Monday, February 28, 2011

Latest Immigration Scholarship from SSRN

Here is the latest immigration scholarship from the Social Science Research Network (  

"Mexican Families & United States Immigration Reform" Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, p. 101, 2010 Valparaiso University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-03 BERNARD TRUJILLO, Valparaiso University School of Law.  ABSTRACT:  This essay argues that we should understand U.S. immigration policy as a series of bi-national relationships rather than as a single, user-indifferent interface. Applying this regulatory approach to Mexican labor migration (i) allows a more accurate definition of the migrating person in the context of the family he seeks to support; and (ii) highlights the United States’ duty to provide for Mexican families.

"The Latino/a Condition" Richard Delgado, THE LATINO/A CONDITION, Second Edition, New York University Press, 2011 Seattle University School of Law Research Paper No. 11-04 RICHARD DELGADO, Seattle University School of Law.  JEAN STEFANCIC, Seattle University School of Law.  ABSTRACT: In the last forty-five years, immigration reform has brought tens of millions of new immigrants from Latin American countries to the United States. Since critical race theory pioneers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic compiled the first edition of The Latino/a Condition in 1998, the population has continued to grow exponentially, while scholarship on Latinos/as has grown just as quickly. The second edition of The Latino/a Condition brings together a wide range of new and classic Latino and Latina voices from the fields of law, sociology, history, media studies, and politics to address questions such as: Who exactly is a Latino? Who is Hispanic? Who is Chicano? How did Spanish-speaking people come to live in the United States? Is the Latino family a source of strength or oppression? What about Catholicism? Should the United States try to control Latino immigration, and is this even possible? What are the most common media stereotypes of Latino people? Are Latinos white? What role does law play in the racial construction of the group? Collecting a wealth of perspectives on these and other issues central to the Latino/a experience, Delgado and Stefancic offer a broad portrait of Latino/a life in the United States at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

"Border Exceptionalism in the Era of Moving Borders" Fordham Urban Law Journal, Vol. 38, pp.129-153, 2010 UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-06 JENNIFER M. CHACÓN, University of California, Irvine School of Law.  ABSTRACT:  Historically, the courts have indicated that the tasks of enacting and enforcing immigration laws are federal functions. The federal agents who police the nation’s borders have exceptionally broad policing authority - an authority that the courts have justified based on the special need to secure the nation’s borders from a variety of threats. Part I of this essay will summarize the Supreme Court jurisprudence that has endorsed exceptionally broad policing powers not only at international borders, but also in a much wider swath of immigration enforcement contexts. Over the past decade, as a consequence of the expansion in the number of immigration enforcement agents at the federal level and the rapidly increasing number of sub-federal agents involved in immigration control efforts, immigration enforcement has become a part of the everyday fabric of policing in the United States. Therefore, after summarizing the broad powers granted to police in the immigration enforcement context as a result of the Court’s jurisprudence of border exceptionalism, Part II of this essay will consider the implications of this jurisprudence in light of the recent trends that have transformed the nature and scope of immigration policing. This Part concludes that existing law is insufficient to protect against racial profiling and unreasonable police arrests and detentions, and that the implications of these recent developments extend well beyond the sphere of immigration enforcement.

"The Removability of Non-Citizen Parents and the Best Interests of Citizen Children: How to Balance Competing Imperatives in the Context of Removal Proceedings?" Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 11-21 PATRICK JAMES GLEN, Georgetown University Law Center.  ABSTRACT:  The massive influx of illegal immigrants over the preceding decades has combined with the United States’ jus soli citizenship regime to produce a growing class of removable aliens: non-citizen parents of United States citizen children. The removability of parents obviously places the citizen children in the unfortunate position of having to leave their country of citizenship behind to accompany the parents, or arrange for living situations within the United States, perhaps with a relative, but be separated from their parents. The compelling interests raised by the removability of parents in such circumstances have given rise to distinct forms of relief under domestic legal systems. The United Kingdom, in a recent decision by its Supreme Court, has held that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in determining whether the removal of the parent would be proportionate. Likewise, the United States provides for certain types of relief from removal for the parents of United States citizen children. Yet neither regime is entirely satisfactory. The United Kingdom’s approach is unduly biased towards non-removability, whereas the standards for establishing relief from removal in the United States are onerous and will be rarely met in practice. The purpose of this article is to propose a balancing of the interests that takes a realistic look both at the compelling interest citizen children have to remain in their country as part of a family unit and the competing interests of the state in a fully and fairly functioning immigration system. Such balancing is liable to make all parties unhappy - not every non-citizen parent should be permitted to remain simply on the fact of that parentage, and, conversely, not every removable parent should be removed simply because they are present illegally - yet it is the only feasible option to a problem that is only likely to grow in the coming decades.

