Sunday, February 25, 2024
ImmigProf blog co-editor Ming H. Chen published an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee advocating campus support for undocumented students after UC Regents change course on authorizing hiring, to the disappointment of many immprofs and Opportunity for All student activists who signed open letters supporting the previously proposed policy and attesting to their willingness to hire well-qualified students, without regard to immigration status. Her op-ed accompanies leadership efforts from ImmProfs Ahilan Arulanantham and Hiroshi Motomura at UCLA's Center for Immigration Law and Policy.
An excerpt of the article:
The UC should continue to lead the way on educational opportunities for undocumented students by thinking creatively and fighting fiercely for its students. This latest episode may mean that the mantle is shifting. If change will not come from the top, then campuses need to identify and implement their own solutions from the bottom up.
What can campuses do on their own? Universities can create meaningful experiences as fellowships with stipends, even if they will not permit salaried campus jobs; they can increase scholarships to reduce need; and reconfigure academic credit for experiential work (which many colleges are embracing as higher education strives to demonstrate its relevance to the world beyond their campuses). At law schools such as UC Law San Francisco, where I teach, the American Bar Association is requiringexperi
ential work for accreditation. More ideas are being explored by the UC Labor Center and student activists as they process the unexpected decision.
Reuters reports that IMMIGRATION ranked as the top issue for voters in South Carolina's Republican presidential primary won convincingly by Donald Trump yesterday, according to an exit poll conducted by Edison Research.
Among the polling results:
39% of voters said immigration mattered most when deciding how they would vote in the contest, compared with 33% who said the economy mattered most. 10% cited abortion policy and 11% said foreign policy.
South Carolina has one of America's smallest immigrant populations. Just 5% of residents were born abroad, compared with 14% nationwide, according to U.S. Census estimates.
65% of voters on Saturday do not think Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election, while 63% said that if former President Donald Trump were convicted of a crime, he would still be fit for the presidency.
Friday, February 23, 2024
ABA Commission on Immigration Report “Electronic Monitoring of Migrants: Punitive not Prudent” Released
A report released today by the American Bar Association Commission on Immigration criticizes the U.S. government’s electronic monitoring of migrants and recommends that the program be curtailed. The report, “Electronic Monitoring of Migrants: Punitive not Prudent,” is available here.
Three law students with the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law — Muskan Momin, Alice Min and Niko Marcich drafted the report. They worked under the supervision of Professor Denise Gilman and received input and guidance from Dora Schriro, special adviser to the Commission on Immigration.
The report calls electronic monitoring “de facto detention” that imposes “a significant financial cost on taxpayers and a considerable human toll on the participants and their family members.” Such monitoring is unnecessary, the report concludes, because most migrants “present neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community to justify either detention or electronic monitoring.” As currently used, electronic monitoring of migrants is punitive, the report says, because it is imposed without objective assessment of need or risk and may violate constitutional guarantees of liberty and due process.
The report proposes that electronic monitoring be “significantly reduced and only used in extraordinary cases."
Electronic monitoring of migrants began in 2004 and was significantly expanded in recent years. As of December 2023, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was electronically monitoring more than 190,000 migrants. A 2022 study showed most of those being monitored were asylum seekers from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
"Electronic monitoring is not used as a true alternative to detention but a net-widening expansion of detention,” the report concludes. “The use of electronic monitoring should be reevaluated and limited.”
Immigration Professors Carrie Rosenbaum, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, and Pooja Dadhania. Photo courtesy of Carrie Rosenbaum
Immigration law professor Carrie Rosenbaum is pictured above with another immigration law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández and Pooja Dadhania at his book appearance yesterday at the Logan Heights Branch Library in San Diego. Cesar was discussing his new book, Welcome the Wretched: In Defense of the “Criminal Alien”. The book event was open to the public. Carrie shared that the talk ended with a spirited Q&A, with audience members engaging the author in discussing possibilities for a more humane approach to immigration law. Carrie's favorite moment was when César read part of page 230 of his book with a surprising reference to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Curious? Check out page 230.
