convince a majority of this panel to lift the injunction. Judges Smith and Elrod seemed adamant in denying the stay that the administration had not established a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Overall, it was a pretty tame debate as these things go. Among other things, Rivera said that he thinks the title of her new book, "Adios America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole," is "insulting."
Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic has an interesting article on presidential candidate Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and his common sense -- and humane -- views on immigration. Senator Graham, who in the past has supported comprehensive immigration reform with a path to legalization, criticized fellow Republicans in an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival that focused on immigration. Some of his rivals in the race for the GOP nomination have said “mean” things on that subject, he argued, casting immigration restrictionists as political liabilities who share the blame for his party’s loss in 2012 election.
“When I was 21 my mom died,” he said. “When I was 22 my dad died. Neither one of my parents finished high school. We owned a liquor store, a bar, and a pool room. That's why I'm well-qualified to be president. My family was destroyed by illness. I will not destroy families just for the hell of it. And that's what self-deportation is.” (emphasis added).
Senator Graham is distinguishing himself from the other Republican presidential candidates, such as Chris Christie, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal et al. who generally speaking oppose a path to legalization and call for greater immigration enforcement.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
I can't help it. Presidential elections are just a lot of fun. As they say, truth is stranger than fiction. Who would have guessed that Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, and a fully array of characters would declare that they were candidates for the GOP nomination? Now, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, with a personality that is larger than life, has made it official. He is running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
An avowed fan of New Jersey native son Bruce Springsteen, Christie once supported a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants but publicly changed his view a few weeks ago as he readied his presidential run. A International Business Times article observes that
"Christie has spent much of his time in office avoiding the issue of immigration. . . . Initially, Christie backed a pathway to citizenship. But that view has become untenable among many Republicans, who call it amnesty as they make an effort to stamp out any of its supporters in the party. In May, Christie shifted his position, saying he no longer backs that pathway. . . . There are still a lot of blanks for Christie to fill in on the issue of immigration. And, since it will be such a hotly contested issue during primary season, there will be many waiting to hear a more lengthy explanation of his views."'
Yesterday, ICE issued new memorandum for regarding the care of transgender detainees. The 18-page memo affirms that ICE will provide "a respectful, safe, and secure environment for all detainees, including those individuals who identify as transgender."
Officers in Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) will now give detainees an opportunity to disclose their gender identity, if they choose to do so. And ERO will make "individualized placement determinations to ensure the detainee's safety." That, as Fusion reports, means that individuals may be now housed in detention facilities that match their gender identities.
In addition, the memo calls for the specically-trained LGBTI coordinators and liaisons within the ERO.
The Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Fourteen Amendment guarantees the right to gay marriage in all states will have profound effects not just here in the U.S., but abroad. Immigration authorities already had recognized gay marriage if it was determined it was lawful where it was performed. Previously, the Obama administration recognized the unconstitutionality of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The administration’s position was subsequently justified when the high court struck down key provisions of DOMA in 2012 in United States v. Windsor. In that decision, the court held that the Fifth Amendment applied to invalidate provisions of DOMA which sought to confine the federal definition of marriage and spouse to apply solely to heterosexual unions. Only after Windsor did the administration begin officially recognizing gay marriage for immigration purposes. Friday's decision in Obergefell goes even further than Windsor. Now, the Supreme Court has held not just the federal government cannot restrict the definition only to heterosexuals but that all the states must allow homosexual marriages, and importantly must recognize any such marriages which were lawfully entered into in other states (and presumably abroad, although the court’s decision does not explicitly say that). In terms of contiguous countries to the U.S., it is worth noting that Canada has recognized and provided for homosexual marriage for about 10 years now. In 2010, the Supreme Court of Mexico, by a vote of 8-2 upheld the constitutionality of Mexico City’s same-sex marriage law and also later ruled that such marriages were valid throughout the entire country. For purposes of immigration, the fact that all states must allow for and provide homosexual marriages will do away with a major impediment which faced some immigrants who resided in states where such marriages previously were not permitted. Under certain situations immigrants who reside in the U.S. can adjust their status if they are in a bona fide, valid marriage to a U.S. citizen. It is no longer an impediment that they are homosexual and living in the U.S. in a state which doesn’t recognize gay marriage. That said, the decision also affects not just people trying to adjust their status but also people who are applying for certain immigration benefits, such as waivers from the immigration courts and administrative bodies, such as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Waivers may apply, depending on the type of case, where for example a person has a “qualifying relative” such as a U.S. citizen spouse and can show certain equities exist, such as “extreme hardship” to the qualifying relative. Other important relief may be available, such as lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal, and the recognition of same-sex marriage, although not specifically required by statute to make someone qualified for this type relief, will now be considered by the immigration judge as it relates to the overall equities of the case. Most importantly, as the majority of justices duly recognized in Obergefell, a decision to validate same-sex marriage is not just about the spouses involved, but also about their entire family unit: the son or daughter of same-sex partners can now rest assured that the state will recognize their whole “family” as legitimate. Immigrants who find themselves in immigration proceedings will now be able to point to the Obergefell decision and the immigration authorities will be bound to take into account their entire family. The government now must recognize them as bona fide parents, spouses, and children as a product of a legitimate same-sex marriage.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will celebrate the nation’s 239th birthday by welcoming more than 4,000 new U.S. citizens at over 50 naturalization ceremonies across the country July 1-4.
