Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Photo by Jude Joffe-Block Courtesy of KJZZ
Jude Joffe-Block reports on KJZZ (Arizona) that a group of undocumented immigrants is launching a national bus tour from Arizona to promote immigrant rights and protest deportations. The riders are planning stops in Southern states that have passed restrictive immigration laws.
The bus tour's slogan is "No Papers, No Fear" and the ultimate destination is North Carolina and the Democratic National Convention. "They say they are motivated by their frustration with stalled immigration reform, the rising number of deportations under the Obama administration, and state laws like Arizona's SB 1070 that intend to crack down on illegal immigration."
UPDATE (August 1): The N.Y. Times Room for Debate offers contrasting perspectives on the No Papers, No Fear Bus Tour from
Pure and Simple Lawlessness John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law: By flouting the law, the UndocuBus riders are pursing the delegitimization of our sovereignty and our right to determine the terms on which others may join our political community.
Adding a Voice to the Chorus Jose Antonio Vargas, founder, Define American: By coming out, we are putting faces, names and stories to immigration, an issue that has been mostly framed in abstract numbers.
The Dangers of Riding the Bus Professor Michael A. Olivas (Houston): I know that self-disclosure is a courageous and longstanding tradition, but until we know the details, stay out of the public glare.
In Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in March affirmed the district court's summary judgment enjoining the City of Farmers Branch, Texas from enforcing an ordinance that required adults in rental housing to obtain an occupancy license that required proof of the occupant's citizenship or lawful immigration status. The court concluded that the ordinance's sole purpose was not to regulate housing but to exclude undocumented immigrants, specifically Latinos, from the City and that it was an impermissible regulation of immigration. The Fifth Circuit held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and presented an obstacle to federal authority on immigration.
The City has until August 15 to file an en banc brief, with the plaintiffs' brief due on August 30. Oral argument in the case is scheduled for September 19, 2012. For the Fifth Circuit's en banc order, see Download Farmer's Branch En Banc or click here.
The Fifth Circuit's grant of en banc review is interesting. The Court could have done nothing or allowed the original panel to amend its original opinion to address the application of the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States. The Fifth Circuit instead decided to rehear the case en banc.
It always is hazardous to try to guess why a circuit court took a case en banc, just as it is difficult to explain why the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a particular case. For example, when the Court granted cert in the health reform act case, many observers incorrectly speculated that the Supreme Court was going to strike down the entire law.
Still, it does seem fair to surmise that a majority of active Fifth Circuit judges believed that the issues raised by the Farmers Branch law were important enough to justify en banc review. A majority also probably thought that the issues were likely to arise again, a reasonable likelihood given that these kind of local immigration ordinances are popping up with regularity. Importantly, local immigration enforcement ordinances raise slightly different issues than those raised by state immigration enforcement laws like that at issue in Arizona v. United States.
My instinct is that, besides the issues being important and capable of repitition, the Fifth Circuit wanted to be one of the first courts to address how Arizona v. United States applies to local immigration ordinances like Farmers Branch's.
In a brief filed in federal court, Indiana Attorney General Gregory Zoeller acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States striking down three of four sections of Arizona’s immigration law as unconstitutional means portions of Indiana’s immigration law dealing with warrantless arrests cannot be defended.
Zoeller noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that state laws authorizing local law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests of people for immigration violations are unconstitutional. Portions of Senate Enrolled Act 590, Indiana’s immigration law that is now under legal challenge, are preempted, or overridden, by federal law, Zoeller said.
For support for the Indiana Attorney General's position from the National Immigration Forum, click here.
My beloved colleague, Professor Keith Aoki, died last year. Keith's final law review article -- Pastures of Peonage: Tracing the Feedback Loop of Food Through IP, GMOS, Trade, Immigration, and U.S. Agro-Maquilas -- has been published in a symposium issue of the Northeastern University Law Journal. The law review editors dedicated the symposium issue to Keith.
Always proud to collaborate, Keith's last article was co-authored with his friend Professor John Shuford and two of his wonderful research assistants, Esmeralda Soria and Emilio Camacho.
