Friday, May 31, 2019
WASHINGTON, May 31, 2019 — The American Bar Association is deeply disturbed by reports that hundreds of unaccompanied children seeking refuge in the United States are being held by the U.S. Border Patrol in violation of the law and federal policies.
According to federal law and court orders, immigrant children generally cannot be held by law enforcement for more than 72 hours before being transferred to shelters that are better equipped to care for their physical and psychological needs. Yet news reports cite recent federal data that hundreds of children, many aged 12 and younger, have been held in Border Patrol custody for an average of six days, in facilities that are intended to be short-term processing stations.
The current situation is unacceptable. Leaders at every level of the federal government, including the White House and Congress, must immediately find legal and humane alternatives that relieve the suffering of these children – and then work to create and fund comprehensive, long-term solutions.
With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is one of the largest voluntary professional membership organizations in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law. View our privacy statement online. Follow the latest ABA news at www.americanbar.org/news and on Twitter @ABANews.
UCLA School of Law is hiring a fellow for its new Immigrant Family Legal Clinic to begin in August of 2019. The position is open to recent law graduates, with a preference for attorneys with at least two years of practice experience. The position is a twelve-month contract, with a potential one-year extension.
The UCLA Immigrant Family Legal Clinic is a unique partnership between the UCLA School of Law and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Located on the campus of the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools in the heart of Koreatown, the clinic serves students at the six public schools on the campus, as well as their family members. We provide individual representation in cases involving immigration relief and workers’ rights. We also offer legal consultations involving a wider range of legal topics, which we then seek to refer to partner organizations. In addition, we organize programming and enrichment opportunities related to social justice and legal rights for teachers, students, and families in the RFK community. We collaborate with non-profit organizations and legal service providers in Koreatown on efforts to empower and serve the broader community, and in time, plan to develop a policy component to the clinic’s docket.
The Fellow will be primarily based on the RFK school campus in Koreatown, and will have three major areas of responsibility:
- Direct Representation and Docket Management - The Fellow will provide direct representation and assist with the overall management of the clinic’s docket. This includes:
· Providing representation for the clinic’s existing clients throughout the year, including
during transitions between semesters and over the summer.
· Assisting with supervision of law student casework, which will focus primarily on
immigration remedies (particularly asylum and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status) and workers’ rights cases (wage theft and potential labor-related U/T visas)
· Helping design classes for the clinic seminar related to skills and concepts including
cross-cultural lawyering, community lawyering, and relevant immigration law and
- Legal Consultation Services - The Fellow will provide consultations to RFK students and family members on an ongoing basis. Some of these consultations will involve limited scope representation and/or preparing warm referrals to partner organizations.
- Program Development and Outreach - The Fellow will assist the clinic director in the continued development of relationships within the RFK schools and with community partners. Responsibilities will include:
· Planning and presenting regular outreach presentations in the school for teachers,
students, and parents.
· Meeting regularly with a range of community partners to develop shared initiatives and
· Assisting with the development and organization of the clinic’s Advisory Board.
· Developing the policy research and advocacy component of the clinic’s work.
- J.D. and licensed to practice law in California
- Fluency in Spanish. NOTE: Please do not apply if you do not speak Spanish. This is a
requirement for the fellowship that cannot be waived
- Experience working with low-wage workers, immigrants, refugees, victims of trauma,
and/or incarcerated populations
- Familiarity with immigration and/or workers’ rights
- Strong communication skills, with particular sensitivity to cultural differences
- Experience working in interdisciplinary settings with minimal direct supervision
- Willingness to work irregular hours (some nights and weekends)
Salary: $43,000-$48,000 (depending on years of experience), plus benefits through UCLA
To apply: Please submit your materials (cover letter, resume, writing sample, law school transcript, and three references) through the UCLA career system here by no later than June 15 (if the link does not take you directly to the job posting, it is #30352). Interviews will be conducted on a rolling basis, so applicants are encouraged to send in materials as soon as possible. If you have any questions about the position, please contact Nina Rabin, email@example.com.
