Wednesday, April 30, 2014
UC Davis Law students seek to right historic wrong with posthumous California Bar admission of Chinese lawyer
Professor Jack Chin and APALSA Law Students
More than a century after a New York lawyer was denied the opportunity to practice law in California because of state laws that barred Chinese immigrants from most careers and opportunities, UC Davis law students are seeking his posthumous admission to the California State Bar.
The students in the UC Davis School of Law Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA) are asking the State Bar of California, and eventually the California Supreme Court, to admit Hong Yen Chang, who was denied a license to practice law in California in 1890.
Chang attended Yale as part of the Chinese Educational Mission, a pioneering program initiated by the Chinese government. He then left the United States and later returned on his own to study law. He earned a degree from Columbia Law School in 1886 and sat for the New York bar exam by special act of the legislature. When he was admitted to the New York state bar, The New York Times reported that Chang was the first Chinese immigrant admitted to any bar in the United States. In 1890, he came to California with the intention of serving San Francisco’s Chinese community as an attorney.
At that time, the federal Chinese Exclusion Act banned Chinese immigrants from naturalizing as citizens, and a California law prohibited noncitizens from practicing law in the state. Taken together, these laws made it impossible for people of Chinese descent to earn law licenses in the state. Chang petitioned the California Supreme Court, but was denied admission.
He went on to a distinguished career in banking and diplomacy, but his story was not forgotten. Now, the students are seeking a symbolic victory on behalf of Chang and others who suffered as a result of laws that discriminated against the Chinese.
“Admitting Mr. Chang would be a powerful symbol of our state’s repudiation of laws that singled out Chinese immigrants for discrimination,” said Gabriel “Jack” Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law and APALSA’s faculty adviser on the project. “At the time Chang was excluded from the practice of law in California, discrimination against Chinese persons was widespread. Congress prohibited all Chinese immigration. Even the California Constitution dedicated an entire article to restricting the rights of Chinese residents.”
The UC Davis School of Law California Supreme Court Clinic is representing APALSA in the case. It has formally requested the State Bar to support the project and will file a petition with the California Supreme Court seeking Chang’s admission this semester. The clinic, the first and only law school clinic of its kind, represents parties and amici in a wide range of both civil and criminal matters pending before the California Supreme Court.
Other states have posthumously admitted applicants who were excluded from their respective bars based on similar discriminatory laws. In 2001, the Washington Supreme Court admitted Takuji Yamashita, a Japanese immigrant who had been refused admission to the profession in 1902. And in 2010, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court posthumously admitted George B. Vashon, an African American who had been denied admission in 1847 because of race.
Chang’s descendants remain in the San Francisco Bay Area, including grandniece Rachelle Chong, the first Asian American to serve as a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission and of the California Public Utilities Commission. “In my generation, our family is extremely fortunate to have three lawyers admitted to the California State Bar: my cousins Suzanne Ah Tye, Kirk Ah Tye, and myself,” said Chong. “It would be fitting and right to have my granduncle's exclusion reversed by the California Supreme Court to ensure that justice, albeit late, is done. Our family is honored that the UC Davis APALSA students have taken up the issue of righting a terrible wrong.”
“From its inception more than 40 years ago, UC Davis School of Law has been dedicated to the ideals of social justice and equality espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., for whom our law school building is named,” said Dean Kevin R. Johnson. “This effort by our students and faculty to admit Hong Yen Chang to the California State Bar stands strongly within that tradition and is deserving of support.”
Guest blogger: Lizette Perez, second-year law student, University of San Francisco
I recently assisted on a project to document the experiences of domestic workers affiliated with the Women’s Collective of San Francisco Day Labor Program at La Raza Centro Legal, “La Collectiva.” The project is aimed at compiling the stories of La Collectiva’s members to shed light on the reality of their work as domestic workers, highlight the forces that brought these women to this country, and record their experiences helping to lobby for the recently passed California Domestic Workers Bill of Rights.
