Saturday, June 30, 2018
Members of the Immprof community have continued to write important op-eds and essays in response to current events related to asylum and Trump v. Hawaii , the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the travel ban. Here’s a collection of pieces from the past week (updated July 1):
- Ingrid Eagly (UCLA), Steven Shafer (Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project) and Jana Whalley (National Immigration Law Center), Washington Post, Don't Let Trump's New Immigration Policy Trick You (on family detention)
- Lindsay Harris (University of District Columbia), Washington Post, Seeking Asylum Isn’t a Crime. Why Do Trump and Sessions Act Like It Is?
- Audrey Macklin (Toronto), Washington Post, Canada is Abandoning Asylum Seekers in a Hostile Country: The U.S. (on the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement)
- Jacqueline Bhabha (Harvard), Globe and Mail, America's Treatment of Migrants is Sending the Country Back to the Dark Ages
- Maryellen Fullerton (Brooklyn), The Hill, Criminal Prosecutions at the Border Violate International Law
- Susan Bibler Coutin (UCI - Criminology, Law & Society), The Globe Post, President Trump and Zero Tolerance for Victims of Persecution
- Anil Kalhan (Drexel), ACS Blog, Trump v. Hawaii and Chief Justice Roberts’s “Korematsu is Overruled” Parlor Trick (“Ultimately, Roberts’s emphatic but misleading disavowal of Korematsu functions mostly as a jurisprudential version of protesting that the Court “doesn’t have a racist bone in its body,” or of trotting out the Court’s Japanese American friend to refute any contention that it might be validating racism.”)
- Paul Kramer (Vanderbilt - History), Slate, Enemies of the State: America has always discriminated in the name of security. It’s just gotten better at pretending it’s not
- Irene Scharf (U Mass Dartmouth), Human Rights at Home Blog, The US Supreme Court's Travel Ban Decision
- Elizabeth McCormick (Tulsa), Tulsa World, Attorney General Sessions Ignores International Law and Human Rights in Denying Asylum to Domestic Violence Victims
- Natalie Nanasi (Southern Methodist University), TribTalk (Texas Tribune), A Government Attack on Immigrant Women and Children
And from last month, but still relevant:
- Andrew Schoenholtz (Georgetown), New York Daily News, Trump's Closed Door to Refugees is a Massive Betrayal of American Values, and a Serious Humanitarian Failure
Protestors around the country today sought to bring attention to the issues surrounding separation of asylum-seeking families in the wake of AG Sessions' "zero-tolerance" border policy. Thousands marched in cities all over the United States from Washington D.C. to Los Angeles, Portland to Grand Forks.
"We care!" was heard coast to coast.
John Burnett on NPR reports on possible family detention. Now that President Trump can no longer separate migrant families apprehended at the border, his administration is preparing to lock them up as a unit. The Defense Department is under orders to confine up to 12,000 immigrant parents with their children on military bases, as a way to deter future illegal immigration. Two installations in Texas plan to start putting up temporary housing after July Fourth.
Family confinement has a troubled, litigious history in the United States, and legal advocates for immigrants are preparing for a major battle ahead. Listen to the NPR report for details.
From the Bookshelves: The New Deportations Delirium: Interdisciplinary Responses Edited by Daniel Kanstroom and M. Brinton Lykes
The New Deportations Delirium: Interdisciplinary Responses Edited by Daniel Kanstroom and M. Brinton Lykes
Since 1996, when the deportation laws were hardened, millions of migrants to the U.S., including many long-term legal permanent residents with “green cards,” have experienced summary arrest, incarceration without bail, transfer to remote detention facilities, and deportation without counsel—a life-time banishment from what is, in many cases, the only country they have ever known. U.S.-based families and communities face the loss of a worker, neighbor, spouse, parent, or child. Many of the deported are “sentenced home” to a country which they only knew as an infant, whose language they do not speak, or where a family lives in extreme poverty or indebtedness for not yet being able to pay the costs of their previous migration. But what does this actually look like and what are the systems and processes and who are the people who are enforcing deportation policies and practices? The New Deportations Delirium responds to these questions.
Taken as a whole, the volume raises consciousness about the complexities of the issues and argues for the interdisciplinary dialogue and response. Over the course of the book, deportation policy is debated by lawyers, judges, social workers, researchers, and clinical and community psychologists as well as educators, researchers, and community activists. The New Deportations Delirium presents a fresh conversation and urges a holistic response to the complex realities facing not only migrants but also the wider U.S. society in which they have sought a better life.
Here I the table of contents.
Friday, June 29, 2018
The “Voices of Migration” concert, the first ever musical event of its kind to be held at the United Nations, took place in the Rotunda of United Nations Vienna International Center yesterday, showcasing the richness of culture and art that migration brings. Co-hosted by the International Organization for Migration, the UN Migration Agency, and the United Nations Information Service (UNIS), the historic concert featured powerful performances, including two world premieres by migrant composers from the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey, performed by a diverse group of world-class musicians.
The stunning programme was curated by Bärli Nugent, a renowned concert flautist and Assistant Dean and Director of Chamber Music of the Juilliard School in New York City. The event drew a high-level audience of over 150 diplomats, UN officials, classical music aficionados, and members of academia. Highly acclaimed Vienna musicians included Sophia Hahn of the Schönbrunn Palace Orchestra, violinist Sylvia Kimiko Krutz, soprano Jerilyn Jiuan-Ru Chou, and pianist Aki Maeda.
Equal protection doctrine addressed to immigrants' rights is thoroughly exceptional. It is an amalgam of super-deference, suspect class treatment, and even intermediate scrutiny, depending upon whether immigrants are present in the United States lawfully or not, and whether a state or federal classification is at issue. No other area of equal protection law modulates equal protection scrutiny in this way, producing unparalleled complexity and tension within the doctrine--and ultimately undermining equality. It is time to rethink the doctrine.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
On July 4, we celebrate our nation’s 242nd birthday and the day the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
USCIS marks Independence Day with naturalization ceremonies across the country. This year, we will welcome more than 14,000 new citizens in nearly 175 naturalization ceremonies between June 28 and July 10.
USCIS invites you to share your experiences and photos from naturalization ceremonies on social media, using the hashtags #newUScitizen and #4thofJuly. You can follow us on Twitter (@uscis), YouTube (/uscis), Facebook (/uscis), and Instagram (@uscis).
Check out this list of July 4 naturalization ceremonies.
Public outrage against family separation, detention and immigration enforcement practices continues. Hundreds of women wrapped in foil blankets were arrested at the Hart Senate Building in Washington DC. They chanted "abolish ICE," and also demanded an end to family detention. Protests across the country are planned for Saturday, June 30.
James Schwab used to be a spokesman for ICE. He quit after being asked to perpetuate what he says was a "completely false" claim that ICE failed to make 864 arrests after Oakland mayor Libby Shaaf warned her community about upcoming ICE activity.
How successful were the Oakland enforcement operations after Shaaf's warning? ICE arrested 16% more individuals than their highest estimates. Despite being considered a success internally, ICE's public stance was that more than 800 "wanted criminals" eluded capture because of Shaaf's intervention.
Schwab said: "They know it's a lie... It was just shocking to me that no one wanted to fix that ." And so he resigned. In his 17 years of service with the government up to this point, Schwab noted: "I have never been asked to lie. I have never been asked to perpetuate a lie, which is the same as lying."
In the middle of Schwab's interview with CBS reporter Jamie Yuccas, there's a knock on the door. It's two agents for the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office. For reals! Schwab was "completely shocked," noting "This is intimidation. And this is why people won't come out and speak against the government."
You can watch the complete (and utterly riveting) clip here:
Check out this informative PBS News Hour segment on how U.S. immigration judges are setting bond amounts at figures most immigrants cannot afford: above $10,000.
It's a practice that is affecting family reunification according to immprof Denise Gilman (Texas): "these high bonds [are] leading to lengthier time in detention, and lengthier periods of separation."
Importantly, PBS learned that the EOIR does not keep records regarding "the average bond amount for immigrants in detention, or the percentage of bond requests that are approved."
Immigration Article of the Day: Immigration and Crime and the Criminalization of Immigration by Rubén G. Rumbaut, Katie Dingeman, Anthony Robles
Immigration and Crime and the Criminalization of Immigration by Rubén G. Rumbaut, Katie Dingeman, Anthony Robles, in The Routledge International Handbook of Migration Studies, edited by Steven J. Gold and Stephanie J. Nawyn (2018, Forthcoming)
Historically in the United States, periods of large-scale immigration have been accompanied by perceptions of threat and stereotypes of the feared criminality of immigrants. A century ago major commissions investigated the connection of immigration to crime; each found lower levels of criminal involvement among the foreign-born. The present period echoes that past. Over the past quarter century, alarms have been raised about large-scale immigration, and especially about undocumented immigrants from Latin America. But over the same period, violent crime and property crime rates have been cut in half; the decline in crime has been more pronounced in cities with larger shares of immigrants; and foreign-born young men are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. The evidence demonstrating lower levels of criminal involvement among immigrants is supported by a growing number of contemporary studies. At the same time the period has been marked by the criminalization of immigration itself, and by the confluence of immigration and criminal law and enforcement apparatuses. A series of critical events succeeded by moral panics influenced the passage of hyper-restrictive laws and a massive injection of institutional resources that has built the “crimmigration” enforcement apparatus into the “formidable machinery” underpinning mass deportation today.
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
Today, Justice Kennedy announced that he would be retiring at the end of July.
Kennedy authored the majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, finding Guantanamo Bay detainees to be constitutionally entitled to pursue habeas relief in federal courts. He also authored the majority opinion in Arizona v. US, finding several provisions of the state's anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070, preempted by federal law.
Often characterized as the court's "swing" vote (apt to side with liberal as well as conservative opinions), Kennedy is likely to be replaced with more decidedly conservative justice. Stay tuned to hear about the immigration inclinations of the nominees as they become known.
The Washington Post reports on another legal wrinkle to the Trump's family separation policy.
A federal judge in San Diego yesterday enjoined the separation of migrant children from their parents and required immigration officials to reunify within 30 days families that have been divided as a result of a policy enforced by the Trump administration.
Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction sought by the American Civil Liberties Union. He said all children must be reunited with their families within 30 days, allowing just 14 days for the return of children under 5 to their parents. He also ordered that parents be allowed to speak by phone with their children within 10 days.
The judge stated bluntly: “The unfortunate reality is that under the present system, migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property.”
In his 24-page order, Sabraw rules children could be separated at the border only if adults with them were found to pose a danger to the children. He also said adults could not be deported from the country without their children.
Sabraw was nominated to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2003.
Immigration Article of the Day: Gender Violence, State Action, and Power and Control in the Northern Triangle by Lauren Gilbert
Gender Violence, State Action, and Power and Control in the Northern Triangle by Lauren Gilbert, in in Raquel Aldana & Steven Bender, eds., From Extraction to Emancipation: Development Reimagined, American Bar Association and Carolina Press, 2018.
This chapter, Gender Violence, State Action, and Power and Control in the Northern Triangle, is the concluding chapter in Raquel Aldana's and Steven Bender's edited volume, From Extraction to Emancipation: Development Reimagined, published by the American Bar Association and Carolina Press in May 2018.
Gilbert's chapter is based on her experience as an Attorney-Investigator with the United Nations Truth Commission in El Salvador from 1992-1993, and her more recent work on behalf of Central American women and children fleeing violence in their homelands. In this chapter, she examines the role of gendered violence directed at women in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras both during the political upheavals of the 1980s and 1990s and over the last decade, examining how the failure then to confront gender violence as a form of state-sponsored terrorism led to its role today in contributing to the climate of fear and instability that plagues the region. In light of the U.S. government's and particularly, Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recent decisions and pronouncements gutting protection for Central American asylum seekers, it is essential that both policymakers and advocates recognize that the gendered violence that propels migration today from the Northern Triangle is connected to the dark yet largely untold history of state-sponsored violence against women in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. While Northern Triangle states as well as the U.S. government largely blame gangs for the resurgence of violence against women, this chapter shows that this new terror cannot be disentangled from these nations’ dark past with gendered state-sponsored violence.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Public outrage against this Administration's immigration policies is building. 25 immigration activists, including a number of clergy and other faith leaders, were arrested this morning during AG Sessions visit to Los Angeles.
Sessions was in LA to speak at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation lunch, in which he sharply criticized progressives for advocating for open borders, defended family detention, suggested that strict immigration enforcement would lower crime rates, and took aim at sanctuary cities.
The Chronicle of Higher Education covers how law school immigration clinics have responded to the attacks on immigrants *under the current political climate. The article profiles clinical professor Elissa Steglich (University of Texas Law), who supplied the quote above; the University of Pittsburgh Law's Sheila Velez Martinez; and Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights attorney Elizabeth Frankel (University of Chicago).
The article certainly echoes the reality, based on conversations I've seen at conferences, list-servs, and informal gatherings, professor and attorneys teaching in immigration clinics are witnessing intensity at every level, from community demands to client needs to the urgency surrounding broader advocacy in immigration. For law students, this is a historic time at which to take advantage of the opportunity to enroll in an immigration clinic if offered by the law school. The opportunity to make a tremendous impact, as well as to engage critically in what it means to be a lawyer and a social justice advocate, is available through such clinics.
The Section on Immigration Law of the Association of American Law Schools invites papers and works in progress for its “New Voices in Immigration Law” works-in-progress session during the 2019 AALS Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, which will take place January 2-6, 2019. This session has been scheduled for Saturday, January 5, 2019, at 3:30pm. We particularly welcome submissions from individuals who have never presented an immigration law paper at the AALS Annual Meeting and from junior scholars. Submissions may address any aspect of immigration and citizenship law, and we are also open to receiving papers that explore these topics from alternative disciplines or perspectives. Please note that individuals presenting at the program are responsible for their own Annual Meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
Submission Guidelines: The deadline for submissions is August 15, 2018. Instead of a full-length paper, please submit a concept note of 5-15 double-spaced pages that contains a summary of the key ideas. If you have already written a full-length paper, please send an excerpt of the paper (not to exceed 15 double- spaced pages) with an explanatory introduction. Priority will be given to individuals who have never presented an immigration law paper at the AALS Annual Meeting and to junior scholars.
Please email submissions in Microsoft Word format to AALS2019ImmigrationLaw@kalhan.com (Subject: AALS 2019: New Voices in Immigration Law). In your email, please indicate whether you have previously presented your work at the AALS Annual Meeting, and if so when.
Inquiries: Please direct any questions or inquiries to Anil Kalhan (email@example.com).
The Section on Immigration Law of the Association of American Law Schools invites papers for presentation at its principal session during the 2019 AALS Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, which will take place January 2-6, 2019. This session has been scheduled for Saturday, January 5, 2019, at 10:30am. Please note that individuals presenting at the program are responsible for their own Annual Meeting registration fee and travel expenses.
The session theme is “Immigration Law Values.” The values implicated by immigration law are complex and difficult to define. This program will identify the fundamental values of contemporary immigration law and policy and examine immigration law values past, present, and future. The United States has long proclaimed to be a “nation of immigrants,” but immigration law and policy have always sent conflicting signals. While welcoming and valuing immigrants, the United States used a racially-based immigration policy until the 1950s. While overseeing a robust legal immigration system, Congress vastly expanded the categories of individuals potentially subject to expulsion and otherwise increased the harshness of the removal system in the 1990s. While immigration law has operated since the 19th century under constitutional principles that formally purport to give Congress sweeping power it does not have in most other contexts, courts have often flinched from giving full effect to those doctrinal principles.
The Trump presidency’s immigration agenda has sought to comprehensively dismantle mechanisms that welcome, value, and integrate immigrants in favor of a stance that more unequivocally insists that the United States does not, in fact, welcome or value immigrants at all. The administration’s actions call into question basic principles that many have believed to have long since been resolved and settled. For example, the Trump presidency’s discriminatory executive order banning the entry of millions of Muslims into the United States knocks off balance a long-accepted principle that immigration law should not discriminate on the basis of race or religion.
In addition to examining immigration values past and present, the program will explore whether there are values that might not currently be understood as settled principles in contemporary immigration law that should be. For example, is immigration law immoral if it causes or results in the separation of families? Does immigration adjudication in its current configuration fail to meet basic norms of fairness? What would make contemporary immigration law closer to realizing immigration ideals?
Submission Guidelines: The deadline for submissions is August 15, 2018. We welcome submissions at any stage of development, although preference may be given to more fully developed papers over abstracts and paper proposals. Priority also will be given to individuals who have not recently presented a paper at the AALS Annual Meeting. Decisions will be made by mid-September 2018.
Please email submissions in Microsoft Word format to AALS2019ImmigrationLaw@kalhan.com (Subject: AALS 2019: Immigration Law Values). In your email, please indicate whether you have previously presented your work at the AALS Annual Meeting, and if so when.
Inquiries: Please direct any questions or inquiries to Anil Kalhan (firstname.lastname@example.org) and Jill Family (email@example.com).