USCIS Releases 2018 Statistical Annual Report Report Highlights Agency Programs, Workload, and Accomplishments
WASHINGTON— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today released the Fiscal Year 2018 Statistical Annual Report, which provides statistical information on the most popular and widely-used benefits and programs administered by the agency. The report also provides insight into the nature and scope of USCIS’ work, which involves adjudicating millions of applications and petitions for immigration benefits annually.
“The 2018 USCIS Statistical Annual Report represents a key piece in our continued commitment to provide improved awareness of the nature and scope of work accomplished by the dedicated men and women of USCIS,” said USCIS Director L. Francis Cissna. “Following a long absence, we are again publishing an annual report, emphasizing our promise of full transparency and accountability to the American people.”
“In the last fiscal year, USCIS adjudicated more than eight million requests for immigration benefits, which is a 28 percent increase over the last five fiscal years,” added Director Cissna. “USCIS also helped make the American dream become a reality for 757,000 new citizens, a five year high in new oaths of citizenship. The annual report also showcases the work our agency does to protect the integrity of our nation’s immigration through fraud detection, national security vetting, and administering E-Verify, a web-based system used to protect jobs for legal workers. We are proud of the good work accomplished by our dedicated staff to fairly and efficiently administer our nation’s legal immigration system, protect the homeland, and honor our values.”
Topics within the annual report were chosen based on statistics and information most frequently requested by the media, Congress, interested parties, and the public, as well as data accessed by searches on our website.
This release marks the first time USCIS has published an annual report in roughly a decade, and it came to fruition based on an employee suggestion. At an internal agency town hall, an employee recalled to Director Cissna that USCIS had previously produced an annual report and asked the director to consider bringing back the practice.
For more information on USCIS and our programs, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Twitter (@uscis), Instagram (/uscis), YouTube (/uscis), and Facebook(/uscis).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: Driving Under Influence of Marijuana is a Removable Offense
Diana Novak Jones for Law360 (registration required) reports on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decisions that a conviction for driving under the influence of cannabis can subject a noncitizen to removal from the United States.
Mohamed Sambare, a lawful permanent resident from the Ivory Coast, is facing removal after he pled guilty to driving under the influence in Pennsylvania. Under federal law, any noncitizen can be deported if they are convicted of a crime involving a controlled substance. However, there is an exception for someone convicted one time of possessing less than 30 grams of cannabis for their personal use. The Third Circuit found Sambare was subject to removal and that the exception did not apply.
"Petitioner Mohamed Sambare seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (`BIA'), which dismissed his appeal of an order of removal entered by the Immigration Court. In particular, Sambare asserts that the BIA erred in finding that his conviction under Pennsylvania’s statute criminalizing driving under the influence of a controlled substance, 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3802(d)(1)(i) . . . , constituted a conviction for a `violation of . . . any law or regulation of a State . . . relating to a controlled substance . . . , other than a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana' pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). We disagree, and thus we will deny the Petition."
Campaign 2020 for the U.S. presidency still is in its early stages. Democratic candidates Joaquin Castro and Beto O'Rourke, two border state politicians, have sketched modest immigration plans. Other Democratic candidates at various times have criticized President Trump's signature immigration policies.
The relative silence on immigration among the Democratic candidates is striking given that President Trump has made immigration one of the policy centerpieces -- if not the centerpiece -- of his administration. Besides his focus on the economy and foreign policy, Trump's immigration enforcement measures to this point are among his most memorable policy initiatives. The President's base fully supports immigration enforcement measures as exemplified and symbolized by the U.S./Mexico border wall, which the President has pushed time in and time again -- even to the point of shutdowns of the entire federal government.
Immigration has been said to be the "third rail" in U.S. politics. Although it is widely considered to be a policy issue that requires attention and action, namely reform of the immigration laws. We may not see many specific policy proposals from the candidates. The issue is just too controversial, with partisans embracing strong views about the necessary course of action.