On September 26, 2013, California became the third state in the country, after New York and Hawaii, to establish its own state-level legislation to provide basic protections for domestic workers. Governor Jerry Brown signed these protections into law via the California Domestic Workers Bill of Rights (AB241). The passage of this legislation symbolized a huge victory for the immigrant rights movement because it secured employment protections for one of the most vulnerable and exploited group of workers, immigrant domestic workers. Domestic workers nationwide are largely comprised of immigrant women and are a sector of the labor force that is typically not discussed, particularly in the realm of immigration reform. As the law currently stands, key labor and employment laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act, do not cover domestic workers.
The CA Bill of Rights began as an expansive bill that reflected a worker-driven agenda for reform in working conditions. As the law went through the political process of getting enacted, it lost much of its content to compromises. At passage, it entitled domestic workers to overtime pay if they work more than nine hours a day or forty-five hours a week. Provisions for health and safety protections, meal and rest breaks, adequate sleeping accommodations, and workers compensation were lost along the way.
Although heavily compromised, the bill signifies a success in the domestic worker’s rights movement, considering the decline in unionized labor, wages and benefits, and the devaluation of domestic workers generally. Domestic work has a legacy of not being regarded as real work that is worthy of equal treatment because it lacks economic currency. Much of this rationale is rooted in the history that domestic work has in slavery, and because of the gender and racial make up of the workers. Additionally, this view has been justified because it takes place in the privacy of family homes and the workers have been deemed “unorganizable” because they work in isolated work environments with many different employers.
Grassroots, worker-led organizations such as La Collectiva have made significant contributions to highlighting the value of domestic workers and bringing visibility to their issues. The stories recounted by the women of La Collectiva illustrate the role that the organization has in providing a social space that provides mutual support, collaboration, and empowerment to its members. The organization functions somewhat as an employment agency but also offers leadership opportunities, trainings on health and safety concerns involved in doing domestic work, and educational workshops on a variety of issues from the law to family dynamics.
What was particularly powerful to me in hearing the women’s stories regarding their experience as domestic workers involved the work that they did toward advocating for the passage of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights. Several members spoke about their efforts in conducting outreach and educating other domestic workers in the neighborhood about the movement. They also spoke about the empowerment they felt when they traveled to Sacramento and met with legislators. They discussed feeling validated in the work that they do as domestic workers and the transformation that finding their “voice” in the movement has had on not only their careers, but also their families. One woman in particular recounted the pride and dignity that she experienced when the bill was finally passed. She felt that all of the hard work that went into the passage of the law would serve as a legacy that she could pass on to her children.
Their experiences reminded me of the values in rebellious lawyering of respecting the client instead of repeating the subordinating experience, the importance of collaboration, and educating clients and communities to support resistance. The life stories that were shared with me that day have certainly served to energize and inform my work and will continue to do so going forward.
Immigration Article of the Day: Terrace v. Thompson and the Legacy of Manifest Destiny by Jean Stefancic
Terrace v. Thompson and the Legacy of Manifest Destiny by Jean Stefancic, University of Alabama - School of Law, Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 12, 2012 U of Alabama Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2401933
Abstract: In the early twentieth century, several states enacted laws aimed at regulating lease and purchase of agricultural land by immigrants. Industrious Japanese farmers had been renting and buying barren land in the West and, by dint of hard work and skill, made it bloom. Annoyed white farmers in the state of Washington resented the competition and made their feelings known to the legislature, which obliged by passing cleverly worded “alien land laws” that, though racially neutral on their face, had the intent and effect of excluding nonwhite foreigners who were ineligible for citizenship from engaging in farming. Earlier in the state’s history, a dispute had occurred over property rights of Indians in the Washington Territory, which foreshadowed the later antagonistic relations between white settlers and Japanese immigrants leading to the Terrace alien land law case. Both events illustrate the interplay of nativism and Manifest Destiny — the notion that newly discovered land belonged to white settlers. The current treatment of undocumented immigrant workers in Washington reflects a familiar sense of entitlement, fear, and resentment and drives the force that links the state’s mistreatment of Native people, the Japanese, and Latinos.
