Monday, September 30, 2013
On August 23, 2013, ICE issued a directive on “Facilitating Parental Interests in the Course of Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities.” The purpose of the directive is to establish policy and procedure to ensure that ICE personnel and the agency’s enforcement activities to not disrupt the parental rights of immigrant parents and legal guardians.
We created a two-page document, summarizing the guidelines that were laid out in the directive. Please download and share the summary with your colleagues.
ColorLines reports that, following up on last month’s action by the Dream 9, a new, larger group of undocumented immigrants will attempt to return to the United States today. The so-called Dream 30 will attempt to cross the border at the Laredo, Tex., port of entry with the goal of a chance to stay in the U.S. through some form of legal relief. The youngest of the crossers is 13-year-old Ingrid Gallegos. Her 16-year-old sister, Jessica, will be crossing as well. The two sisters became involved with the National Immigrant Youth Alliance (NIYA), the group organizing the action, after their mother encountered the Dream 9 at the Eloy Detention Center in Arizona last month.The Dream 30 crossing is different from the NIYA’s previous action; the group won’t enter Mexico with the express purpose of crossing back into the United States. They’ve all been deported or they’ve left the United States under dire circumstances such as the serious illness of a loved one in Mexico. But it’s very likely that, like the Dream 9, the Dream 30 will spend time in an immigration detention center.
The Cardozo School of Law’s Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic is interested in hiring an attorney as a Clinical Teaching Fellow to start in spring or fall 2014. The fellow’s responsibilities would include some combination of the following:
• work on deportation defense, or related cases, in the immigration and federal courts;
• work on impact litigation and advocacy projects with immigrant community based and national advocacy organizations;
• supervise clinic students on litigation and advocacy projects;
• assist in teaching and administering the clinic seminar; and
• maintain primary responsibility for the clinic docket during the summer session.
The fellow would have significant autonomy to construct her or his own docket of relevant work in accordance with his or her interests and would have the opportunity to take part in the academic life of the law school. This position is ideal for candidates interested in the substantive areas of immigration or criminal law and/or candidates interested in careers in clinical teaching.
The Immigration Justice Clinic at Cardozo is an in-house year-long intensive live client clinic in which students represent immigrants in a variety of matters but primarily in deportation proceedings in the immigration courts and federal courts. In addition, students have the opportunity to represent immigrant community based and national advocacy organizations engaged in impact projects on cutting edge immigration issues. The clinic’s docket focuses primarily on immigrants facing deportation because of encounters with the criminal justice system and more generally on immigration enforcement issues. You can learn more about the clinic under the “Learn About Our Work” link.
The clinical director, Peter L. Markowitz, a fulltime member of the Cardozo faculty, will be responsible for mentoring, training, and supervising the Clinical Teaching Fellow. This is a one-year position with a potential one-year extension. Salary is commensurate with experience. Benefits will be provided. To apply, please send a cover letter, resume, litigation related writing sample, and list of at least three references (ideally academic and professional) to: Zsuzsanna Toth at firstname.lastname@example.org by November 1, 2013. Note, however, that applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis.
Immigration Article of the Day: Hughes v. Jackson: Race and Rights Beyond Dred Scott by Martha S. Jones
Hughes v. Jackson: Race and Rights Beyond Dred Scott by Martha S. Jones University of Michigan Law School June 1, 2013 North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 91, p. 1757, 2013 Abstract: With its focus on race and rights in Maryland, this Article opens a new chapter in the history of black citizenship before the Civil War. Evidence from Maryland’s courts, legislature, and local courthouses establishes that free black Americans were not the people with “no rights” that Roger Taney imagined them to be. Nor, however, were they citizens in an unqualified sense. Appearing before state officials, free black Americans were able to assemble a bundle of rights — to travel, to bear arms, to make and enforce contracts, to freely exercise religion, and, central to this Article, to sue and be sued. They waged contests over, and sometimes won, the very rights that by 1866 came to be termed “civil rights” and with the Fourteenth Amendment would come to be the substance of birthright citizenship. From high court deliberations into the lives of free black Americans, this Article examines the story of Samuel Jackson and reveals that debates over race and rights were not the matters of abstract reasoning or an end unto themselves. Samuel Jackson, this Article shows, may have won the right to sue and be sued for himself and for free black Marylanders generally. He did not, however, succeed in obtaining custody of his children. The liberty of free black Americans, and hence the integrity of Jackson’s family, would come only in the wake of the Civil War and the state constitution’s abolition of slavery. Thus, the meaning of rights remained constrained if they did not also provide a means to a more just end.