Removals, relief for DACA and TPS recipients, reform of legal immigration, detention, asylum and refugee law and policy, and enforcement of the immigration laws are all issues that cry out for attention. Although the policy choices are at best questionable, President Trump has done a service in bringing the issues to the forefront in the national consciousness. Time will tell whether the candidates articulate specific immigration policy proposals or, as it appears to be the case to this point, they simply resort to an anti-Trump immigration policy platform.
President to Impose Tariffs on Mexico: Statement from the President Regarding Emergency Measures to Address the Border Crisis
Here we go again?
The Statement from the President Regarding Emergency Measures to Address the Border Crisis begins as follows:
"As everyone knows, the United States of America has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico and entering our country illegally. This sustained influx of illegal aliens has profound consequences on every aspect of our national life—overwhelming our schools, overcrowding our hospitals, draining our welfare system, and causing untold amounts of crime. Gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal drugs and narcotics of all kinds are pouring across the Southern Border and directly into our communities. Thousands of innocent lives are taken every year as a result of this lawless chaos. It must end NOW!"
The response from the President:
"To address the emergency at the Southern Border, I am invoking the authorities granted to me by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Accordingly, starting on June 10, 2019, the United States will impose a 5 percent Tariff on all goods imported from Mexico. If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the Tariffs will be removed. If the crisis persists, however, the Tariffs will be raised to 10 percent on July 1, 2019. Similarly, if Mexico still has not taken action to dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States, Tariffs will be increased to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019. Tariffs will permanently remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory. Workers who come to our country through the legal admissions process, including those working on farms, ranches, and in other businesses, will be allowed easy passage." (emphasis added).
The imposition of tariffs is being criticized, including by Republican Senator Charles Grassely (R-Iowa). Global stock markets have dropped in response to the tariff announcement.
It is graduation season! Tatiana Sanchez for the San Francisco Chronicle reports on a first at the
Jirayut “New” Latthivongskorn is a UC Berkeley and Harvard University alumnus, a Forbes 30 Under 30 honoree, founder of an immigration advocacy organization, and now the first undocumented student to graduate from the UCSF School of Medicine in its 155-year history. Actually, Latthivongskorn is a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient.
Latthivongskor ncompleted the program in Medical Education for the Urban Underserved, a five-year track for students focused on serving marginalized communities. He’ll start his residency training in family and community medicine at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital in June.
Latthivongskorn's parents brought him and his two siblings to the U.S. without legal authorization from Thailand as a child. He goes by “New,” a nickname given to him at birth, as is tradition in Thai culture.
“I really channeled a lot of these pressures and uncertainty into school, hoping that that would change things,” said Latthivongskorn.
The border today often is depicted as a place of crime, violence, disorder, and dysfunction. This photo essay from Elizabeth Johnsen for the Opportunity Agenda counters that depiction:
"Over the past year, we have heard a dominant narrative of our border that is harmful, inaccurate, and misleading. Instead, what we know from our partners who live in the border regions is that our border communities are vibrant. They are made up of growing families, thriving small businesses, exquisite wildlife, and generations of activists and change makers -- communities working together to tell a more accurate and life-affirming story about the land that they call home."
Immigration Article of the Day: Quieting the Court: Lessons from The Muslim-Ban Case by Avidan Cover
The Supreme Court’s Muslim-ban decision in Trump v. Hawaii and the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court call into question the civil rights litigation enterprise insofar as it challenges the U.S. government’s national security and immigration policies. Litigants and advocacy organizations should employ an array of strategies and tactics to avoid the Court’s rulings that almost uniformly defer to, and thus validate, the government’s national security and immigration practices.
This article maintains that The Muslim-Ban Case was a predictable outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s national security-immigration jurisprudence that champions executive power at the expense of marginalized groups, in particular non-citizens. The article provides a typology of these cases’ features and examines how The Muslim-Ban Case exhibits these characteristics but also exceeds recent precedents in its disregard of the ban’s bigoted motivations and its excessive deference to the President.