Word is out that deportations have peaked during the Obama Administration and the safety valve that remains is prosecutorial discretion. The New York Times has shed light on the human costs of deportation in an supporting administrative solutions to the immigration paralysis in Congress and showcasing the demographics of deportations over the last decade. While the alarm over families and individuals impacted by high deportations against people with relatively minor offenses has been captured well by the media, the picture painted assumes that the current Administration has failed to exercise prosecutorial discretion judiciously or that deportation numbers are the only problem. Both assumptions deserve attention.
“Prosecutorial discretion” in immigration law refers to the agency’s decision about the degree to which immigration laws should be carried out if at all. Despite the political risks involved, the Obama Administration offered new policy guidance on prosecutorial discretion, and protected hundreds of thousands of young people through a deferred action program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA. Any fair comparison to the previous Administration should consider the degree to which immigration prosecutorial discretion was even on the table formerly. In the years that followed September 11, 2001, the agency enforced the immigration laws at all costs, as it rolled out program after program under a proxy of national security. To illustrate, more than 13,000 Muslim boys were served with deportation papers after voluntarily complying with a “” program that has since been discredited by the Administration. During this time, any attempt to even raise the agency’s prosecutorial discretion to refrain from serving deportation papers to a young man whose only offense may have been a visa overstay was muted.
The theory behind immigration prosecutorial discretion is humanitarian (people with compelling equities) and also economic (government resources should be managed wisely and target the most dangerous). These two theories are today well known and were first revealed in connection with the immigration case of music icon . Another theory of prosecutorial discretion is political, and operates when statutory attempts to fix broken immigration laws stall or fail. Historically, immigration advocates become more public and demanding of an Administration to provide a temporary solution using prosecutorial discretion in the wake of such inaction. Indeed, the current push by immigration advocates to protect thousands more who might qualify for “legalization” under the Senate immigration bill reflects a reaction to humanitarian crisis that has broken families and led to high deportation numbers. But the crisis originates largely from the paralysis in Congress, not from a lack of compassion by the Obama Administration.
Equally troubling to the number of deportations is the method by which people have been deported. Expedited removal and reinstatement are two programs created by Congress that permit the agency to summarily deport noncitizens without due process. Remarkably, the majority of people deported in 2013 never saw a court room or immigration judge, and instead were quickly removed by the Department of Homeland Security. These speed deportations were applied to the very same people immigration advocates demand protection for- primary breadwinners, spouses and parents of United States citizen children. Possibly, individuals who bear these equities should have the opportunity to present them to an immigration judge as opposed to a DHS. Enter in prosecutorial discretion. In cases where DHS has the legal authority to place a person in a speed deportation program like expedited removal, it also has prosecutorial discretion to place this same person in a full court proceeding. At a minimum, individuals who have equities like a United States citizen child or bear humanitarian or medical needs like long-term care should be given a full court proceeding and the opportunity to apply for relief from removal that he may otherwise be prohibited from seeking.
Beyond the procedural solutions to place individuals in a regular court proceeding are the substantive ones that may include a form of prosecutorial discretion that is more cost-effective (like the decision to refrain from filing charges in the first place) or more beneficial to the noncitizen (like a grant of deferred action). The act of abstaining from enforcing the immigration law against a person through a favorable exercise prosecutorial discretion can take place at many different stages of the enforcement process, not just the charging stage. The Department of Homeland Security has a variety of different tools to carry out this discretion. Notably, the conversation about immigration prosecutorial discretion has been normalized and active, but immigration reform must happen legislatively to result in a long-term solution.
