Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Georgetown University's Center for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) announces that it is now accepting applications for its annual fellowship program in clinical legal education. CALS will offer one lawyer a two year teaching fellowship (July 2013 June 2015), providing a unique opportunity to learn how to teach law in a clinical setting. At CALS, our two fellows and faculty members work as colleagues, sharing responsibilities for designing and teaching classes, supervising law students in their representation of clients, selecting and grading students, administering the clinic, and all other matters. In addition, the fellow will undertake independent legal scholarship, conducting the research and writing to produce a law review article of publishable quality. This fellowship is particularly suitable for lawyers with some degree of practice experience who now want to embark upon careers in law teaching. Most of our previous fellows are now teaching law or have done so for substantial portions of their careers. Since 1995, CALS has specialized in immigration law, specifically in asylum practice, and our docket focuses on presenting asylum claims in immigration court. Applicants with experience in U.S. immigration law will therefore be given preference.
The fellow must be a member of a bar at the start of the fellowship period. The fellow will receive full tuition and fees in the LL.M. program at Georgetown University, and a stipend in excess of $53,000 in each of the two years. On successful completion of the requirements, the Fellow will be granted the degree of Master of Laws (Advocacy) with distinction.
Recent holders of this fellowship include Mary Brittingham (1995-97), Andrea Goodman (1996-98), Michele Pistone (1997-99), Rebecca Story (1998-2000), Virgil Wiebe (1999-2001), Anna Marie Gallagher (2000-02), Regina Germain (2001-2003), Dina Francesca Haynes (2002-2004), Diane Uchimiya (2003-2005), Jaya Ramji-Nogales (2004-2006), Denise Gilman (2005-2007), Susan Benesch (2006-2008), Kate Aschenbrenner (2007-2009), Anjum Gupta (2008-2010), Alice Clapman (2009-2011) and Geoffrey Heeren (2010-2012). The current Fellows are Heidi Altman and Laila Hlass.
The faculty members directing CALS are Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip Schrag.
To apply, send a resume, an official or unofficial law school transcript, a writing sample, and a detailed statement of interest (approximately 5 pages). The materials must arrive by December 3, 2012. The statement should address: a) why you are interested in this fellowship; b) what you can contribute to the Clinic; c) your experience with asylum and other immigration cases; d) your professional or career goals for the next five or ten years; e) your reactions to the Clinic's goals and teaching methods as described on its website; and e) anything else that you consider pertinent. Address your application to Directors, Center for Applied Legal Studies, Georgetown Law, 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 332, Washington, D.C. 20001, or electronically to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has announced that, to the extent that Tropical Storm/Hurricane Sandy (Sandy) impacts law enforcement operations and/or the storm triggers the need for an officially ordered evacuation or an emergency government response, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) highest priorities are to promote life-saving and life-sustaining activities, the safe evacuation of people who are leaving the impacted area, the maintenance of public order, the prevention of the loss of property to the extent possible, and the speedy recovery of the impacted region.
As such, to the extent that Sandy impacts law enforcement operations and/or the storm triggers the need for an officially ordered evacuation or an emergency government response, there will be no immigration enforcement initiatives associated with evacuations or sheltering related to Sandy, including the use of checkpoints for immigration purposes in impacted areas during an evacuation.
For details, click the link above.
The oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Chaidez v. United States (for a preview of the argument, click here) was moved from Tuesday to Thursday due to Hurricane Sandy. The CrImmigration blog is having an on-line symposium on the case, including contributions by Professor Yolanda Vázquez (Cincinnati), Maurice Hew (Texas Southern), Neil Fleischer (Cincinnati attorney), Christopher Lasch (University of Denver’s criminal defense clinic), Craig Siegel (Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP), Carlos M. García (García & García Attorneys at Law, PLLC), Rebecca Sharpless (Miami), two attorneys from the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, Claudia Valenzuela (NIJC), Sarah Rose Weinman, and Michael Vastine (St. Thomas), Dawn Seibert (Immigrant Defense Project), and Elizabeth Wydra (Constitutional Accountability Center).