In light of The Muslim-Ban Case and the judiciary’s conservative trajectory, the article proposes that civil rights lawyers and legal advocacy organizations assess whether their litigation risks validating the President’s arrogation of power and the concomitant suppression of minority groups’ liberties. Recognizing the at-times life-saving and moral necessity of litigation, the article first offers discrete litigation strategies that may avoid future adverse decisions. The article then examines extra-judicial forms of advocacy that groups and individuals may adopt in order to secure and develop marginalized groups members’ liberties. This project entails challenging the current legal rights framework’s underlying ideas of American identity, which privileges national sovereignty and citizenship. The article proposes a more inclusive framework that imposes duties on the state to non-citizens through connections of family and on the basis of universal values.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Challengers Allege in Census Lawsuit Filing US Government Witnesses Provided False Testimony About Citizenship Question
Dan Clark of the New York Law Journal and and Michael Wines ofthe NY Times report that the American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, and law firm Arnold & Porter claimed in a new motion with the trial court for the census litigation that, contrary to previous testimony, a longtime Republican redistricting specialist was involved in the question’s genesis. The New York Law Journal story reports:
"Two U.S. government witnesses falsely testified about decision-making about a proposed Census question asking for citizenship status, according to a new filing in the Southern District of New York by civil rights groups suing the Trump administration in a bid to block the question.
Inaccurate statements were given over the formulation of the question as well as the persons involved in developing that part of the decennial head count of persons living in the United States, according to the filing.
The development comes as the U.S. Supreme Court mulls whether to allow the U.S. Department of Commerce to place a question about citizenship on the national survey after a federal judge in Manhattan struck down that attempt in January.
The American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union and law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer claimed in a new motion with the trial court that, contrary to previous testimony, a longtime Republican redistricting specialist was involved in the question’s genesis.
That specialist, Dr. Thomas Hofeller, has since died. But the filing Thursday alleged that new information obtained through unrelated litigation showed he had a hand in formulating the citizenship question during the early years of the Trump administration.
“The new evidence reveals that Dr. Thomas Hofeller, the longtime Republican redistricting specialist, played a significant role in orchestrating the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census in order to create a structural electoral advantage for, in his own words, ‘Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,’ and that Defendants obscured his role through affirmative misrepresentations,” they said in the filing.
Those groups and the firm represent the New York Immigration Coalition, a plaintiff in the litigation.
They asked in the filing that U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York impose unspecified sanctions or “other appropriate relief,” though what that would look like is unclear in the filing. Furman presided over the initial case last year.
Hofeller was known as a longtime architect of some of the country’s most significant political shifts in areas where Democrats lost power due to redistricting. He advised state legislatures on redrawing political districts in ways that would give Republican candidates an advantage. His work is said to have helped Republicans take back the U.S. House in the 2012 elections.
According to the filing, Hofeller helped form the rationale included in a ghostwritten letter that was eventually sent from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Commerce Department to formally request a citizenship question on the next U.S. Census.
That wasn’t known before the filing; two witnesses from the Trump administration hadn’t mentioned Hofeller in previous testimony about the origin of the citizenship question. Hofeller was not a government employee.
It was previously found through the litigation that John Gore, a senior DOJ official, had ghostwritten the request. The letter was signed by Arthur Gary, general counsel of the justice management division at the DOJ, and sent to the Commerce Department in 2017. The letter claimed that adding the question would help them better enforce the Voting Rights Act.
But the filing Thursday claimed that, before Gore had his turn drafting the request, Hofeller had a hand in forming the rationale for a citizenship question on the U.S. Census. Hofeller helped contribute to an initial draft of the request written by A. Mark Neuman, who served on Trump’s transition team, the filing said. That version was then apparently passed on to Gore.
The revelation was made after some of Hofeller’s digital files were produced as part of discovery in an unrelated case in North Carolina. That case is challenging the state’s legislative district maps on grounds of alleged gerrymandering.
The filing Thursday alleged that a document found in Hofeller’s files contained verbatim language used in the initial draft penned by Neuman.