Here is an abstract of the article:
In this, the final article authored by the late Keith Aoki, we look at interactions among global agribusiness, economic globalization, and labor migration in North America, with specific focus on the United States and Mexico. We highlight the following phenomena: (1) the development of genetically engineered (GE) food crops as genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and global intellectual property (IP) protection for these crops and other plant genetic resources (PGR); (2) the increasing horizontal and vertical concentration of the agricultural seed-and-chemical, food processing, and food sale industries; and (3) the lack of fit between U.S. immigration law and policy, international trade regimes (such as NAFTA), and the realities of labor migration as related to U.S. agromaquilas in the food picking, processing, and packing industries.
We also work to identify and to outline how these seemingly disparate and disconnected phenomena work together in a feedback loop of food production-and-consumption related activities. Intellectual property rights in the realm of global agribusiness and international trade agreements support the oligopolies and oligopsonies in the global food supply chain, which in turn drive the preeminent immigration patterns and demographic changes of North America. This feedback loop of global agribusiness, IP law, international treaties and trade agreements, and immigration law and policy shifts the focus of food supply and the means of its production (including labor and the utilization of farmland) out of or away from Mexico and into or toward the United States.
Finally, we consider possibilities for progressive intervention and interruption, in order to reimagine the feedback loop. It is intended that this imagination serve to “push back” against the redundant cycle this article describes and its troubling impacts on the genetic diversity of food crops, the global food supply, small and independent farmers outside the United States, U.S. agromaquila labor migrants, and global labor rights and human rights.
In a UC Davis Law Review symposium in Professor Aoki's memory, his co-author John Shuford wrote "In the Key of Aoki: Immigration Regionalism (eco)" . Here is an abstract:
In 2010, Keith Aoki and I coined the phrase "immigration regionalism" to describe a proposed innovation in immigration law and policy reform. Our intention was that immigration regionalism would become Immigration Regionalism — a book-length articulation, argument, and analysis of the provocative idea — in hopes that others would take up, critique, expand, revise, and operationalize this notion, in other words: help to answer our query as to whether 'immigration regionalism is an idea whose time has come.' Thus, without Immigration Regionalism, and without Keith, immigration regionalism necessarily remains incomplete. Given Keith’s love of music, his talent and background as a musician, his distinctive collaborative style of riffing-and-jamming, and his prolific career forged by crossing genres and media, I regard the status of our work on immigration regionalism like the first song of an unfinished album: Immigration Regionalism. Perhaps just as important as what we discussed is what we did not discuss before Keith passed away on April 26, 2011. Specifically, we had not written about these basic topics: what is a region; how and why are regions defined and who defines them; what is regionalism; what is the connection between regions and regionalism; what meaning or influence might regionalism have in the context of immigration law and policy; and what might count as an immigration region. I want to begin to address those topics here. In paying my respects to the influence of Keith’s work and thought, it feels right to continue with the focus of our collaboration and to reflect upon and share with others the distinctiveness of how Keith worked. How Keith thought through and worked out ideas with others was utterly refreshing, both professionally and personally speaking, and it is part of what so many of us dearly miss. With this Article, I mean to help bring our unfinished album nearer to completion. I do so here both by sharing the genesis and formation of immigration regionalism and by discussing and employing the methods by which we worked. I use a song structure framework as the organizational framework for this piece, both in homage to Keith and in keeping with our style of collaboration, and I utilize eco — the recalling of previously played notes, though softly and in a different octave — as I work to advance this half-written song toward a coda (repeat) and fade. My hope is that Keith’s voice, as well as his thought, vision, and inspiration, remains resonant here and in any future work on immigration regionalism.
Who and Where the DREAMers Are: A Demographic Profile of Immigrants Who Might Benefit from the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action Initiative
The Immigration Policy Center today released, Who and Where the DREAMers Are: A Demographic Profile of Immigrants Who Might Benefit from the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action Initiative. This analysis breaks down the population potentially eligible for deferred action by nationality and age at the national and state level, as well as the congressional district level. The deferred action initiative, announced by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on June 15, offers a two-year, renewable reprieve from deportation to unauthorized immigrants who are under the age of 31; entered the United States before age 16; have lived continuously in the country for at least five years; have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant” misdemeanor, or three other misdemeanors; and are currently in school, graduated from high school, earned a GED, or served in the military.
Immigrants who meet these criteria are commonly referred to as “DREAMers” because they comprise most (though not all) of the individuals who meet the general requirements of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Not surprisingly, most DREAMers are Mexican and are found in big immigrant-receiving states with large unauthorized populations, such as California and Texas. Yet DREAMers are also found in virtually every state, and significant numbers are non-Mexicans who hail from all corners of the globe.