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is the Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar at the Pennsylvania State University’s Dickinson School of Law and author of Finding Compassion in Immigration Enforcement: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion (New York University Press, forthcoming)
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
CNN reports that, after mocking his fellow GOP members last week for complaining that immigration reform was "too hard," House Speaker John Boehner reminded admitted to fellow Republicans in a closed-door meeting that he should not have made fun of them publicly.
From Filipino Advocates for Justice:
WHEN: THURSDAY MAY 1, 2014, 3:30pm
WHERE: FRUITVALE PLAZA—INTERNATIONAL BLVD. at 35th AVE Oakland, CA
On Thursday, May 1, hundreds of people will join a regional march in celebration of International Workers' Day. Community members and organizations will be traveling from San Francisco, Concord, Livermore, Richmond, San Jose, among other places to join people in Oakland for a lively march through the historic Fruitvale neighborhood. This year's regional May Day March will bring together a diverse coalition of community, labor, and faith groups, along with hundreds of residents, to draw connections between critical issues affecting working people of color in the Bay Area, and to gain support for ongoing fights for economic and social justice. Read More
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Arlington seeks a full-time attorney for its Hogar Immigrant Services program. Hogar Immigrant Services offers a wide range of services at a little or no cost to vulnerable populations without regard to religious or ethnic identity. Our goal is for immigrants to achieve self-sufficiency and participate fully as productive members of American society.
The Staff Attorney will prepare cases for submission the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of State, Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals. She/he will represent clients before the USCIS Washington District Office, Arlington Asylum Office, ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals, (BIA), including removal proceedings. The Staff Attorney will coordinate all aspects of a client’s case, including client communication, relevant research, drafting personal statements preparing immigration forms, writing briefs, drafting court motions and orders, and advocacy with law enforcement and other agencies. Additionally, the Staff Attorney will:
- Assist in the supervision of volunteers and student interns. Solicit the help of volunteer attorneys, paralegals, and others to assist with the provision of services when necessary.
- Provide in-service training to staff and volunteers on immigration-related skills and knowledge.
- Provide public education in the community, collaborating with other agencies.
- Advise the Program Director on legal issues pertaining to the Immigration Program (including recommendations for the staff training opportunities).
- Participate as needed in agency and program-wide data collection, fundraising, training, and strategic planning.
- Participate in meetings with immigration legal service community-based organizations.
- Participate on a periodic basis in day-long weekend naturalization workshops.
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
- Juris Doctor degree and admission to the bar of any state
- Three years’ experience practicing immigration law to include substantial experience representing individual clients before agencies of the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration Court.
- Proficiency in Spanish and English (writing and speaking)
- Ability to work both independently and with others to manage a substantial workload with deadline pressures.
- Competence in communicating and interacting with others of diverse cultural, geographic, and economic backgrounds in a professional and compassionate manner, including interacting with individuals experiencing substantial levels of emotional, physical, financial, or other hardship
- Proficiency in Microsoft Office and online database software.
- Commitment to mission and goals of Catholic Charities Hogar Immigrant Services
- Willingness to uphold Catholic social teachings in the workplace.
Please submit your cover letter with salary requirements and resume to jobs@CCDA.net.