Immigration Article of the Day: Climate Change and Cross-Border Displacement: What the Courts, the Administration, and Congress Can Do to Improve Options for the United States by Kate Jastram
Climate Change and Cross-Border Displacement: What the Courts, the Administration, and Congress Can Do to Improve Options for the United States by Kate Jastram, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Forthcoming
This paper examines seven existing and potential legal and policy options for improving the United States’ response to people fleeing across international borders in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters. These opportunities are maximizing the potential of the refugee definition in the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopting the expanded refugee definition in the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, accepting non-refoulement obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, expanding climate change considerations in the Refugee Admissions Program, making greater use of nationality-specific humanitarian parole programs, leveraging Safe Mobility Offices to lead regional solutions, and reimagining Temporary Protected Status.
It argues that a more realistic and less constricted conception of both international protection and the national interest of the United States will not only provide life-saving refuge to those in need while resuscitating the asylum system but will also serve as a model to other countries in the Americas and beyond.
Thursday, February 22, 2024
"Sweeping Raids, Mass Deportations: Donald Trump's 2025 Plan to Fix the Border": The Charlie Kirk Show
Official White House Photo
An episode of the Charlie Kirk Show provides a chilling description of what Donald Trump might bring to the world of immigration:
"Courts and cowardly Republicans prevented the first Trump term to realize its full potential on immigration. But four years of experience and four years in the wilderness to plan mean that Trump 2.0 will be very different. Stephen Miller joins to lay out a 2025 deportation scheme that is as grand in scope as the Panama Canal. Plus, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene explains her opposition to the latest no-cuts spending resolution, and takes Republicans to task for failing to impeach the traitorous Alejandro Mayorkas."
Philip Bump of the Washington Post ("Stephen Miller’s fantasy of red-state shock troops makes no sense") is not a fan.
Immprof Joe Landau has been named the new dean of Fordham Law! Everyone raise a glass to celebrate. Woot. Woot.
Immigration Article of the Day: Misery, Melancholy, and Misfortune: A Migrant Case Study by Jayanth K. Krishnan
There is an ongoing crisis of despair involving migrants from abroad who are seeking refuge in one of the world’s longest-standing, post-World War II democracies – India. There are roughly 4.9 million noncitizen migrants in India, with most coming from Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Because these migrants often live in the shadows, they are frequently deprived of their fundamental human rights.
On the one hand, it may seem surprising that this population remains so vulnerable. Albeit with notable exceptions, India’s Supreme Court has often been a leading institutional light in safeguarding the rights of many marginalized groups. Supreme Courts in other countries point to judgments from the Indian Supreme Court as a model for how to ensure that communities on the periphery are treated with dignity and due process. Furthermore, in periods of its progressive rights jurisprudence, the Court has been aided by a robust constitution and a vibrant civil society.
Yet when it comes to noncitizen migrants, there has been a dearth of sustained judicial support. Additionally, while there is certain, important bottom-up activism on behalf of these noncitizens, it has frankly not been enough to meet the cascade of needs that exist.
This project focuses on how institutional inadequacies, at both the governmental and societal levels, have left noncitizen migrants among some of the most isolated individuals within India. Namely, the absence of specialized and independent immigration courts, an outdated immigration statute, a lack of a strong immigration bar, insufficient legal education on immigration law, and little research on immigration doctrine are key reasons why migrants face such dire circumstances today. Otherwise put, India’s weak immigration infrastructure has sadly contributed to why noncitizen migrants have such difficulty accessing lawyers, the legal process, and ultimately justice within Indian society.
Wednesday, February 21, 2024
We have previously posted on a much-watched case pending before the Ninth Circuit, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Joseph Biden. As we explained in an earlier post, the district court blocked a Trump administration ban that categorically denied asylum to anyone at the southern border who had transited through a third country en route to the United States, with very limited exceptions. The case was then appealed argued before the Ninth Circuit in November, and due to interest in the case, the Ninth made the case brief available to the public.
Today, the Ninth issued an order placing the appeal in abeyance pending the parties settlement decisions. Judges W. Fletcher and Paez joined in the order, with Judge VanDyke, a 2020 Trump appointee, dissenting. Here is a passage from that dissent:
Taking the government at its word about the pressing need for this crucial rule to remain in effect and be enforced, our court granted a stay of the district court’s decision enjoining the government’s rule. We heard oral argument and are now poised to render our decision. Then suddenly, out of the blue, the parties come to us hand-in-hand, jointly asking us to hold off making a decision while they “engage in discussions regarding the Rule’s implementation and whether a settlement could eliminate the need for further litigation.” For months, the rule was so important that “any interruption” in its implementation, even for a short period of time, would incapacitate the executive’s border response. This panel made decisions based on those representations. Now, the government implies the rule isn’t so important after all. Indeed, the government is now “engaged in discussions” that could result in the rule going away. What?