“As we celebrate Independence Day, we welcome over 4,000 new Americans who will be able to enjoy all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship,” said USCIS Director León Rodríguez. “From Los Angeles to New York, Miami to Seattle, Indianapolis to Los Alamos, these individuals are showing their full commitment to the freedoms, values and ideals that have inspired Americans since the Declaration of Independence in 1776.”
Citizenship candidates will take the Oath of Allegiance at locations including the New York Public Library, Harold Washington Library Center in Chicago, Seattle Center, the National WWII Museum in New Orleans and the Tower Theater in Miami. This year’s celebration also will feature ceremonies at historic sites such as George Washington’s Mount Vernon in Virginia; Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello in Charlottesville, Virginia; and the USS Midway in San Diego, California.
To view a list of 2015 Independence Day naturalization ceremonies, visit uscis.gov/news.
USCIS encourages new citizens and their families and friends to share their ceremony experiences and photos afterward on Twitter and other social media, using the hashtag #newUScitizen.
Monday, June 29, 2015
NBCUniversal has cut its ties with Donald Trump, a recent GOP entrant in the race for the Presidency. NBCUniversal, under pressure from an array of Hispanic and other groups, has announced that it is severing its business ties to Trump. The Miss USA pageant will no longer air on the network. Nor will the Miss Universe pageant. Both pageants were, until now, jointly owned by NBC and Trump.
"At NBC, respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values," the company said in a statement on Monday. "Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump."
Bobby Jindal has only recently joined the presidential race for 2016. But his PAC already has a message on immigration currently airing in Iowa:
If it's too much of a commitment to watch the thirty-second ad, let me summarize: he's tired of "hyphenated Americans," "our immigration system is broken," folks who want to immigrate should do so "legally" "adopt our values" "learn English" and "roll up their sleeves and get to work."
With its decision last week in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court kept the Affordable Care Act in the news and on the books. On the Insightful Immigration Blog, Cyrus Mehta discusses noncitizen eligibility for coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
PEOPLE Magazine Headline: Donald Trump Defends His Immigration Stance Amid Miss Universe Controversy: 'I Don't Have a Racist Bone in My Body'
Aren't Presidential campaigns great? ImmigrationProf over the next two years no doubt will have some fun with the various presidential candidates' positions on immigration. Donald Trump, just in his campaign announcement, sparked a firestorm of immigration controversy. This headline from a People magazine story says it all.
Bobby Jindal looking pensive or confused, you pick!
For a variety of reasons, I have been avoiding any mention on this blog of the latest entrant in the 2016 Presidential race. The American Immigration Council has done a report on where Louisiana Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, the 13th presidential candidate to formally enter the 2016 presidential race, stands on immigration.
Jindal is the third declared 2016 presidential candidate that is the son of immigrants – the two others being Senators Mario Rubio and Ted Cruz. In his announcement speech, Jindal embraced his own immigrant heritage. A look into his rhetoric and policy positions on key pieces of immigration reform legislation reveals some thoughtful, but missequenced solutions on immigration, as well as a general misunderstanding of executive authority and the nation’s humanitarian obligations to asylum-seekers.