"Italian Center-Right Parties and Immigration: A Political Patronage Approach" University of Michigan Undergraduate Research Journal, p. 32, 2010 TOMMASO PAVONE, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor - Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.  ABSTRACT:  In this paper, I forward a theoretical framework linking the center-right’s immigration rhetoric-policy divide with the Italian culture of political patronage, two topics which, to the author’s knowledge, have never been analyzed in tandem. I extend the selectorate theory to show how Italian center-right politicians use political patronage to compensate for moderate immigration policy adoption. I then argue that xenophobic voters face a collective action problem when voting for their center-right representative. Finally, I use multidimensional spatial representations to model the theoretical arguments developed in the paper and draw additional inferences. This political patronage approach is preferable over alternative theories because it can be generalized to explain other issue-driven rhetoric-policy divides in Italian politics.

ADJUDICATION BY FIAT: THE NEED FOR PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN ATTORNEY GENERAL REVIEW OF BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS DECISIONS LAURA S. TRICE.  ABSTRACT:  The Attorney General enjoys broad authority to certify to himself and review de novo decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Though sparingly used, the certification power is controversial, in part because it permits the Attorney General to announce new rules and overturn longstanding precedent without meaningful process. Under current regulations, the Attorney General is not required to provide even basic procedural protections in certified cases, and he has issued decisions without giving the parties notice of the issues under review or an opportunity for briefing. This Note argues that review of BIA decisions without meaningful procedural safeguards implicates serious due process concerns, raises questions about the quality and accuracy of Attorney General decisions, and undermines the legitimacy and acceptability of immigration adjudication. To address these concerns, this Note proposes that the Attorney General promulgate regulations that require meaningful, adversarial participation by the parties and provide a transparent means of soliciting input from interested amici on issues of broad significance.

"Unforgiving of Those Who Trespass Against U.S.: State Laws Criminalizing Immigration Status" KARLA MARI MCKANDERS, University of Tennessee College of Law.  ABSTRACT:  Since around 2005, states and localities have been using criminal trespass laws to target undocumented immigrants for unlawful presence. Specifically, in April 2010, Arizona passed SB 1070: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. SB 1070 creates crimes involving trespassing by “illegal aliens” and harboring or concealing unlawful aliens. This paper argues that state trespass laws that criminalize unlawful presence of immigrants are unconstitutional regulations of immigration and are a preempted exercise of state power. In evaluating the constitutionality of state trespass laws that criminalize immigration status, this paper proceeds in three parts. The first part of the paper details how as a sovereign nation, U.S. laws have excluded undesirable categories of people from admission and have attempted to criminalize specific immigration violations. The second part explains and critiques the sections of SB 1070 that create separate state criminal offenses for violating federal immigration laws - namely unlawful presence or criminal trespass. The third part analyzes the constitutionality of the criminal provisions of SB 1070 that make it a state crime to be unlawfully present in the state in relation to specific provisions of the INA and federal immigration policy. The paper concludes that state trespass laws that criminalize unlawful presence of immigrants and attempt to delegate immigration enforcement to state officials are unconstitutional regulations of immigration and are therefore a preempted exercise of state power.

"Emigration and Democracy" IZA Discussion Paper No. 5496 FREDERIC DOCQUIER, Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), CREAM, Centre for Research on Environmental Appraisal & Management, UK, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).  ELISABETTA LODIGIANI, University of Milan, University of Milan - Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano (LdA).  HILLEL RAPOPORT, Bar Ilan University - Department of Economics, Stanford University.  MAURICE SCHIFF, World Bank, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), University of Chile.  ABSTRACT:  Migration is an important and yet neglected determinant of institutions. The paper documents the channels through which emigration affects home country institutions and considers dynamic-panel regressions for a large sample of developing countries. We find that emigration and human capital both increase democracy and economic freedom. This implies that unskilled (skilled) emigration has a positive (ambiguous) impact on institutional quality. Simulations show an impact of skilled emigration that is generally positive, significant for a few countries in the short run and for many countries in the long run once incentive effects of emigration on human capital formation are accounted for.


Books, Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Latest Immigration Scholarship from SSRN: