Thursday, September 25, 2014
Professor Alina Das led the effort in the preparation of an immigration law professors' amici brief in support of the petitioner in Mellouli v. Holder, pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. See Download Immigration Law Professors.
The question presented by the case is whether, to trigger deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which provides that a noncitizen may be removed if he has been convicted of violating “any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21) . . . ,” the government must prove the connection between a drug paraphernalia conviction and a substance listed in section 802 of the Controlled Substances Act.
The law professors brief contends that (1) courts and the agency have long applied the categorical approach to assess the immigration consequences of convictions, including drug convictions and (2) the U.S. government's position conflicts with that approach.
List of Amici Curiae
Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.
Muneer I. Ahmad, Clinical Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Raquel Aldana, Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty Scholarship, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
Deborah Anker, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School
David Baluarte, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, Washington and Lee University School of Law
Melynda Barnhart, Professor of Law, New York Law School
Lenni Benson, Professor of Law, New York Law School
Virginia Benzan, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School
Linda Bosniak, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School – Camden
Richard A. Boswell, Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Global Programs, and Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, University of California Hastings School of Law
Jason A. Cade, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law
Janet M. Calvo, Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law
Kristina M. Campbell, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Immigration and Human Rights Clinic, University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
Stacy Caplow, Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Professional Legal Education, Director of Clinical Education, and Co-Director, Safe Harbor Project, Brooklyn Law School
Jennifer M. Chacón, Professor of Law, University of California Irvine School of Law
Violeta Chapin, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School
Ming Hsu Chen, Associate Professor, University of Colorado Law School
Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law, University of California Davis School of Law
Michael J. Churgin, Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law, University of Texas at Austin
Marisa S. Cianciarulo, Professor of Law and Director, Bette & Wylie Aitken Family Violence Clinic, Chapman University School of Law
Evelyn H. Cruz, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Immigration Law & Policy Clinic, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Alina Das, Associate Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, New York University School of Law
Nora V. Demleitner, Dean and Roy L. Steinheimer, Jr. Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law
David C. Drake, Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law, George Mason University School of Law
Ingrid Eagly, Assistant Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law
César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, Visiting Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Lauren Gilbert, Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law
Jennifer Gordon, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
Joanne Gottesman, Clinical Professor and Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic, Rutgers School of Law – Camden
Anju Gupta, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, Rutgers School of Law – Newark
Jonathan Hafetz, Associate Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law Susan Hazeldean, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Maurice Hew, Jr., Associate Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Legal Education, Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Geoffrey A. Hoffman, Clinical Associate Professor and Director, Immigration Clinic, University of Houston Law Center
Mary Holper, Associate Clinical Professor, Boston College Law School
Alan Hyde, Distinguished Professor and Sidney Reitman Scholar, Rutgers University School of Law – Newark
Kit Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, The University of Oklahoma College of Law
Daniel Kanstroom, Professor of Law, Dean’s Research Scholar, and Director, International Human Rights Program, Boston College Law School
Elizabeth Keyes, Assistant Professor and Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, University of Baltimore School of Law
Jennifer Lee Koh, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Immigration Clinic, Western State University College of Law
Hiroko Kusuda, Assistant Clinical Professor, Law Clinic & Center for Social Justice, Loyola New Orleans College of Law
Stephen Lee, Professor of Law, University of California Irvine School of Law
Beth Lyon, Professor of Law, Director, Farmworker Legal Aid Clinic, Co-Director, Community Interpreter Internship Program, and Acting Director of Clinical Programs, Villanova University School of Law
Anita Ortiz Maddali, Associate Professor of Law and Director of Clinics, Northern Illinois University College of Law
Anjana Malhotra, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Immigration and Human Rights Clinic, State University of New York – Buffalo Law School
Lynn Marcus, Professor of the Practice and Co- Director, Immigration Law Clinic, University of Arizona Rogers College of Law
Peter L. Markowitz, Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Kenneth A. Mayeaux, Assistant Professor of Professional Practice, Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center
Elizabeth McCormick, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Director, Immigrant Rights Project, and Director, Clinical Education Programs, University of Tulsa College of Law
Michelle McKinley, Bernard B. Kliks Associate Professor, University of Oregon School of Law M.