It is one of the most pressing and controversial questions of our time -- vehemently debated, steeped in ideology, profoundly divisive. Who should be allowed to immigrate and who not? What are the arguments for and against limiting the numbers? We are supposedly a nation of immigrants, and yet our policies reflect deep anxieties and the quirks of short-term self-interest, with effective legislation snagging on thousand-mile-long security fences and the question of how long and arduous the path to citizenship should be.
In Exodus, Paul Collier, the world-renowned economist and bestselling author of The Bottom Billion, clearly and concisely lays out the effects of encouraging or restricting migration. Drawing on original research and case studies, he explores this volatile issue from three perspectives: that of the migrants themselves, that of the people they leave behind, and that of the host societies where they relocate. As Collier shows, emigrants from the poorest countries of the world tend to be the best educated and most ambitious. And while these people often benefit economically by leaving their home countries, they also drain these countries of the skills they so desperately need. In the absence of controls, emigration would accelerate: the poorest countries would face nothing less than a mass exodus. Ultimately the danger is that both host and countries of origin may lose their national identities-an outcome that would be disastrous, Collier argues, as national identity remains a powerful force for good. Migration must be restricted to ensure that it benefits both those countries left behind and those opening their doors.
Immigration is a simple economic equation, but its effects are complex. Exodus confirms how crucial it will be that public policy face and address all of its ramifications. Sharply written and brilliantly clarifying, Exodus offers a provocative analysis of an issue that affects us all.
Paul Collier, CBE is a Professor of Economics, Director for the Centre for the Study of African Economies at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Antony's College. He is the author of The Plundered Planet; Wars, Guns, and Votes; and The Bottom Billion, winner of Estoril Distinguished Book Prize, the Arthur Ross Book Award, and the Lionel Gelber Prize.
Here is a review of Exodus from The Economist.
Court Permanently Bars Maricopa County, Arizona from Arresting and Charging Immigrants with "Conspiracy to Transport Themselves"
On September 27, 2013, a federal court in Arizona issued a permanent injunction stating "Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney William G. Montgomery, and their agents, employees, successors in office, and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, are permanently enjoined from further implementing the Maricopa Migrant Conspiracy Policy including detaining, arresting, and prosecuting persons for conspiring to transport themselves, and no one else, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319." The 59-page decision was issued in the case of We Are America v. Maricopa County.
The lawsuit was brought by We Are America/Somos America Coalition of Arizona (“WAA”), the American Hispanic Community Forum (“AHCF”), and taxpayer plaintiffs Dawn Haglund and David Lujan. For a copy of the decision click here.
In 2005, the Arizona State Legislature criminalized human smuggling. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-2319. Thereafter, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”) interpreted that human smuggling statute, in combination with Arizona’s conspiracy statutes, as giving it the prosecutorial discretion to arrest, charge and prosecute non-smuggling migrants for "conspiring to transport themselves" within Maricopa County.
In 2006 the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challen ging the Maricopa Migrant Conspiracy Policy. By the end of 2012, Maricopa County Sheriffs had arrested and charged over 2,000 immigrants with conspiring to transport themselves. Over 1,500 of these immigrants spent two to three months in jail and then pled guilty to a felony violation of § 13-2319 and were then turned over to ICE and deported. These immigrants may be barred from lawful entry in the future because of their felony convictions.
In its September 27, 2013, decision, the federal court held that the Maricopa Migrant Conspiracy Policy is unconstitutional because it directly conflicts with federal law which does not criminalize the conduct of immigrants being transported by someone for gain: "Because the Policy 'criminalizes actions that Congress has, as a policy choice, decided are a civil matter[,]' it is hard to imagine a more blatant conflict than that."