The majority of DREAMers are 15 or older and are therefore eligible to apply for deferred action right now. However, there are also large numbers who are 14 or younger and are not yet eligible to apply, but who will be eligible at some point in the future if the deferred action initiative remains in place. These sorts of demographic details are important as the federal government gears up to implement the deferred action initiative, and as community groups prepare to assist the populations they serve in taking advantage of this opportunity.
The Joe Arpaio civil rights trial in Phoenix, Arizona resumes today. It has been an interesting ride so far. Arpaio and Maricopa County will have a chance to put on a defense, with the trial likely to conclude on Wednesday or Thursday.
UPDATE (August 1): Plaintiffs rested their case on Tuesday.
Yesterday, the UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education and the National Labor College announced a plan to offer online courses for college credit to young immigrant and labor rights activists. National Dream University was inspired by an effort last year in Georgia to reach out to undocumented immigrant students barred from Georgia public area universities.
Immigration Article of the Day: The Effect of Trade and Migration on Income by Francesc Ortega and Giovanni Peri
The Effect of Trade and Migration on Income by Francesc Ortega and Giovanni Peri (University of California, Davis - Department of Economics)
Abstract: This paper explores the relationship between openness to trade and to immigration on income per person. To address endogeneity concerns we extend the instrumental-variables strategy first used by Frankel and Romer (1999). We show that distance (geographical and cultural) can be used to build a strong predictor of openness to immigration and to trade. Our instrumental-variables estimates establish a robust, positive effect of openness to immigration on long-run income per capita, using demanding econometric specifications that account for trade openness, the role of institutions, and early development. In contrast the positive effect of trade openness on income is not robust to controlling for the direct effects of geography, providing support for the critique by Rodriguez and Rodrik (2001). We also show that the main effect of migration operates through total factor productivity, consistent with a theory where immigration increases the variety of skills available for production. We provide further evidence in support of this mechanism by showing that the degree of diversity (by origin country) in migration flows has an additional positive effect on income. Finally, we also find that immigration increases (ethnic and linguistic) fractionalization, which are associated to negative effects on income per capita. However, the direct gains from greater skill diversity appear to be larger than the costs arising from increased fractionalization. We do not find evidence of increased income inequality due to openness to immigration or trade. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Immigration Article of the Day: Americans Without Papers, State Immigrant 'Attrition' Laws, and the Fourteenth Amendment by SHELDON NOVICK
ABSTRACT: State immigration laws aim at the removal of a class of persons, undocumented aliens, through “attrition by enforcement.” Sponsors of the attrition laws claim federal authorization for their efforts, which otherwise may violate the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws. The ultimate basis of the claim does not rest on the Constitution, but on a doctrine constructed in the nineteenth century, in the Chinese Exclusion Cases, contemporary with Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court then accepted a claim that Congress and the President had extra-constitutional power to expel a class of unwanted “aliens,” defined by their race. Congress in 1996 renewed the claim of power to deport even documented immigrants and naturalized citizens, and attempted to authorize state governments to share in the deportation power. State immigrant “attrition by enforcement” laws are the result. In Arizona v. United States, the S.B. 1070 case, the Supreme Court held that portions of the statute, a model for other state immigrant attrition laws, were not authorized but instead were preempted. The remaining state “attrition” schemes are still to be tested against the civil rights laws, however. The Court in modern times has greatly circumscribed the supposed, unlimited power to deport aliens claimed in the Chinese Exclusion Cases, and one hopes Congress and the courts will abandon the dubious doctrines announced in those opinions and do away with “Juan Crow.”
From the California Immigrant Policy Center:
Jonatan Martinez is one of the walkers with the Campaign for an American Dream - the walk from SF to DC for the Dream Act and immigration reform. (While passing through Sacto in March, CAD helped us lobby for the TRUST Act.) Today, Jonatan's father was stopped at a checkpoint in Georgia, arrested, and is now being detained in a local jail in an ICE hold. Please take a moment to sign a petition now calling for Jonatan's dad to be released: http://action.dreamactivist.org/georgia/antonio
Over the years, I have had the privilege to work with a number of dedicated, creative Catholic nuns on behalf of immigrants and refugees. I am deeply concerned over the attack on the progressive nature of their work and their discussions.
Laurie Goodstein writes in tne NY Times:
American nuns are preparing to assemble in St. Louis next week for a pivotal meeting at which they will try to decide how to respond to a scathing critique of their doctrinal loyalty issued this spring by the Vatican — a report that has prompted Roman Catholics across the country to rally to the nuns’ defense.