Julia Preston’s article on deportations reveals a drop in the number of Notices to Appear (deportation charges) filed with the immigration courts in 2013. Like in criminal law, the immigration agency’s decision to refrain from bringing charges against a noncitizen is an act of prosecutorial discretion and in many cases can alleviate the burden on a court and provide a person with tenuous protection from deportation. But the picture of shrinking numbers at the courts is complicated by the overwhelming number of deportations that took place outside of the courtroom. In 2013, the majority of people deported never saw a courtroom or immigration judge, and instead were quickly removed by the Department of Homeland Security. That more than 60% of deportation decisions have been made by agency officers instead of judges is striking as are the human consequences of ejecting people who may have equities like a United States citizen spouse or qualify for relief before a judge. Notably, the agency has "prosecutorial discretion" to provide more procedural justice for individuals who might otherwise be subject to a truncated deportation. As the Administration deliberates on possible solutions to the deportation dilemma, it must at the very least provide a day in court for those might otherwise be removed without a process. (4.17.2014)
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is the Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar at the Pennsylvania State University’s Dickinson School of Law and author of Finding Compassion in Immigration Enforcement: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion (New York University Press, forthcoming)
Seven courageous immigrant students represented by Legal Aid Justice Center have won their effort to gain in‐state tuition eligibility—not just for themselves, but for thousands of Virginia recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring announced this morning that DACA recipients are eligible to apply for in‐state tuition under existing Virginia law, as the students had argued in a lawsuit filed by the Legal Aid Justice Center last year. Legal Aid Justice Center thanks Attorney General Herring for opening the doors of educational opportunity to these deserving Virginia students.
Last autumn, at a time when advocates were focused on trying to win in‐state tuition eligibility through the General Assembly, Legal Aid Justice Center attorney Simon Sandoval‐Moshenberg realized there was a parallel path worth pursuing at the same time. By his reading, DACA recipients should have already been considered eligible for in‐state tuition under existing Virginia statutes. The Legal Aid Justice Center filed a lawsuit based on this argument in Arlington County Circuit Court on December 17, 2013 on behalf of the seven students. Legal Aid Justice Center’s student clients had been granted DACA status by the federal government, were authorized to work in the United States, and met the legal presence requirement for obtaining a Virginia driver’s license. But although these students grew up in Virginia and graduated from Virginia high schools, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) had told them they were ineligible for in‐state tuition rates at Virginia’s public colleges and universities. The students’ lawsuit has been withdrawn. With today’s announcement by Attorney General Herring, the goal of the lawsuit has been accomplished.
Immigration Article of the Day: The Two-Step Australian Immigration Policy and its Impact on Immigrant Employment Outcomes by Robert G. Gregory
ABSTRACT: Three decades ago most immigrants to Australia with work entitlements came as permanent settlers. Today the annual allocation of temporary visas, with work entitlements, outnumbers permanent settler visas by a ratio of three to one. The new environment, with so many temporary visa holders, has led to a two-step immigration policy whereby an increasing proportion of immigrants come first as a temporary immigrant, to work or study, and then seek to move to permanent status. Around one half of permanent visas are allocated onshore to those who hold temporary visas with work rights. The labour market implications of this new two-step system are substantial. Immigrants from non-English speaking countries (NES), are affected most. In their early years in Australia, they have substantially reduced full-time employment and substantially increased part-time employment, usually while attending an education institution. Three years after arrival one third of NES immigrants are now employed part-time which, rather than unemployment, is becoming their principal pathway to full-time labour market integration. Surprisingly, little has changed for immigrants from English speaking countries (ES).
More than 4.5 million unauthorized immigrants and other removable non-citizens have been deported from the United States since Congress passed sweeping legislation in 1996 to toughen the nation's immigration enforcement system, with the pace of formal removals rising from about 70,000 in 1996 to a record 419,000 in 2012.
The current-era deportation system—shaped by laws expanding and speeding the removal process, major increases in immigration enforcement spending and policy decisions by three successive administrations—is characterized by sharply different enforcement pictures at the border and within the United States. At the border, a near zero-tolerance system has emerged, where most unauthorized immigrants are subject to formal removal and criminal charges. Within the country, there is greater flexibility, with priorities and resources focused on a smaller share of the sizeable unauthorized population. The differences reflect different goals and circumstances confronting border and interior enforcement. But their impacts are converging, raising complex questions for policymakers.
A Migration Policy Institute (MPI) report issued today, The Deportation Dilemma: Reconciling Tough and Humane Enforcement, assesses the border and interior enforcement systems and outcomes over the past two decades. The report analyzes the current pipelines for removal and key trends in border and interior apprehensions, deportations and criminal prosecutions. With the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the midst of a review of its deportation policies to see if they can be conducted "more humanely," the report also examines the policy levers the Obama administration has to influence deportation policies, practices and results.