The Court decided that the tax-payer plaintiffs (Dawn Haglund and David Lujan) had standing to challenge the Maricopa Migrant Conspiracy Policy: "the claimed threat of injury – the misuse of the taxpayers’ County taxes to fund the Policy – is likely to be remedied by prospective injunctive and declaratory relief." The Court also certified a class consisting of “All individuals who pay taxes to Maricopa County and object to the use of county tax revenues to stop, detain, arrest, incarcerate, prosecute, or penalize individuals for conspiring to transport themselves, and themselves only, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2319.”
The Court appointed Peter Schey, President of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL), and Carlos Holguin, General Counsel of CHRCL, as lead class counsel. It ordered the Maricopa County Sheriff and County Attorney to "promptly serve Class Counsel with copies of any instructions or guidelines they issue to implement this Order." The Court also "retain[ed] continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of [its] Order and Permanent Injunction."
Lead counsel Peter Schey issued the following statement on behalf of the plaintiffs:
"We are very pleased with federal judge Broomfield's decision. It has taken several years of rigorous litigation to get to this point, including a successful appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after the judge initially dismissed the lawsuit. This will hopefully bring to an end a mean-spirited and short-sighted policy that has severly harmed a large number of immigrants during the past several years in an entirely unconstitutional manner. We will monitor the situation carefully to insure that Sheriff Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery fully comply with the permanent injunction and start conducting themselves in a manner consistent with the US Constitution."
Lead counsel Carlos Holguin issued the following statement:
"When the Arizona State Legislature criminalized human smuggling in 2005, it never intended for local sheriffs' and prosecutors to criminally charge immigrants being smuggled. In fact the author of the legislation made very clear the law was only intended to apply to smugglers. Sheriff Arpaio could not resist twisting the law into something the legislature never intended. The fartherest thing from the legislature's mind when they enacted the anti-smuggling law was that a county sheriff and county attorney would use it to start arresting and prosecuting non-smuggling migrants for conspiring to transport themselves."
For more information please contact Peter Schey 323-251-3223, or Carlos Holguin 213-388-8693 ext. 309.
For a copy of the decision, click here
The study of diasporas often privileges a vocabulary and rhetorics of displacement, deterritorialization, hybridity, and movement. This hypervaluation of mobility can be partially attributed to its conflation with economic advancement, freedom, and agency. While such a focus undeniably has done and continues to do great work, with its link to the destabilization of dominant and essentialist discourses, it has in turn relegated what may be called the sedentary to the margins. Despite its links with the “local,” the sedentary is too often equated with stasis and rigidity, or dismissed for its purported association with homogenizing forms of nationalism. Such an approach obscures the formative role of place, location, and dwelling in the formation, self-conception, and practice of diaspora.
This seminar invites papers that consider the complexities and realities of the sedentary, of dwelling and staying put, in diaspora studies. In what ways, we ask, are notions of home, belonging, and diasporic identity bound up with locality? What is the role of metropolises like New York or London (locations in which a large population both sustains fragments of an older culture and engages in the cultural production of the new) in diasporic self-representation and the production of diaspora-sustaining cultural work? How are diasporas situated in relation to each other in a given space? And what can the literary study of place, fixity, and the immobile tell us about the communities that inhabit them?
By exploring these questions, we hope to bring back locality to the study of diaspora and diasporic literature. Please direct questions to Elizabeth Syrkin at email@example.com.
Abstracts (max 250 words) should be submitted through the ACLA website. Please select "Dwelling in Diaspora" from the seminar drop-down list. Deadline for proposals is November 1, 2013.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
The Season 3 premier of the critically-acclaimed Showtime series Homeland airs tonight. The show, which depicts the U.S. government's efforts to protect the "homeland" against foreign -- almost exclusively Muslim -- threats to the national security, is popular among television critics but has been criticized as Islamophobic. In an article for Salon, Laila al-Arian called the show the most Islamophobic show on television, accused it of portraying Muslims under the light of simplistic concepts and as a monolithic, single-minded group whose only purpose is to hurt Americans.
It seemed like a good time for a comedic interlude. So watch this guest appearance from Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul on last night's Saturday Night Live.
By the way, the series finale of the television show Breaking Bad, the story of a milquetoast high school chemistry teacher in Albuquerque, New Mexico who turned to the dark side in a big way, is tonight.
UPDATE (9/30): Here is the conclusion to the finale (Felina) from YouTube.
The Los Angeles Times reports that a significant majority of Latino voters list immigration overhaul as a crucial issue and would be less likely to support a candidate who blocked efforts to pass immigration reform, according to a new survey. 54% of Latino voters polled said they would be less likely to support a candidate in the 2014 elections who opposed an immigration reform bill that included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the country, according to the survey released by the Public Religion Research Institute.
The study includes some interesting findings. Like Americans overall, Hispanics are most likely to rank jobs and unemployment (72%) as a critical issue facing the country today. However, nearly as many Hispanics (65%) report that rising health care costs are also a critical issue facing the nation. Majorities of Hispanics say the quality of public schools (55%), the federal deficit (54%), the cost of college (53%), and immigration (53%) are critical issues facing the country.
Fewer Hispanics say the growing gap between rich and poor (43%), abortion (32%), and same-sex marriage (22%) are critical issues in the country today.
Two-thirds (67%) of Hispanics say that immigrants currently living in the United States illegally should be allowed to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements. Roughly 1-in-5 (17%) say they should be allowed to become permanent legal residents but not citizens, while 1-in-10 (10%) say that they should be identified and deported.
There is bipartisan and cross-religious support for immigration reform among Hispanics. For example, majorities of Hispanic Democrats (72%), independents (67%), and Republicans (53%) support a path to citizenship.
From the Bookshelves: Born on the Border: Minutemen Vigilantes, Origins of Arizona's Anti-Immigrant Movement, and a Call for Increased Civil Disobedience by Ray Ybarra Maldonado Esq.
In 2004 vigilante groups patrolled the U.S.-Mexican border, hunting for migrants in the vast Arizona desert. A law student who hails from the small border town of Douglas, AZ takes off two years from his studies at Stanford Law School to return to Douglas to fight against the growing vigilante movement and the human rights abuses on the U.S.-Mexican border. This book provides a first-hand chronicle of the immigration debate that currently engulfs our nation. Ray Ybarra Maldonado writes about the border from his personal experience as a child and from the perspective of a dedicated activist who has travelled into the interior of Mexico to find victims of vigilante abuse. He also shares stories from his work at a migrant shelter in the Mexican border town where his mother was born, and from the middle of the Arizona desert where gun toting members of the Minutemen Project confront migrants crossing the militarized border. Born on the Border does more than chronicle the growing anti-immigrant movement that has emanated from Arizona, Ybarra Maldonado makes a compelling argument that the current immigration laws are immoral and that civil disobedience is needed so that human mobility can be recognized as a human right. While others are arguing over what comprehensive immigration reform looks like, the author’s personal conflict between doing what is morally right and breaking the law challenges readers to take a drastically different look at one of the most pressing issues facing nation-states in the 21st century: immigration and the human right to cross borders.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
Call for Papers Crimmigration Control International Net of Studies presents: 2nd Annual Crimmigration Control Conference 9-10 October 2014 in Leiden, the Netherlands “The Borders of Crimmigration” October 9-10, 2014, Leiden Law School, the Netherlands
After the great success of the first annual CINETS conference held in Coimbra, Portugal in 2012, researchers, graduate students and practitioners working in the field of crime (control) and migration (control) are invited to participate in the 2nd Crimmigration Control Conference. This two-day conference will be held at Leiden University, the Netherlands on the 9th and 10th of October 2014.
Theme: The Borders of Crimmigration
The theme for this second annual conference is “The Borders of Crimmigration”. Globalization has led to a far-reaching transformation of the relationship between states which is particularly evident in the way that territorial borders are managed, negotiated and imagined. As the relationships between states shift and the boundaries between national and international become increasingly blurred, scholars and practitioners have come to realize that the changes in the nature and the meaning of borders require greater translation and interaction between various disciplines such as criminology, sociology, law, anthropology, political sciences and international relations. In this second CINETS conference we aim to bring together scholars and practitioners from these various disciplines in order to contribute to the discussion on– actual or imaginary, legal or social, internal or external - borders as a key concept in crimmigration studies.
Besides raising questions on discussing immigration policies concerning crimmigration in relation to borders and border control, this conference aims to address questions on the extent and differences in the policies implemented to penalize aggressors in crimes involving immigrants. Moreover, papers on the social phenomena to which these policies are responses are also welcomed. In doing so, this conference will not only focus on abstract theoretical notions that have been claimed to explain the crimmigration trend, but also on the practical implications and (un)intended consequences of crimmigration in the field of law enforcement.
Call for proposals
The Program Committee invites proposals that engage with the program theme and other topics related to crimmigration research.This includes for example theoretical papers, case studies, empirical evaluation and methodological work. Proposals for individual papers or fully formed panels will be considered. The proposals must meet to following criteria:
• Abstracts must be written in the conference’s official language: English. Submissions should report original still unpublished work.
• The deadline for submission is November 15th, 2013.
• Abstracts can be emailed to: CINETS2014Leiden@law.leidenuniv.nl
In the public debates over federal immigration reform, much has been made of the argument that undocumented immigrants would be a drain on federal, state and local government resources if granted legal status under reform. But it is also true that the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States are already taxpayers, and that their local, state and federal tax contributions would increase under reform. A new report provides state-by-state estimates on the state and local tax contributions of the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The key findings are:
• Undocumented immigrants currently contribute significantly to state and local taxes, collectively paying an estimated $10.6 billion in 2010 with contributions ranging from less than $2 million in Montana to more than $2.2 billion in California. This means these families are likely paying about 6.4 percent on average of their income in state and local taxes.
• Allowing undocumented immigrants to work in the United States legally would increase their state and local tax contributions by an estimated $2 billion a year. Their effective state and local tax rate would also increase to 7 percent on average, which would put their tax contributions more in line with documented taxpayers with similar incomes.
Following a lull in 2012, the number of laws states passed related to immigration rebounded significantly in 2013, according to a new report from the National Conference of State Legislature’s (NCSL) Immigrant Policy Project. States seemed to put reforms on hold while they waited for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States, according to the report. The high court held on June 25, 2012, that federal law preempted three of four provisions in Arizona’s omnibus immigration law, SB 1070, enacted in 2010. Less than a week later, the federal government issued a new policy—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—which provides young unauthorized immigrants a temporary respite from deportation along with the opportunity to apply for work authorization.
A variety of issues were addressed in the laws, including:
IDs/Driver’s licenses. Thirty-four laws were enacted in 20 states, comprising 23 percent of immigration laws in 2013. Many defined eligibility for state-issued identification and driver’s licenses.
Budget and appropriations. Authorizing funds for immigration enforcement, English language and citizenship classes, and migrant and refugee programs were among the actions that accounted for 14 percent of this year’s laws.
Education. Another 16 percent of laws defined immigration and residency requirements for college students, with three states extending instate tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrant students.
Law enforcement. Although 14 acts related to law enforcement were passed, also accounting for 11 percent of action in 2013, that number is significantly lower than the 20 enforcement laws passed by June 2012, or the 42 enacted as of June 2011.
Employment. Ten percent of laws focused on employment, particularly to verify work authorization and address noncompliance, while other laws addressed workers’ compensation or unemployment insurance.
Health. Another 10 percent of laws addressed issues such as eligibility for Medicaid or licensing for health professionals.
Note that, unlike past state immigration enforcement laws like those in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, a number of these state legislative actions, like those taken in California, arguably promote teh rights of immigrants.
Hanley Ramírez (born December 23, 1983) is a Dominican professional baseball shortstop and third baseman for the Los Angeles Dodgers of Major League Baseball (MLB). Ramírez was the 2006 National League Rookie of the Year. In 2009, he won the National League batting title and in 2010 finished runner-up in the Home Run Derby. A three-time All-Star starter, Ramirez is hitting .346 for the MLB Western Division champion Los Angeles Dodgers. Bleacher Report suggests that, on a team with many players having outstanding seasons, Ramirez may be the Dodgers' true MVP.
Immigration Article of the Day: Revisiting the Meaning of Marriage: Immigration for Same-Sex Spouses in a Post-Windsor World by Scott Titshaw
Revisiting the Meaning of Marriage: Immigration for Same-Sex Spouses in a Post-Windsor World by Scott Titshaw, Mercer University - Walter F. George School of Law September 7, 2013 Vanderbilt Law Review en Banc, Vol. 66, 2013, Forthcoming
Abstract: When the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. Windsor, it eliminated a categorical barrier to immigration for thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) families. Yet Windsor was not an immigration case, and the Court’s opinion did not address at least three resulting immigration questions: What if a same-sex couple legally marries in one jurisdiction but resides in a state that does not recognize the marriage? What if the couple is in a legally-recognized “civil union” or “registered partnership”? Will children born to spouses or registered partners in same-sex couples be recognized as “born in wedlock” for immigration purposes? This essay describes and supports the Obama administration’s adoption of a uniform place-of-celebration rule in response to the first question. It then briefly discusses the questions of legal marriage alternatives and of parent-child relationship recognition, suggesting possible solutions.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
From the National Domestic Workers Alliance:
Today, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, surrounded by domestic workers in his office:
Governor Brown signs Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, surrounded by domestic workers
If you are on social media, please take a moment to send Governor Brown a thank-you note at @JerryBrownGov or on his Facebook page.
This beautiful victory, which will have a real impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of women in California, would not have been possible without your unwavering support. Your emails, calls and social media posts made the difference in our long journey towards justice for domestic workers in California.
With so much love and gratitude,
The staff and members of the National Domestic Workers Alliance
Made in L.A. is an Emmy award-winning feature documentary that follows the remarkable story of three Latina immigrants working in Los Angeles garment sweatshops as they embark on a three-year odyssey to win basic labor protections from a trendy clothing retailer. In intimate verite style, Made in L.A. reveals the impact of the struggle on each woman’s life as they are gradually transformed by the experience. Compelling, humorous, deeply human, Made in L.A. is a story about immigration, the power of unity, and the courage it takes to find your voice.
WATCH NOW ON: Apple iTunes, Amazon Instant Video, Google/YouTube, Microsoft X-Box, Sony Playstation, SundanceNow, Vudu and Vimeo On Demand. We are excited that the digital release will bring Made in L.A. to new and diverse audiences and that it will greatly increase access to the film!
From the Bookshelves: Review of PRODUCING AND NEGOTIATING NON-CITIZENSHIP: PRECARIOUS LEGAL STATUS IN CANADA by Luin Goldring and Patricia Landolt
Here is a review from Law and Politics Book Review of PRODUCING AND NEGOTIATING NON-CITIZENSHIP: PRECARIOUS LEGAL STATUS IN CANADA by Luin Goldring and Patricia Landolt (eds.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. The review is by y Ethel Tungohan, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto.
PRODUCING AND NEGOTIATING NON-CITIZENSHIP: PRECARIOUS LEGAL STATUS IN CANADA encourages its readers to look beyond binary depictions of migrant legality and illegality by considering the “conditionality” of migrants’ status. For Landolt and Goldring, “conditionality” highlights what they call the “chutes-and-ladders” process that defines migrants’ lives, whereby government policies and regulations and everyday interactions and negotiations with various actors in different sites can place migrants up the “ladder towards more presence and rights” or alternately “down a chute towards more vulnerability, fewer rights or less access and a more uncertain presence in Canada” (p.16). Through this concept, Landolt and Goldring point to the various manifestations of non-citizenship that exist in Canada and raise an important and oft-forgotten point among immigration and migration scholars: that non-citizenship can be best understood as a dynamic “assemblage” of experiences across time and across space, encompassing different types of migrants with varying legal status.
Here is the conclusion of the review:"In sum, by examining the various ways non-citizenship and illegality is manifested through policies, practices, and everyday encounters, PRODUCING AND NEGOTIATING NON-CITIZENSHIP widens one’s understanding of precarious status migrants’ lived realities. It should be required reading for academics, researchers, and students doing work on immigration and migration issues."