Isabel Medina, Ferris Family Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Nancy Morawetz, Professor of Clinical Law and Co- Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, New York University School of Law
Fatma E. Marouf, Associate Professor of Law and Co- Director, Immigration Clinic, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Vanessa Merton, Professor and Faculty Supervisor, Immigration Justice Clinic, Pace University School of Law
Jennifer Moore, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law
Hiroshi Motomura, Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Lori A. Nessel, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Social Justice, Seton Hall University School of Law
Michael A. Olivas, William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Houston Law Center
Patrick D. O’Neill, Adjunct Professor, Legal Aid Clinic, University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Michele R. Pistone, Professor of Law and Director, Clinic for Asylum, Refugee and Emigrant Services, Villanova University School of Law
Nina Rabin, Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law
Jayesh Rathod, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Immigrant Justice Clinic, American University Washington College of Law
Maritza Reyes, Associate Professor of Law, Florida A&M University College of Law
Jenny Roberts, Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Scholarship, and Co-Director, Criminal Justice Clinic, American University, Washington College of Law
Sarah Rogerson, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Co-Director, Law Clinic & Justice Center, Director, Family Violence Litigation Clinic and Immigration Project, Albany Law School
Victor C. Romero, Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law, The Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law
Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law
Kevin Ruser, M.S. Hevelone Professor of Law, Director of Clinical Programs, University of Nebraska College of Law
Heather Scavone, Assistant Professor of Law and Director, Humanitarian Immigration Law Clinic, Elon University School of Law
Irene Scharf, Professor of Law and Director, Immigration Law Clinic, University of Massachusetts School of Law – Dartmouth
Barbara Schwartz, Clinical Law Professor, University of Iowa College of Law
Rachel Settlage, Assistant Professor and Director, Asylum and Immigration Law Clinic, Wayne State Law School
Ragini Shah, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Programs, Suffolk Law School
Rebecca Sharpless, Clinical Professor and Director, Immigration Clinic, University of Miami School of Law Dan R. Smulian, Associate Professor of Clinical Law and Co-Director, Safe Harbor Project, Brooklyn Law School
Gemma Solimene, Clinical Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
Jayashri Srikantiah, Professor of Law and Director, Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, Stanford Law School
Juliet P. Stumpf, Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School
Maureen A. Sweeney, Law School Associate Professor and Director, Immigration Clinic, University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Margaret Taylor, Professor of Law, Wake Forest University School of Law
David B. Thronson, Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Michigan State University College of Law
Katharine Tinto, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Enid Trucios-Haynes, Professor of Law, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law Bernard Trujillo, Professor of Law, Valparaiso University
Diane Uchimiya, Professor of Law, Director of Experiential Learning, and Director, Justice and Immigration Clinic, University of La Verne College of Law
Michael S. Vastine, Professor of Law and Director, Immigration Clinic, St. Thomas University School of Law
Olsi Vrapi, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law
David P. Weber, Professor of Law, Creighton University School of Law
Jonathan Weinberg, Professor of Law, Wayne State University
Anna Welch, Associate Clinical Professor, Refugee and Human Rights Clinic, University of Maine School of Law
Michael J. Wishnie, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law and Deputy Dean for Experiential Education, Yale Law School
Lauris Wren, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Asylum Clinic, Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law
Stephen Yale-Loehr, Adjunct Professor of Immigration Law and Co-Director, Immigration Appellate Law and Advocacy Clinic, Cornell University Law School
Migration Information Source provides the latest information on Vietnamese Immigrants in the United States. Within the past four decades, the once-tiny population of Vietnamese immigrants in the United States has grown into one of the country’s largest foreign-born groups. Vietnamese migration to the United States has occurred in three waves, the first beginning in 1975 at the end of the Vietnam War, when the fall of Saigon led to the U.S.-sponsored evacuation of approximately 125,000 Vietnamese refugees. This first wave consisted mainly of military personnel and urban, educated professionals whose association with the U.S. military or the South Vietnamese government made them targets of the communist forces. In the late 1970s, a second wave of Vietnamese refugees entered the United States in what became known as the “boat people” refugee crisis. This group came from mainly rural areas and was often less educated than earlier arrivals; many were ethnic Chinese immigrants fleeing persecution in Vietnam. The third wave entered the United States throughout the 1980s and 1990s; unlike earlier arrivals, this group contained fewer refugees and included thousands of Vietnamese Amerasians (children of U.S. servicemen and Vietnamese mothers) as well as political prisoners.
Abstract: Immigration judges routinely use police reports to make life-altering decisions in noncitizens’ lives. The word of the police officer prevents a detainee from being released on bond, leads to negative discretionary decisions in relief from removal, and can prove that a past crime fits within a ground of removability. Yet the police officers who write these reports rarely step foot in immigration court; immigration judges rely on the hearsay document to make such critical decisions. This practice is especially troubling when the same police reports cannot be used against the noncitizen in a criminal case without the officer testifying, due to both the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause and Federal Rules of Evidence, neither of which apply in immigration court. In these days of the increasing criminalization of immigration law and prioritization of deporting so-called “criminal aliens,” the police report problem is salient, and impacts thousands of noncitizens every year.
This article argues for a right to confront police officers in immigration court by examining three different ways to conceptualize removal proceedings: (1) in light of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, deportation should be considered punishment, thus guaranteeing all of the protections of a criminal trial, including the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; (2) under the Mathews v. Eldridge case-by-case balancing test of the due process clause, courts should balance the interests at stake and adopt a right to confrontation and cross-examination of police officers in immigration court; and (3) if deportation is conceptualized as “quasi-criminal” and thus deserving of some, but not all, of the protections guaranteed at a criminal trial, one of those protections should be the right to confront one’s accuser, especially when the accuser is a police officer.
The scholarship has focused on why other rights guaranteed in a criminal trial – court-appointed counsel, freedom from ex post facto laws, freedom from double jeopardy, proportionality principles, and the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule – should apply to removal proceedings. An overlooked criminal protection is the right to confront one’s accuser in immigration court.
A professor and vice-chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Columbia University, Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic has pioneered groundbreaking and potentially lifesaving methods of developing new biomaterials and scaffold architecture to engineer human tissue. In 2012, she was given one of the highest distinctions awarded to an engineer when she was elected to the National Academy of Engineering. She often serves as an advisor to government organizations on tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The National Education Association has weighed in on the competitive Colorado Senate race, where incumbent U.S. Senator Mark Udall, a Democrat, finds himself in a dead heat with Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican challenger. The teachers' union has a Spanish TV ad that attacks Gardner for supporting legislative proposals that would make it more difficult for poor and middle income families to send their children to college.
Marti L. Jones, AILA Member and Artesia Volunteer writes about a three week experience in Artesia providing legal assistance to Central American women and children. The description is surreal.
It has been reported that ICE is appealing the granting of all bonds below $30,000. The "argument"? The release of anyone form Artesia threatens the national security of the U.S. pursuant to a 2003 ruling in In Re D-J, by Attorney General John ashcroft in which the he refused refused to bond out a Haitian noncitizen on national security grounds. Ashcrofty reasoned that
"INS maintains that these declarations show that there are strong concerns of national security requiring the continued detention of the respondent and similarly situated undocumented migrants pending removal proceedings. Two general areas of concern are implicated. First, there is a concern that the release of aliens such as respondent and the other October 29 migrants would tend to encourage further surges of mass migration from Haiti by sea, with attendant strains on national and homeland security resources. Such mass migrations would also place the lives of the aliens at risk. Second, in light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there is increased necessity in preventing undocumented aliens from entering the country without the screening of the immigration inspections process."
The U.S. government also reportedly is seeking to revoke bond that has already been posted for a number of the mothers and children. Where is the heart of the Obama admistration?
Marti Jones leaves us with an "iconic image from . . . Artesia: blowing in the wind against the grey clouded sky, a large, faded, very tattered, American flag."
From Detention Watch Network:
Advocates Slam ICE Plans to Open New Family Detention Facility in Dilley TX
Statement from Silky Shah, co-director of the Detention Watch Network, on the announcement that ICE plans to open a new facility to detain immigrant families and children in Dilley, Texas:
“News that the White House plans to double-down on their failed, inhumane, and alarmingly punitive response to refugee families arriving at the border by opening a new facility to incarcerate immigrant families and children in Dilley, Texas is deeply disappointing. Additionally troubling is the fact that ICE will contract with the notorious Corrections Corporation of America, a company known for its human rights violations at countless facilities, including the T. Don Hutto Detention Center, which stopped holding families after news broke of the appalling treatment and conditions of children in their custody.
It is long past time that the Obama Administration abandon the abusive, and inhumane practice of family detention that erodes family bonds, and undermines children’s wellbeing. That starts with closing Artesia, and cancelling plans for their new 2400-bed facility in Dilley.”
Earlier this week, the Detention Watch Network released a report that documented the skyrocketing use of family detention in the United States and outlined the specific conditions on-the-ground at the Artesia Family Detention Facility in New Mexico.
VIEW THE REPORT HERE.
President Obama appointed Denny Chin to be a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2009. Prior to that, Chin had been was appointed by President Clinton to the position of U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, in 1994, and in that role he presided over the notable case U.S. v. Madoff.
From 1994 to 2010, Judge Chin served as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. He presided over a number of notable matters, including cases involving Megan's Law, the Million Youth March, Al Franken's use of the phrase "Fair and Balanced" in the title of a book, the Naked Cowboy, the Google Books Project, and the United Nations Oil for Food Program. He also presided over the trial of an Afghan warlord charged with conspiring to import heroin and the guilty plea and sentencing of financier Bernard L. Madoff.
Judge Chin has taught legal writing at Fordham Law School since 1986. While in private practice, he provided extensive pro bono representation to the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. He served as President of the Asian American Bar Association of New York from 1992-1994. He has served on the boards of numerous non-profit organizations, including Hartley House, Care for the Homeless, the Clinton Housing Association and the Prospect Park Environmental Center. Judge Chin is currently a Vice President of the Fordham Law School Alumni Association, a member of the advisory boards of the Feerick Center for Social Justice and the Center on Law and Information Policy at Fordham Law School, and a member of the Board of Trustees of Princeton University. Judge Chin is the recipient of the Woodrow Wilson Award from Princeton University, the Spirit of Excellence Award from the American Bar Association, the Edward Weinfeld Award from the New York County Lawyers Association, the Lifetime Achievement Award from Judicial Friends, the Abely Award for Leading Women and Children to Safety from Sanctuary for Families, the Medal of Achievement from the Fordham Law Alumni Association, and the J. Edward Lumbard Award from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
Immigration Article of the Day: The Rise of Speed Deportation and the Role of Discretion by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
The Rise of Speed Deportation and the Role of Discretion by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Penn State Law August 25, 2014 Columbia Journal of Race and Law, Forthcoming Penn State Law Research Paper No. 31-2014
Abstract: 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. The policy goals of speed deportation are economic because government resources like a trial attorney, immigration judge and a fundamentally fair hearing are saved. Higher deportation numbers may also benefit the image the government seeks to portray to policymakers who support amplified immigration enforcement. However, the human consequences of speed deportation are significant and can result in the ejection of people who qualify for relief before an immigration judge or otherwise present strong equities like family ties, long term residence and steady employment in the United States. Moreover, the risk that the government may wrongly classify a person as a candidate for speed deportation is more than a remote possibility. This Article examines deportations resulting from the expedited removal, administrative removal and reinstatement of removal orders programs and the extent to which the government has discretion to give individuals who present compelling equities, including eligibility for relief, a more complete court proceeding before an immigration judge. This Article also explores the possibility that an agency’s decision to place a person in speed deportation instead of a full court proceeding is “arbitrary and capricious” under administrative law.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Today, Detention Watch Network released the findings of their latest “Expose and Close” report on the Artesia Family Residential Center - documenting the conditions facing families currently detained in Artesia, New Mexico. The report outlines hows conditions at the Artesia Family Residential Center, specifically the barriers to legal access, broken asylum process, interference with telephone communications, deficient medical and mental health care, lack of childcare and educational services, and the inadequate conditions for good health and wellness create dangerous conditions that undermine the wellbeing of women and children under U.S. custody. Moreover, the report documents the dramatic rise in the use of family detention by U.S. officials - skyrocketing more than 1200% in the last 3 months alone.
Forbes has an interesting new article: The Myth Of The 'Anchor Baby.'
It discusses how some (privileged) women travel to the United States late in pregnancy with the specific goal of attaining U.S. citizenship for their offspring. Forbes cites a 2010 WaPo article on point. I'll note there was also a 2013 segment of the now-cancelled Brian Williams vehicle Rock Center on this topic, which called the phenomenon "Birth Tourism."
The Forbes article notes (what is obvious to most of our dear readers) that a minor child's U.S. citzenship won't confer lawful status on their parents nor prevent their deportation. And that the U.S. citizen child cannot sponsor their parents' immigration until they reach age of 21.
The article concludes:
"As for education in the meantime, unless the child can show legal guardianship or custody by a U.S. or Canadian citizen that would give them permission to reside in North America, they will not be able to study here, either."
It's that last bit that gives me some pause. A U.S. citizen does not need "permission" to reside in North America. Certainly, parents could send a USC child to live with family or friends in the United States. Or even pay an individual in the United States to care for their child. And, for college students, they could live in the United States entirely on their own.
I do appreciate the writer's efforts to downplay concerns over "anchor babies." After all, as Professor Olivas brought to my attention yesterday, we live in a world where a U.S. Congressman (Gohmert for the record) has taken the position that we should not merely worry about "anchor babies" but "terror babies." As the Fifth Circuit summarized in footnote 1 of a recent opinion:
Rep. Gohmert’s statement on the floor of the House of Representatives about “terror babies,” in which Rep. Gohmert claimed that a retired FBI agent had told him the FBI was investigating overseas terrorism cells planning to place pregnant women in the United States. According to Gohmert, the women were to have a baby or babies and return back overseas to raise the children, now U.S. citizens, to become future terrorists, so the children could someday return to “destroy our way of life.” 156 Cong. Rec. H4867 (daily ed. June 24, 2010) (statement of Rep. Gohmert).
Le sigh. For the record, Gohmert's statements are entirely consistent with Harlan Coben's novel Long Lost.
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy has published a Special Issue: New Challenges in Immigration Theory. The issue includes
New challenges in immigration theory: an overview Crispino E.G. Akakpo & Patti T. Lenard
Beyond reason: the philosophy and politics of immigration Phillip Cole
The right to exclude Michael Blake
An overview of the ethics of immigration Joseph H. Carens
Reframing the brain drain Alex Sager
Temporary migration projects and voting rights Valeria Ottonelli & Tiziana Torresi
Detaining immigrants and asylum seekers: a normative introduction Stephanie J. Silverman
Climate change refugees Matthew Lister
Reimagining the Midwest: Immigration Initiatives and the Capacity of Local Leadership September 23, 2014 Washington D.C.– Despite the absence of federal action on immigration, local government initiatives across the Midwest are encouraging new growth, building community and harnessing the contributions of immigrants, according to a new report released today by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the American Immigration Council. The report comes at the close of National Welcoming Week (September 13-21), a series of events across the country that highlight contributions of immigrants to American communities and brings together immigrants and native-born community members. “Reimagining the Midwest: Immigration Initiatives and the Capacity of Local Leadership,” is the first report of its kind to focus exclusively on the Midwest region and represents an extensive review of the vast array of immigrant integration initiatives at the state, municipal, metropolitan, and civic levels. The report highlights initiatives that are fostering immigrant entrepreneurs, passing integration ordinances, promoting civic engagement, evaluating economic impact, providing education resources, and celebrating cultural diversity, among other efforts. It urges leaders to:
1. Think creatively about opportunities for local action despite federal inaction around immigration reform.
2. Leverage community institutions and the private sector to maximize resources.
3. Foster inclusive metro-wide and regional collaboration, recognizing that communities and neighborhoods are interconnected.
Murrieta, California received much negative publicity for protesting the detention of unaccompanied minors in the small Southern California town. The state of California and other governments are stepping up to help. Nikita Stewart of the New York Times reports that the New York City Council and two foundations are combining forces to provide legal representation and other services to some 1,000 unaccompanied immigrant children facing possible deportation. Advocates for immigrants fear that the children, often fleeing abuse or gang violence, will otherwise be denied due process.
John Liu served as the 43rd comptroller of New York City from 2010 to 2013, becoming the first Asian-American to hold city-wide office in New York. Taking office amid a severe economic crisis, he facilitated economic growth and job creation with the acceleration of urban capital projects. He also developed the online application CheckbookNYC.com, which provided new transparency in government spending. Prior to that, Liu represented Flushing and northeast Queens in the City Council.