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Allison Brown Tirres's new article (as KJ posted earlier today) reminds us of the ongoing need to examine the intersection between property and immigration law. (As you may be aware, next summer, AALS is hosting a conference/workshop that touches on this very topic).
Many are aware that states passed various alien land Laws in the early 20th century in order to prohibit immigrants who were not eligible for citizenship from owning property. As Keith Aoki argued in his article, No Right to Own? The Early Twentienth Century 'Alien Land Laws' as a Prelude to Internment, many of these alien land laws (such as Califoria's) were passed specifically to prevent Japanese (who, like other Asians, were racially not eligible to become citizens under the racialized naturalization laws in effect in the U.S. between 1870 and 1952) from owning agricultural land.
Filipinos were also affected by alien land laws, but in a different way. Like many Asians Americans during the early 20th century, Filipinos were also racially ineligible to become citizens. Congress made exceptions to these racial bars for Filipinos such as in 1918 and in 1940 by allowing them to file for citizenship based on military service. For example, the Naturalization Law of 1940 provided that, “The right to become a naturalized citizen under the provisions of this chapter shall extend only to white persons, persons of African nativity or descent, and descendants of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere; Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent the naturalization of native-born Filipinos having the honorable service in the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard as specified in section 724." Absent military service, Filipinos continued to be racially ineligible for citizenship, as the Supreme Court decided in Toyota v. United States, 268 U.S. 402, 411 (1945).
Notably, Filipinos were also barred from citizenship for another reason: they were not "aliens" and therefore, could not naturalize. In Toyota, the Supreme Court noted that after the U.S. acquired the Philippines (and Puerto Rico) in 1898, Filipinos became Philippine citizens and who were entitled to protection of the United States. Importantly, Filipinos owed allegiance to the United States and were thus not aliens. Instead, they were U.S. nationals.
The convergence of citizenship, nationality and property rights in the Filipino American context became apparent in the case of Alfafara v. Fross, 26 Cal. 2d 358 (1945). In this case, the California Supreme Court relied on the Supreme Court's holding that Filipinos were not aliens to conclude that Filipinos were allowed to own land in California despite the state's alien land law. Specifically, because Filipinos were nationals (and thus not aliens), the prohibition against land ownership did not apply to them.
After the San Francisco Giants won the World Series, slugger Pablo Sandoval was named the Series Most Valuable Player. "Panda" as he is affectionately called by teammates and San Francisco fans is proud of being a native of Venezuela. Turns out that nine players from Venezuela were on the Giants and opponent Detroit Tigers teams.
From the Associated Press:
On a ragged baseball diamond, its grass tall and infield dirt pockmarked, nearly 200 boys practice for hours every day. Many of them are inspired by the example of Detroit Tigers slugger Miguel Cabrera, who learned the game on this very field.
The baseball school in the poor neighborhood where Cabrera grew up is one of many across Venezuela, a web for training young ballplayers that has made the country an emerging power in Major League Baseball.
A record nine Venezuelans are on the rosters of the Tigers and the San Francisco Giants in this year's World Series. And the players have been giving Venezuelans plenty to cheer about with feats like Pablo Sandoval's three-homer game and Gregor Blanco's diving catches in left field for the Giants.
Baseball has long been Venezuela's top sport and a national passion, producing such greats as Dave Concepcion and Hall of Famer Luis Aparicio. But it has blossomed like never before the past decade and sent ever larger contingents to the major leagues from a large and well-organized system of youth leagues and baseball schools.
On this season's opening-day rosters, the 66 Venezuelans were second only to the 95 from the Dominican Republic for foreign-born players. For the World Series, the nine Venezuelans, nine Dominicans and two Puerto Ricans on the two teams produced a record 20 foreign-born players for the championship, surpassing the previous high of 16. Read more....
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is making a push for the Latino vote. His campaign recently released a Spanish-language television ad in which Romney promises to solve various immigration problems, including the need for a "permanent solution" for young undocumented immigrants. Some immigrant groups, however, argue that the ad is misleading. The main issue is Romney's claim that he worked across party lines in Massachusetts made in the context of a discussion on immigration, suggesting that he would work in a bipartisan manner on the issue when elected president.