The administration’s abrupt about-face makes no sense as a legal matter. Either it previously lied to this court by exaggerating the threat posed by vacating the rule, or it is now hiding the real reason it wants to hold this case in abeyance. Given its success thus far in defending a rule it has consistently characterized as critical to its control of the border, and the fact that it has to realize its odds of success in this case can only improve as it works its way vertically through the federal court system, the government’s sudden and severe change in position looks a lot like a purely politically motivated attempt to throw the game at the last minute.
Immigration Article of the Day: Dismantling the Due Process Dichotomy in Crimmigration Cases by Josh Roth and Stephen W. Yale-Loehr
The U.S. Constitution entitles every person to due process. But nearly fifty years ago, the Supreme Court distinguished the due process entitlement of noncitizens from that of citizens. This Article takes a novel approach to due process for noncitizens in certain so-called “crimmigration” cases by further distinguishing the citizen-noncitizen dichotomy. The Article argues that, as applied to lawful permanent residents, certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are unconstitutional. The article proceeds in three parts.
Part I summarizes the existing caselaw regarding due process for noncitizens. Part II explores two aspects of crimmigration law: immigration fraud and terrorism. This Part conducts a comparative analysis of the various statutes that penalize fraud and terrorism in the immigration and criminal codes. Part III employs the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and argues that in immigration fraud and terrorism cases, lawful permanent residents are entitled to additional procedural safeguards to remedy identified due process violations. This Part then formulates distinct procedural safeguards for lawful permanent residents in crimmigration cases involving fraud and terrorism.
Official White House Photo
In new research for ProMarket, Elise Blasingame, Christina Boyd, Roberto Carlos, and Joseph Ornstein look at how the Trump administration used a quota policy for immigration judges (and here) to influence how they decided cases. "The authors find the policy successfully nudged more judges to rule against immigrant plaintiffs." (bold added). Click the link above for details.
"In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a policy requiring immigration judges to complete a minimum of 700 cases per fiscal year and have no more than 15% of cases overturned on appeal, meaning that immigration judges had to be mindful of what the Trump-appointed Board of Immigration Appeals and attorney general wanted in their decisions. While the stated aim of the policy was to reduce the backlog of immigration cases growing exponentially year-over-year, the political motivations were clear: to pressure immigration judges to order more immigration removals and deportations as quickly as possible. From building the wall at the southern border, to family separation policies in detention centers, Trump was unequivocal in his aims: waging one of the most aggressive anti-immigration campaigns in recent history. The policy was certainly controversial and led some judges to quit. The immigration judges’ union campaigned against it. . . . The immigration judge quota policy was revoked under the Biden administration, but should Trump be re-elected in 2024, he will likely institute a similar policy to influence the incentives and decision-making of immigration judges and other bureaucrats."
The social science data is one-sided, finding that immigration does not lead to an increase in crime. However, immigrants often have been blamed for crime, including by New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The Marshall Project looked at the claim.
"The Marshall Project has previously reported that there is no evidence linking an increase in immigration to higher local crime rates — whether it’s unauthorized, or includes lawful immigrants. The Marshall Project took a closer look at crime data in cities that received a significant number of migrants from Texas since spring 2022 — including New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Denver. Our analysis showed that despite recent media coverage, policing data doesn’t show a link between crime and the recent influx of migrants. Rather, crime in these cities largely follows national trends for big cities." (bold added).
California politics are not immune from debates over immigration. Last night, contenders in the race for the open U.S. Senate seat sparred on the issue. And there were differences of opinion.
With three weeks to go until the primary election, the top four candidates for California’s open U.S. Senate seat met again debated to make their cases for representing the state. Democratic Representatives Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee as well as Republican ex-Los Angeles Dodger and San Diego Padre Dodger Steve Garvey spent the evening discussing issues like immigration, housing and the economy.