The report identifies three key enforcement trends that have emerged since passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996:
• A fundamental shift from a deportation system focused on informal returns (voluntary return and departure) to one focused on formal removals, which have more severe consequences for those who are repatriated. Formal removals, which averaged 3 percent of all deportations in FY 1970-96, increased after 1996 and then spiked sharply beginning in 2006, reaching a high of 65 percent in 2012. Voluntary return, used in 82 percent of apprehensions at the Southwest border in FY 2005, plummeted to 21 percent in FY 2012.
• Major expansion in the use of non-judicial removal procedures such as expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, in which immigration enforcement officers rather than immigration judges make deportation decisions. Expedited removals and reinstatements accounted for 75 percent of all deportations in FY 2012—the highest proportion ever. By comparison, analogous non-judicial removals accounted for just 3 percent of removals in FY 1996.
• Escalating criminalization. The proportion of those apprehended at the Southwest border charged with immigration-related criminal offenses rose from 1 percent in FY 1997 to 22 percent in FY 2013. Immigration cases now represent almost half of the docket of federal district and magistrate courts, as people have been charged with immigration-related crimes almost 1 million times since 1997. And while criminals represent a rising share of removals, MPI analysis of newly obtained U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data for FY 2003-2013 shows that non-citizens charged exclusively with immigration-related crimes accounted for 55 percent in the increase in ICE criminal removals between FY 2008-2013.
While there has been overall policy continuity in border enforcement policies for a decade or more, the Obama administration has introduced a significant policy change for enforcement within the country. The administration established explicit enforcement priorities and updated guidelines for exercising discretion not to deport certain people who fall outside established enforcement priority categories. The great majority of the nearly 2 million people removed by the current administration during its first five years fall into one or more of the DHS enforcement priority categories. Yet while the administration's policies have focused enforcement on high-priority cases, the report finds that the record has been mixed when it comes to taking low-priority cases out of enforcement pipelines.
The University of Houston Law Center announced yesterday that Professor Leonard M. Baynes of St. John's University School of Law has been selected as the new dean of the Law Center. The recommendation will be submitted to the UH System Board of Regents for consideration on May 7.
In addition to his teaching duties at St. John’s, Baynes is the inaugural director of The Ronald H. Brown Center for Civil Rights and Economic Development. Baynes was among six finalists chosen by a search committee to replace interim dean Richard M. Alderman. If approved by regents, Baynes will assume his new position on Aug. 15.
Baynes earned his J.D. degree from Columbia Law School in 1982. He also earned a MBA from Columbia in 1983 and his B.S. in Finance and Economics from New York University in 1979. At St. John’s he teaches Business Organizations, Communications Law, Perspectives on Justice, Race and the Law, and Regulated Industries. Prior to joining the St. John’s faculty in 2002, he taught at Western New England University School of Law in Springfield, Mass., beginning in 1991. He served part-time as a scholar-in-residence for the Federal Communications Commission from 1997-2001. From 2005 to 2013, Baynes raised approximately $1.6 million from foundations, law firms, corporations, New York State and city, and others to fund academic conferences and other activities of The Ronald H. Brown Center.
Monday, April 28, 2014
The U.S. immigrant population—estimated at 40.8 million in 2012—is the nation's historical numerical high, and it is also the largest foreign-born population in the world. About 20 percent of all international migrants reside in the United States, even as the country accounts for less than 5 percent of global population. This Migration Policy Institute article presents the latest, most sought-after data on immigrants in the United States—by origin, residence, legal status, deportations, languages spoken, and more—in one easy-to-use resource.
From the UC Hastings 3L Class Council:
Please join the following organizations in saying NO to Janet Napolitano as this year's UC Hastings commencement speaker.