Click here for a fact check of the new ad. Romney's immigration rhetoric has softened somewhat since he first started campaigning in the Republican primaries. On one hand, he's spoken of "self-deportation"—driving undocumented immigrants out of the country by removing incentives to stay. On the other hand, during the second presidential debate, he promised to pass a reform bill during his first year in office.
The ad, titled "Solutions for Immigration" opens with a segment on President Obama's failed promise to pass immigration reform, and goes on to say that if Mitt Romney becomes president, he will work to gain bipartisan support for reform.
Do you think that Mitt Romney, once a champion of "self deportation," would be better on immigration than President Obama? Let us know readers. We will accept guest posts on this topic.
Courtesy of the Pedro Rios for Assembly website
There is an interesting campaign story emerging from a hotly contested race for a California Assembly seat in the heart of the Central Valley of California. Republican Pedro Rios' candidacy has sparked controversy after it was publicly revealed that he came to the United States at age 9 as an undocumented immigrant. He later was granted amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and became a U.S. citizen.
Rios is running against Democrat Rudy Salas in the 32nd Assembly District. According to a story in the Bakersfield Californian, in his ads in English and in Spanish as well as on his website, Rios tells his story about immigrating to the U.S. from a small town in Sinaloa, Mexico. Once here, he worked in the fields, educated himself, joined the National Guard, became a teacher, served two terms on the Delano City Council, and is now a small business owner. Rios had not reveealed, however, that he once was undocumented.
On immigration, Pedro Rios opposes the DREAM Act as a political "band aid" while his opponent Rudy Salas supports it.
Interestingly, a recent poll found that, In the nearly two decades since Californians voted to punish undocumented immigrants through Proposition 187, the state's electorate has become increasingly tolerant toward undocumented immigrants, although it remains tough on border enforcement. ImmigrationProf will be watching to see how Pedro Rios does on election day in a region known for conservatism.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Immigration Article of the Day: Property Outliers: Non-Citizens, Property Rights and State Power by ALLISON BROWNELL TIRRES
"Property Outliers: Non-Citizens, Property Rights and State Power" Georgetown Immigration Law Review, Forthcoming by ALLISON BROWNELL TIRRES, DePaul University College of Law
ABSTRACT: In the last decade, state and local governments have passed thousands of laws attempting to regulate immigrants within their boundaries. These regulations have been the subject of much litigation, as well as media attention and legal scholarship. Legal scholars have written extensively on the criminal and employment provisions of such laws, as well as on the general question of whether states can or should have any role to play in immigration law. Missing from most accounts, however, is attention to another common focus of these state and local regulations: property law. When we look at the role that property plays in state immigration regulation, we uncover some surprising and troubling truths. The area is a legal muddle, characterized by incoherent and inconsistent court rulings. These inconsistencies leave significant gaps in the protection of non-citizen property rights, not only for unauthorized immigrants but also for legally resident ones. This article draws much-needed attention to these gaps. It compares the two major areas of state regulation of non-citizen property: real estate and landlord/tenant law. A comparison of case law in these two areas demonstrates that the courts have failed in the last century to create a coherent framework for the assessing the relationship between non-citizens, property, and state power. I argue that the resulting inconsistencies stem, in part, from the failure of the courts to take into account a property perspective. I suggest what a property perspective would look like, drawing in particular on the core principles of alienability, equality and non-discrimination. This article posits that alienage law is a property outlier, since few of the norms of modern property law have been applied to non-citizens. We should be concerned about this fact, not only because of what it says about the weakness of non-citizen rights but also because of its implications for the failed modernization of property law.
At the last Immigration Law Teachers Workshop at Hofstra Law School, a number of professors noted that it would be helpful to have access to immigration law syllabi and exams. Although there are syllabi and old exams posted to the Immigration Law Professors Blog (hehttp://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/syllabus_bank/re), those resources need to be updated and expanded.
With the end of the semester and exams fast approaching (!), we wanted to go ahead and get the ball started. Also, a number of you may be teaching Immigration Law and/or other related courses next semester and may be thinking about your syllabus.