The nuns will be weighing whether to cooperate with the three bishops appointed by the Vatican to supervise the overhaul of their organization, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents about 80 percent of women’s Catholic religious orders in the United States.
The Leadership Conference says it is considering at least six options that range from submitting graciously to the takeover to forming a new organization independent of Vatican control, as well other possible courses of action that lie between those poles.
What is in essence a power struggle between the nuns and the church’s hierarchy had been building for decades, church scholars say. At issue are questions of obedience and autonomy, what it means to be a faithful Catholic and different understandings of the Second Vatican Council.
Sister Pat Farrell, the president of the Leadership Conference, said in an interview that the Vatican seems to regard questioning as defiance, while the sisters see it as a form of faithfulness.
“We have a differing perspective on obedience,” Sister Farrell said. “Our understanding is that we need to continue to respond to the signs of the times, and the new questions and issues that arise in the complexities of modern life are not something we see as a threat.”
These same conflicts are gripping the Catholic Church at large. Nearly 50 years after the start of Vatican II, which was intended to open the church to the modern world and respond to the “signs of the times,” the church is gravely polarized between a progressive wing still eager for change and reform and a traditionalist flank focused on returning to what it sees as doctrinal fundamentals.
The sisters have been caught in the riptide. Most of them have spent their lives serving the sick, the poor, children and immigrants — and not engaged in battles over theology. But when some sisters after Vatican II began to question church prohibitions on women serving as priests, artificial birth control or the acceptance of same-sex relationships, their religious orders did not shut down such discussion or treat it as apostasy. In fact, they have continued to insist on their right to debate and challenge church teaching, which has resulted in the Vatican’s reproof. Read more...
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Albor Ruiz writes in the New York Daily News:
Recently both Latinos and general voters were polled by Wall Street Journal/NBC/Telemundo. The research confirmed once again what many of us already knew: Latino voters see immigration as very important. It also ratified that even if for other voters immigration is not as important, they are far more open to practical solutionis than what Romney and Republicans believe.
According to the poll, when Latino voters were asked if they could tell the presidential candidates one thing, what would that be, “immigration reform” was the second most popular answer, closely behind “fix the economy.”
Even more to the point, when asked whether President Obama or Romney would do a better job “dealing with immigration,” 55% said Obama and only 16% chose Romney. Read more...
Professor Geoffrey Hoffman (Houston) on Jurist analyzes what the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States has to say about the Obama administration's deferred action policy for undocumented immigrants brough to this country as minors.
This L.A. Times blog story nicely summarizes recent legal developmnents in Europe in which various nations have been less than generous to gays and lesbians seeking asylum who claim that they fled persecution on account of their sexual orientation in their native countries. Refugee experts Professor James Hathaway (Michigan) and Fatma Marouf (UNLV) are quoted in the post. Who says that Europe is more "civilized" than the United States?
Saturday, July 28, 2012
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
San Francisco's new archbishop has risen to the top of the Catholic hierarchy by tackling in the most strident terms the hot-button issues facing the church.
After California voters banned same-sex marriage in 2008, Salvatore Cordileone told a Catholic radio show that "the ultimate attack of the Evil One is the attack on marriage."
Organizers of Proposition 8 said Cordileone was key to getting the measure before voters. . . .
But Cordileone also has taken more liberal stances on immigration and the death penalty. He favors a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and opposed the federal Secure Communities program to require local law enforcement to send the fingerprints of arrestees to federal officials and checked against an immigration database.
He was one of the early supporters of Proposition 34, the measure on the November ballot that would ban the death penalty and replace it with life without parole. Read more...
From Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN):
Dear Friends, Version en Español esta más abajo.
Housekeepers nationwide need your help. If you’ve ever stayed at a Hyatt and had a good night’s sleep, you have a housekeeper to thank for your fresh sheets and fluffed pillows. But invisible to hotel guests is the pain and hardship that housekeepers endure to provide us with an atmosphere of comfort and luxury.
That’s why this week Hyatt housekeepers are launching a global boycott of Hyatt. Please take two seconds to support them by voting Hyatt the Worst Hotel Employer in America.