From the Bookshelves: International Migration, U.S. Immigration Law and Civil Society: From the Colonial Era to the 113th Congress Edited by Leonir Mario Chiarello and Donald Kerwin
The Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN) and the Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) have released a new book on US immigration flows, trends, law and civil society titled International Migration, U.S. Immigration Law and Civil Society: From the Colonial Era to the 113th Congress. It is the tenth in a series on international migration to and within the Americas. Earlier volumes have covered immigration policy and civil society in the Western Hemisphere and in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru. The series draws on contributions from leading scholars and practitioners in the field. Joseph Chamie, the former director of the United Nations Population Division and former editor of the International Migration Review, provides a magisterial overview of migration flows to and within the Americas over the last 525 years, with particular focus on the United States and the territory that became the United States. He also highlights several themes that weave through this long history. Charles Wheeler, a senior attorney and director of training and legal support for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), provides a concise and timely history of US immigration law and policy, starting in the colonial era and leading to the current impasse on immigration reform. Sara Campos, a freelance writer and the former director of the Asylum Program for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, writes a groundbreaking chapter on the growing role of civil society in the US immigrant communities and in the US immigration debate. All three chapters, as well as an introduction by Donald Kerwin, speak very directly to the US immigration debate.
Click here for a review of the book.
Immigration Article of the Day: Transnational Migration, Globalization, and Governance: Reflections on the Central America – United States Immigration Crisis by Chantal Thomas
Transnational Migration, Globalization, and Governance: Reflections on the Central America – United States Immigration Crisis by Chantal Thomas, Cornell Law School September 3, 2014 Handbook on International Legal Theory (Oxford U. Press, Forthcoming) Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 14-26
Abstract: The Central America - U.S. border crisis has stoked the fires of a roaring debate on immigration and immigration reform. At a time when real economic growth in the global North continues to stagnate, and income inequality continues to intensify, conditions favor a certain kind of xenophobia that scapegoats immigrants for socioeconomic ills. Under such understandings, immigration influxes are portrayed as exogenous phenomena, but, in fact, migration from the global South to the global North often operates in a kind of boomerang effect. Current asylum and immigration patterns often reflect reactions to previous political and economic interventions by the global North in the home territories of the migrant populations. This article considers these background dynamics in relation to the immigration and asylum surge from Central America, and reflects on the interrelationship and utility of existing paradigms of migration law. A central finding criticizes the narrow understanding of asylum as established by prevailing legal norms.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Here's a new argument being made by Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, in a blog post for The Hill: Obama's lawless immigration plan is a gift to the 1 percent.
"Unlike most political issues, immigration is not really a right vs. left or Republican vs. Democrat issue. Instead, immigration is better understood as an elite vs. public issue where the elite in our society tends to support higher levels of immigration and where the general public tends to support lower levels of immigration. For politicians of all political stripes, the question on immigration is whether they will side with the elite or the public."
FROM THE BOOKSHELVES Sounds of Belonging: U.S. Spanish-language Radio and Public Advocacy by Dolores Ines Casillas
The last two decades have produced continued Latino population growth, and marked shifts in both communications and immigration policy. Since the 1990s, Spanish- language radio has dethroned English-language radio stations in major cities across the United States, taking over the number one spot in Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, and New York City. Investigating the cultural and political history of U.S. Spanish-language broadcasts throughout the twentieth century, Sounds of Belonging reveals how these changes have helped Spanish-language radio secure its dominance in the major U.S. radio markets. Bringing together theories on the immigration experience with sound and radio studies, Dolores Inés Casillas documents how Latinos form listening relationships with Spanish-language radio programming. Using a vast array of sources, from print culture and industry journals to sound archives of radio programming, she reflects on institutional growth, the evolution of programming genres, and reception by the radio industry and listeners to map the trajectory of Spanish-language radio, from its grassroots origins to the current corporate-sponsored business it has become. Casillas focuses on Latinos’ use of Spanish-language radio to help navigate their immigrant experiences with U.S. institutions, for example in broadcasting discussions about immigration policies while providing anonymity for a legally vulnerable listenership. Sounds of Belonging proposes that debates of citizenship are not always formal personal appeals but a collective experience heard loudly through broadcast radio.