The National Basketball Association draft was last week. As ImmigrationProf blog has highlighted, the NBA has increasingly gone international. The draft reflected thius and Satnam Singh became the first basketball player from India to be drafted by an NBA team. The Dallas Mavericks selected the 7-foot-2-inch, 19-year-old with the 52nd pick in the draft.
Here are the details about Singh. Although Canadian-born Sim Bhullar became the NBA's first player of Indian descent last year, Singh would be the first player actually born on the subcontinent to make the league.
Singh was born in a village in Punjab with just 700 inhabitants. They nicknamed him "Chhotu" -- Punjab for "Little One." There were no basketball courts there -- his dad's wheat farm is 4 miles from the nearest paved road -- so he was sent off to a basketball academy at age 12.
ESPN reports that three of first seven players drafted are international players. The Orlando Magic took Mario Hezonja (Croatia) with the fifth pick after the New York Knicks took Kristaps Porzingis (Latvia) at No. 4. The Denver Nuggets made it three international players when they took Emmanuel Mudiay (Congo) with the seventh selection. The only year there were more international players taken in the top 10 was 2011 (four players). With the 26th pick, the San Antonio Spurs took Nikola Milutinov (Serbia). The Spurs have drafted nine international players in the last 10 years, the most by any team.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Latinos in the United States encompass a broad range of racial, socioeconomic, and sociopolitical identities. Originating from the Caribbean, Spain, Central and South America, and Mexico, they have unique justice concerns. The ethnic group includes U.S. citizens, authorized resident aliens, and undocumented aliens, a group that has been a constant partner in the Latino legal landscape for over a century. This book addresses the development and rapid growth of the Latino population in the United States and how race-based discrimination, hate crimes, and other prejudicial attitudes, some of which have been codified via public policy, have grown in response. Salinas explores the degrading practice of racial profiling, an approach used by both federal and state law enforcement agents; the abuse in immigration enforcement; and the use of deadly force against immigrants. The author also discusses the barriers Latinos encounter as they wend their way through the court system. While all minorities face the barrier of racially based jury strikes, bilingual Latinos deal with additional concerns, since limited-English-proficient defendants depend on interpreters to understand the trial process. As a nation rich in ethnic and racial backgrounds, the United States, Salinas argues, should better strive to serve its principles of justice.
California has been at the forefront of recent state and local efforts to promote immigrant integration through the so-called "California package" (see this Los Angeles Times op/ed), an alternative to the approaches to immigration enforcement pursued by Arizona, Alabama, and other states and localities.
The International Business Times reports on the latest interesting development out of California. An initiative to give residency permits to undocumented immigrants living in California is gaining momentum. Backers of the measure are gearing up to begin collecting signatures to get the proposal before voters in 2016. The California Immigration Reform Act would require permit holders to pay state income taxes and bar the state from using public funds to aid federal immigration enforcement. Initiative supporters have until December 21 to get the required 365,880 signatures from registered California voters to put the initiative on the 2016 ballot.
The permits would establish an official arrival date in the country and give immigrants a tax identification number to allow them to attend school or apply for jobs. “If you come forward, register, pay state income taxes and get your immunizations, California will allow you to stay in California and you will be here legally, at least as far as California is concerned,” Louis J. Marinelli, president of Sovereign California, Inc., the group behind the initiative, said in a statement. The Los Angeles Daily News reports that "Marinelli is also the proponent of initiatives that would create an advisory group to explore establishing California’s autonomy from the United States; require the display of the California flag above the U.S. flag, change the governor’s title to president of California and ban out-of-state contributions to California election campaigns.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Today, the American Immigration Council released ,A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies and Responses.This updated guide provides information about the tens of thousands of children—some travelling with their parents and others alone—who have fled their homes in Central America and arrived at our southern border. It also seeks to explain the basics.
Who are these children and why are they coming?
What basic protections does the law afford them?
What happens to the children once they are in U.S. custody?
What have the U.S. and other governments done in response?
What additional responses have advocates and legislators proposed?
The answers to these questions are critical to assessing the U.S. government’s responses and understanding the ongoing debate about whether reforms to the immigration laws and policies involving children are needed.