Why is Hyatt the worst? Hyatt has replaced career housekeepers with temp workers earning minimum wage. Hyatt housekeepers have heavy workloads that can lead to debilitating pain and injuries. Hyatt has fired women shortly after they have spoken out about abuse and indignities at work. And Hyatt even turned heat lamps on workers protesting these conditions during a brutal Chicago heat wave.
Worldwide, we are calling on two million people to take a stand and Vote Hyatt Worst. By joining together, we will urge Hyatt to change its ways.
Hyatt Hurts! They’re the Worst!
It has been an interesting week in Arizona as Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's racial profiling trial continued. The case has all the ingredients for a television movie, with a famous Sheriff standing trial for civil rights violations, celebrity children (G. Gordon Liddy's son is a defense lawyer in the case), and more. With the November election fast approaching, Arpaio might be getting a bit concerned about his prospects of relection as Sheriff. As the trial unfolds, public opinion about him and his methods might be changing for the worse.
Summarizing testimony in which Arpaio's subordinates seek to distance themselves and the operations of the Maricopa County Shjeriff's Office from the controversial Sheriff, Laurie Roberts penned a column in the Arizona Republic stating that
"Put another way, 80-year-old Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is really more prop than cop, like those blow-up dolls that drivers used to install in their passenger seat so they could sneak into the carpool lane." (emphasis added).
Among other things, the evidence so far shows that Sheriff Arpaio passed on to subordinates racially insenitive constituent complaints -- with the most offensive words and phrases highlighted, denied that he should be held accountable for statements in his book (Joe's Law) that Mexican immigrants refuse to assimilate ("my co-author wrote that," was his response), and that real people felt humiliated and embarrassed by what they believed to be race-based stops.
By the way, the claim that Mexicans fail to assimilate long has been a stock argument in the efforts to curtail immigration to the United States from Mexico. I addressed that argument in an article in the California Law Review ("Melting Pot" or "Ring of Fire"? Assimilation and the Mexican American Experienece) in 1997, and analyzed the history in the United States of claims that different waves of immigrants, including Germans, Irish, Chinese, and Mexicans allegedly "failed to assimilate."
Even if his relection is in jeopardy, Sheriff Joe will not go without a fight. Americans for Sheriff Joe is attempting to raise more money for the Arpaio relection campaign. Millions of out-of-state dollars reportedly have flowed into the campaign. The list of "Enemies of Sheriff Joe" on the Americans for Sheriff Joe website include most of the people of color in the administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Cecelia Munoz in the White House, and Thomas Perez, head of the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice.
Never backing away from controversy -- and perhaps looking for it, On the eve of his latest trial, Sheriff Arpaio held a press conference announcing that his volunteer "posse" of "investigators" concluded that President Obama's Hawaii birth certificate was forged and he thereforre was not eligible to be President. Arpaio had previously announced in March that there was "probable cause" to believe that the President's birth certificate was a forgery.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Lopez Lomong (Men’s 5000M), born in southern Sudan
Khatuna Lorig (Archery), former Soviet Union
Meb Keflezighi (Marathon), Eritrea
Janet Cherobon-Bawcom (Women’s 10,000M), Kenya
Nick Delpopolo (Judo), Montenegro
More than 50 million foreign tourists travel to the United States each year.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
For Leon Goldberg, the used clothes piling up at the lost-and-found at the New York Marriott Marquis hotel at Times Square are the latest sign that tourists are spending.
"People come over with empty suitcases, and we see them leave with full suitcases," while abandoning their older garments, said Goldberg, director of sales and marketing at the 1,957-room hotel.
Spending by overseas visitors on everything from airfares to hotel stays climbed 8.1 percent over the 12 months ended in May to $13.9 billion, figures from the Commerce Department show. The increase was almost double the 4.2 percent gain in total exports.
Purchases by foreign tourists count as exports, which have been among the mainstays of the three-year economic expansion.
More Latin American and Asian visitors are offsetting a slowdown in trips from Europe, where a weaker euro is making travel to the United States more expensive. The pickup in tourism, which Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called a "bright spot" in the economy, is benefiting companies such as San Francisco Shuttle Tours, Marriott International Inc., City Pass and bolstering the labor market. Read more....
ImmigrationProf previously has reported on the U.S. immigration woes of the exciting professional boxer Alfredo Angulo, whose last fight was an exciting 2011 technical knockout loss to James Kirkland.
Gabriel Montoya on MaxBoxing reports that Angulo has been in immigration detention in El Centro, California since January 2012. His attorneys reportedly hope to clear things up in immigration court soon.