Thus, we ask that those of you who are willing to share your exams and syllabi to please send them to either Rose Cuison Villazor at email@example.com or David Thronson at firstname.lastname@example.org. These resources will be placed in an “Exam Bank” and “Syllabus Bank” that will be a password-protected site (to be housed at the University of California at Davis School of Law). (Later, we will send information about how to get the password for the site).
In order to further protect these resources, particularly the exams, we will require that those who want to access these resources agree that they will only use the resources for their own benefit (to prepare their exams, to prepare their syllabus for their own classes) and, importantly, to not disseminate them to their students or otherwise make them publicly available.
We would appreciate receiving either exams or syllabi or both by November 9 (two weeks) at 5 PM EST so that we would have enough time to organize, upload and share them with those who need them.
If you have any questions about the above, please do not hesitate to contact either of us.
David Thronson and Rose Cuison Villazor
Julia Preston of the New York Times reports that last month the Pentagon reopened a program to recruit legal immigrants with special language and medical skills. The small program will enlist roughly 1,500 recruits annually for two years. Military officials said the pilot program brought a well-educated and skilled cohort of immigrants into the armed services. The program is open to immigrants on temporary visas, who otherwise would not be eligible to enlist. It allows them to naturalize as U.S. citizens quickly, in most cases at the end of basic training. Most immigrants on temporary visas must wait years — for some nationalities, more than a decade — to become citizens.
In YES HE CAN: A REPLY TO PROFESSORS DELAHUNTY AND YOO, Gary Endelman and Cyrus Mehta defend the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. As previously reported on ImmigrationProf, Professors Robert Delahunty and John Yoo in a recent article question the constitutionality of DACA. Endelman and Mehta take Delahunty and Yoo on. Readers judge who the winners are.
Friday, October 26, 2012
This webinar is intended for legal service providers who are new to the area of family-based immigration and will focus on the basics of the family visa petition. We will cover which relatives can qualify for family-based immigration and how they fit, and move around the preference categories with events such as marriage, divorce or the naturalization of the petitioner. The discussion will include an overview of the Child Status Protection Act and the rules applying to widows and other beneficiaries when the qualifying relative dies. We will also review how priority dates are established, lost and recaptured, as well as the role of the visa bulletin and what happens when the visa availability date advances or regresses. The webinar will conclude with a brief introduction to the second step in the family immigration process, the adjustment of status under INA 245(a).
Presenters: Lourdes Martinez, Staff Attorney, and Erin Quinn, Staff Attorney
Date: November 2, 2012
Time: 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm Pacific Time
MCLE: 1.5 CA
Register by: 10/31/12
Call for Commentary to Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices on Employer I-9 Self-Audits
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices of the U.S. Department of Justice—Civil Rights Division is accepting comments as it prepares to develop guidelines on the topic of employer self-audits of I-9 forms. Comments can be submitted by email to: Osc.Engagement@usdoj.gov<mailto:Osc.Engagement@usdoj.gov>, and must be received by Friday, November 9, 2012.
The Dolores Street Community Services, Impact Fund, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Project, National Employment Law Project, National Immigration Law Center, and Women’s Employment Law Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law encourage advocates for low-wage immigrant workers to timely submit comments to the OSC.
The OSC is responsible for enforcing the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee that is based on an individual’s national origin or citizenship status. The statute also prohibits unfair documentary practices during the employment eligibility verification process (I-9 verification process) on the basis of citizenship status or national origin, and retaliation or intimidation on these grounds.
Employers may re-verify, or ask workers to produce their I-9 work authorization documentation after initial verification at time of hire, in limited circumstances. These circumstances include situations where work authorization documents had an expiration date at the time of hire (except for documentation of legal permanent residents (LPRs), whose authorization does not expire), an ICE I-9 audit, or if an employer discovers that I-9 forms or accompanying documents for some employers are missing or incomplete during the course of conducting a self-audit of all I-9 forms in a non-discriminatory manner.
Some employers, however, may use the opportunity to conduct I-9 self-audits in a retaliatory fashion after employees have filed workplace-based complaints, or in the midst of labor disputes or collective bargaining. Employers may also provide little to no notice to workers about the reason for the I-9 re-verification, and fail to provide a reasonable period of time for employees to respond to the self-audit. Through suggested comments, we urge OSC to fulfill its core mission of protecting workers’ rights by supporting the robust protection of labor standards.