On the border, all candidates agreed with a need for change, but their proposed plans of action were divided along predictable partisan lines.
Republican Steve Garvey squarely pointed the blame for the state of the border at President Joe Biden:
“The president opened the floodgates and created a crisis in the United States. He should be the one to step up and close the border; he should be the one that stops the infiltration of the cartels and stops rampant drugs coming into this country from China.”
The Democratic candidates criticized the approach of former President Donald Trump and Republican governors toward the migrant crisis.
“I don’t agree with draconian solutions. I don’t agree with Mr. Garvey, who is promoting Donald Trump’s border wall,” said Adam Schiff. “That doesn’t work.” Schiff called for an increase of immigration judges who can process asylum claims.
Katie Porter said she supports deploying more resources and personnel to the border, including technology that would make it easier to detect fentanyl and other illegal goods.
Tuesday, February 20, 2024
Who doesn't love a quiz? And this one even counts as work!
WaPo asks: Worried about immigrants overwhelming the U.S.? With five questions, you can find out just why it is that you're so worried!
Not to brag or anything, but here's my score:
In all seriousness, this might be a fun assignment for students to complete before the first day of class. Or I could see it being a great kickoff for a CLE or community talk.
Monday, February 19, 2024
A new documentary is out of interest to readers of ImmProf Blog.
Ricochet, a film by Jeff Adachi and Chihiro Wimbush, features the San Francisco Public Defender Offices's defense of José Ines García Zaraté. An undocumented immigrant, García Zaraté was charged with the tragic death of Kate Steinle, who was killed by the ricochet of a bullet that he accidentally fired. His case set of a national firestorm over "sanctuary cities" when it was picked up by the Trump campaign.
More information, how to watch the film, and a teacher's guide are all available here.
We last posted an update on the case here.
It's been a hot minute since we last reminded you about how to get ImmigrationProf Blog updates by email.
Once upon a time, the ImmigrationProf blog supported email subscriptions and daily digests. Unfortunately, it no longer does. Bummer, I know. But that doesn't mean you can't still get email alerts regarding blog posts or daily digests. You've just got to interact with a third party website.
Let me start with my favorite: Feedrabbit. What's great about this site is its simplicity. When you go to the website you'll see this clear form at the top:
After you hit "subscribe," you'll get to this page. Don't ask me why there are two options for this one blog, just pick one and hit "sign up to subscribe."
That will take you to this page, where you enter your email address. Complete the recaptcha and you're done!
You'll start getting ImmigrationProf blog posts in your email. Note: the default for Feedrabbit is to send you emails for every post unless the blog gets "busy." But you can also configure your subscription to send daily or weekly digests with full content or just the table of contents.
There are plenty of other RSS feed and digest options out there including Feedly, NewsBlur, and Inoreader. I spent some time poking around those three, but I found them more well-suited to folks who are following multiple blogs and want to view them all within a single app.
I hope this update helps. We definitely want to make accessing the blog as easy as possible for you!
Daniel Morales offers insights on the Labor and Political Economy (LPE) Project blog on the "crisis" along the U.S./Mexico border. His thesis:
"What we have, then, is the staging of a crisis by Republican politicians, with Democrats either actively assisting them in this endeavor or sitting in the audience, suspending disbelief. To understand this performance, we need to view it as part of the GOP’s pursuit of a suite of violent hierarchy-enforcing projects, including recent assaults on the LGBTQ+ community, women, K-12 education, affirmative action, and universities. These various projects all seek to address the increasing difficulty of reproducing in the next generation the settler colonial mindset, which, in various forms, has pervaded American society since colonization."
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has released information on U.S. Presidents that is tested on the civics exam for naturalization.
Eric Levitz on Vox writes about how tighter housing supplies due to immigration might contribute to anti-immigrant sentiment. The nub of his interesting analysis:
"[T]here is one area where many Democrats are making the politics of immigration more toxic without any help from Trump’s GOP: By suppressing housing construction through restrictive zoning laws, deep-blue municipalities are engineering a situation in which immigrants genuinely threaten the economic interests of native-born residents. If liberals want their country to be more welcoming of immigrants, they need to make their cities’ housing stock more accommodating of newcomers."