Janet Napolitano represents the heartbreaking impact of U.S. immigration policies on individuals and families. She has overseen the largest number of deportations in our history as Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. She has spearheaded inhumane and unconstitutional policies, including so-called "Secure Communities," a deportation program notorious for conflating the criminal and immigration systems. Whether you are a Hastings student, alum, or concerned member of the community, please join us. Together, we can amplify our voices and and demand that Hastings rescind its invitation to Ms. Napolitano.
Link to the petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/dean-wu-no-to-napolitano
UC Hastings Dean, Frank Wu, has written this reaction to the controversy.
Here is the list of organizations that support the petition against Janet Napolitano:
UC Hastings 3L Class Council
American Constitution Society, UC Hastings Chapter
Hastings Advocates for Mental Health and Disability
Hastings Animal Law Society
Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students
Hastings Black Law Students Association
Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal
Hastings La Raza Student Association
Hastings Public Debate Forum
Hastings Public Interest Law Foundation
Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal
Hastings Race and Poverty Law Organization
Hastings Students for Immigrants' Rights
Hmong-American Legal Scholars Society
Legal Eagles Running Club
Middle Eastern Law Students Association
National Lawyers Guild, Hastings Chapter
Vietnamese American Law Students
Immigration Article of the Day: Estimating Labor Trafficking among Unauthorized Migrant Workers in San Diego by Sheldon X. Zhang, Michael W. Spiller, Brian Karl Finch, Yang Qin
Estimating Labor Trafficking among Unauthorized Migrant Workers in San Diego by Sheldon X. Zhang, Michael W. Spiller, Brian Karl Finch, Yang Qin, ANNALS
Abstract: Research on labor trafficking faces many methodological challenges, which make it difficult to provide reliable estimates of the problem. In this research, we applied respondent-driven sampling and unique access to migrant communities in San Diego County, California, to estimate the extent of trafficking violations in one of America’s largest Spanish-speaking immigrant destinations. We found that 30 percent of undocumented migrant laborers were victims of labor trafficking, 55 percent were victims of other labor abuses, and about half of these victimization experiences occurred within the past 12 months. The rate of trafficking violations varied markedly across business sectors that typically hire unauthorized migrant workers. Construction and janitorial services had the most reported trafficking violations and labor abuses. Findings in this study also suggest that the illegal status in the country is likely the most significant factor contributing to vulnerability to trafficking violations.
FROM THE BOOKSHLEVES: Mrs. Shipley’s Ghost: The Right to Travel and Terrorist Watchlists (by Jeffrey Kahn, University of Michigan Press, 2013)
Since 9/11, migration-related security measures, including a growing reliance on watch-lists, have limited the right to travel. Jeffrey Kahn’s book, Mrs. Shipley’s Ghost: The Right to Travel and Terrorist Watchlists, examines the legal and policy questions raised by prohibitions on travel by U.S. citizens. Click here for a link to the review.
Sarah Palin seems to relish being in the news. Speaking Saturday at the National Rifle Association's "Stand And Fight" rally in Indianapolis, the former 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate accused the Obama administration of coddling terrorists. For details, click here.
In the national controversy surrounding immigration reform, presidential action, and a nationwide grassroots call for an end to all deportations, community members being deported for criminal convictions have been largely left out of the policy conversations. The 1996 Blog was created to draw the immigrant rights movement towards an analysis that fully encompasses the need for reform of two laws passed in 1996: the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Dealth Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), known as the "1996 Laws." These laws created a standard of mandatory and indiscriminate double punishment of immigrant community members who have interfaced with the criminal legal system. Quyen Dinh, Executive Director of the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center stated, "Our communities across the country have been suffering under draconian immigration laws for almost 20 years, the same laws that have fueled a surge in the number of overall deportations. It's time for us, as an immigrant rights movement, to address the 1996 laws and demand change that protects and uplifts all of our communities."