Key Points to Raise with OSC:
· OSC should warn employers of the labor and employment law consequences of self-initiated I-9 audits in response to employee complaints or organizing. Employer retaliation through the use of I-9 re-verification may often occur in workplaces involving other forms of workplace violations and abuse. Federal and state labor and employment statutes prohibit retaliation by employers against employees for engaging in protected activity. One additional way that OSC can do so is by incorporating questions into hotline intake that would elicit from employers whether or not the workplace is currently the site of an employment dispute or worker complaint.
· OSC should warn employers against verifying the entire workplace to avoid liability for anti-discrimination complaints under INA or other federal or state civil rights protections, particularly if there is an underlying employment dispute.
· OSC should warn employers that asking for forms of documentation other than those required by law, specifying which documents are acceptable, asking for documentation when it has already done so, or refusing to accept documentation that is legitimate on its face, may be considered discrimination and/or document abuse under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b.
· OSC should engage in multi-agency collaboration to protect the rights of all workers. OSC should thus adopt a multi-agency approach to combating employer retaliation, and work in collaboration other federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Labor, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which recognize the importance of enforcing labor standards for all workers regardless of immigration status. See Revised Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites (Dec. 7, 2011), available here.
· OSC should advise employers to provide employees with sufficient notice and opportunity to inspect and correct I-9 forms in question. Consistent with safe harbor regulations adopted by the EEOC and Social Security Administration for no-match letters, OSC should recommend that employers provide a 90-day period for employees to correct I-9 forms in question. Aramark Facility Servs. v. Serv. Empl. Int’l Union, 530 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2008); Id. at 829, n.8 (citing EEOC policy recommendation to provide 90-day deadline for employees to “collect, organize, deliver documentation, and perhaps meet with the relevant federal agency and/or seek legal advice while maintaining their work hours.”). The safe harbor period should begin after employers have provided employees with the following information in a language spoke by the worker(s):
1) basis of inaccuracy,
2) a true and complete copy of the I-9 documents in question,
3) the employer’s reason for the I-9 audit, and
4) whether the audit is the result of a self-initiated audit or by ICE.
· OSC should clearly state that re-verification following reinstatement is prohibited.
· OSC should warn employers about the questionable validity of I-9 screening information provided by third party auditors. Employers have increasingly turned to third-party auditors to conduct internal audits, which may raise concerns about the origin and accuracy of data used for audits.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Ciruit upheld the denial of naturalization applications filed by two lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who had been residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) for several years. The LPRs submitted their application for citizenship contending that because they had lived in the CNMI, a U.S. territory, for well over the five-year continuous residency requirement established under 8 U.S.C. 1427, then they were eligible to apply for naturalization.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding in Eche v. Holder that the two applicants failed to satisfy the five-year continuous residency requirement. The court acknowledged that one of the applicants had been residing in the CNMI as an LPR since 2000 and the other since 2005. However, according to the court, their presence in the CNMI did not constitute as being present in the United States. That is because it was not until 2009 that the Immigration and Nationality Act became effective in the CNMI. (Congress passed the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, which extended the INA to the CNMI; prior to that, the CNMI regulated its own immigration laws since 1976, when it became a U.S. territory).
The court relied on the plain language of the CNRA, which stated that presence in the CNMI prior to the CNRA would not constitute "presence in the United States" (except for a specific exception not at issue in the case), to hold that the lawful pre-transition presence in the CNMI did not count towards the five-year requirements for naturalization. (In other words, the appellants would need to reside in the CNMI for at leat five-years after 2009 in order to be eligible to apply for citizenship).
The parties argued that the CNRA created different naturalization rules for the CNMI, which violates the Naturalization Clause, which requires Congress to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization." The Ninth Circuit also rejected this argument. Notably, the court held that under the Naturalization Clause does not apply on its own force in an unincorporated territory like the CNMI. In particular, the court relied on the Insular Cases such as Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), to hold that the Naturalization Clause did not follow the flag when the CNMI became a U.S. territory.
Here is my preview on SCOTUSblog of the oral argument before the Supreme Court on October 30 in Chaidez v. Holder. The issue in that case is the retroactive application of Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), in which the Court held that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment could be based on an attorney’s failure to inform a criminal defendant of the risk of deportation resulting from a plea agreement and criminal conviction.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in another immigration case, Moncrieff v. Holder, which involves the possible removal of a lawful immigrant for a criminal conviction based on possession of a few grams of marijuana.
UPDATE (November 1): Here is a transcript to the oral argument.
We're pleased to introduce the latest in our series of podcasts, Immigration Fraud and DACA. This essential resource is intended to help DACA applicants protect themselves against immigration fraud. Featuring Nora Privitera, Director of our Anti-Fraud Campaign and Special Projects Attorney, this podcast answers commonly asked questions such as:
Why should DACA applicants worry about fraud?
What is immigration fraud?
Where should I go to get true information about DACA?
How should I go about getting legal advice?
What can happen to me if I go to the wrong person?
Several valuable tips and resources are mentioned in this recording, so we encourage you to take a few minutes to listen and share it with your family and friends. Be on the lookout for more DACA-related resources coming your way soon.
The New York Immigration Coalition, in partnership with the Fund for Public Advocacy, is proud to announce that we are now accepting applications for the 2013 DREAM Fellowship Program. In the spring 2012 semester, the NYIC had the privilege of supporting the inaugural cohort of ten talented DREAM Fellows, who were awarded scholarships toward their CUNY tuition, engaged in leadership development trainings, and gained on-the-ground experience in internships with several of the NYIC's member organizations. It was an enriching and inspirational experience for the students and participating organizations alike, and we are thrilled to announce another DREAM Fellowship cycle for the 2013 spring semester.
We encourage you to share this opportunity with DREAM Act-eligible college students you know who could benefit from this opportunity! The application is now available on our website here.
What is the DREAM Fellowship Program?
The Dream Fellowship Program is a semester-long leadership development program, initiated jointly by the New York Immigration Coalition and the Fund for Public Advocacy. In its first semester in the Spring of 2012, ten college-level DREAM Act eligible student leaders were selected for the fellowship, which included leadership development trainings, internships at community organizations and $2,000 scholarships toward tuition at City University of New York.
The leading impetus for the Fellowship was a vibrant and growing immigrant youth movement. With almost no paid staff, no lobbyists, and few financial resources, undocumented immigrant youth and immigrant communities galvanized a historical movement for passage of the DREAM Act. In the aftermath of Congress’s failure to act, a new sense of urgency emerged. However, DREAMers faced the challenge of continuing to fight for their rights, while still excluded from most of the educational, financial and leadership opportunities their peers had, simply because of their immigration status. To address this disparity, recognizing the tremendous talent and leadership potential of these young people, the NYIC and the Fund for Public Advocacy created the DREAM Fellowship, a program that combines financial assistance with leadership training and hands-on field work.
Immigration Article of the Day: The Partisan Fallout from Arizona's Immigration Battle: Applying Lessons from California by Gregory Robinson, Jonathan S. Krasno, Joshua Zingher, and Michael A. Allen
The Partisan Fallout from Arizona's Immigration Battle: Applying Lessons from California by Gregory Robinson (Binghamton University), Jonathan S. Krasno (Binghamton University), Joshua Zingher (State University of New York at Binghamton), and Michael A. Allen (Binghamton Political Science Department). September 2012
Abstract: We explore the potential political impact of Arizona’s controversial immigration statute, SB 1070, by examining a similar event: the 1994 passage of Proposition 187 in California. Both statutes were efforts to respond to the flow of undocumented immigrants (largely) entering through each state’s border with Mexico, and thus are seen as especially noxious to Latinos. We reexamine and extend the academic literature on the political impact of Proposition 187 and apply the effect estimates to Arizona by simulating the two-party presidential vote from 2012 thru 2032 under a variety of scenarios. Our results show sizable movement toward the Democratic candidate in Arizona — if Latinos and non-Latinos there react to SB 1070 as Californians reacted to Prop. 187. Coupled with population trends, we project the Democrat presidential candidate to become immediately competitive in the 2012 election and to carry the state as early as 2020.