“Dr. Hofeller’s files produced in discovery in the North Carolina case include a Word document containing a paragraph that sets forth the purported VRA enforcement rationale for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census,” the filing said. “That paragraph was incorporated verbatim in the Neuman DOJ Letter that Neuman then delivered to Gore.”
The final letter written by Gore also contained “striking similarities” to language used by Hofeller in an apparent study he published in 2015 on the use of citizen voting age population data for redistricting, rather than a total population count. That study was commissioned by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website.
The letter included language similar to what Hofeller said in the study about the history of a citizenship question on the U.S. Census and the use of data from the American Community Survey, another questionnaire sent routinely by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Hofeller also wrote in the study that adding a citizenship question to the census “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” and “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats.”
Those facts, together, show that the citizenship question was made with a pretext previously concealed by Neuman and Gore, the filing said.
“The new evidence demonstrates a direct through-line from Dr. Hofeller’s conclusion that adding a citizenship question would advantage Republican and non-Hispanic whites to DOJ’s ultimate letter,” the filing said. “The new evidence thus not only contradicts testimony in this case, but it shows that those who constructed the VRA rationale knew that adding a citizenship question would not benefit Latino voters, but rather would facilitate significantly reducing their political power.”
It’s unclear how the new information may affect, if at all, the decision at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to be handed down in the near future. Two other federal judges have also ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to ask about citizenship on the census."
UPDATE 6/4/2019: The DOJ response denying political motivations is discussed here.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
The Gothamist reports that some 235 detained migrants have been moved from the southern border to NYC-area jails.
The story reminds me of this chart from Mark Noferi, Cascading Constitutional Deprivation: The Right to Appointed Counsel for Mandatorily Detained Immigrants Pending Removal Proceedings, 18 Mich. J. Race & Law 63, 75 (2012). It shows the likelihood that a detainee is going to be transferred -- more than 50% of detainees are transferred once, some 25% are transferred twice, and 10% of detainees are transferred three times.
In the midst of vicious and unrelenting attacks on Central American asylum seekers in the United States, this Article seeks to understand historic and present-day patterns of animus and discrimination facing this group of refugees, and to propose solutions. This Article begins by examining decades of prejudice faced by Central American asylum seekers, as well as attempts to right those wrongs through litigation, legislation, and the creation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Next, this Article identifies the predominant push and pull factors driving Central American refugees north—and the U.S. role in creating them. The Article then lays out the impact of this Administration’s systemic attacks on Central American asylum seekers, in particular, through family separation and zero-tolerance, the asylum ban and Matter of A-B-, and the framework in which refugees should be permitted to seek protection under current U.S. law. Finally, this Article evaluates several potential solutions including humanitarian asylum, an expansion of TPS, and litigation. Ultimately, this Article concludes that, in light of decades of abuse and prejudice directed at this class of refugees, the only adequate means of reparation is congressional legislation that would carve out special, tailored protections for this vulnerable group.
CNN reports that Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke has unveiled his immigration policy plan, arguing that his border roots make him the best candidate to roll back Trump administration policies and bring major changes to mhes to immigration.odernize the US immigration system.The plan takes a three-pronged approach: (1) rescinding "inhumane" Trump administration policies such as family separations at the border; (2) convincing Congress to pass better immigration laws, including a legislative solution for the so-called Dreamers, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children; and (3) investing $5 billion in Central America to help address the root causes of migration.
The Beto O'Rourke campaign website outlines an immigration position statement.
Candidate Julian Castro also has outlined an immigration plan. No other Democratic candidate to this point has outlined a detailed position on immigration.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Immigration in the Supreme Court: Cert Petition in DACA Rescission Case, Cert Granted in Border Shooting Case
In addition, the Supreme Court has granted cert in Hernandez v. Mesa, which asks whether the family of a Mexican teen killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in a cross-border shooting can sue the officer for damages (case page at this link).
This NPR story reports on the efforts in Mexico to integrate new -- and educated -- young, and educated, deportess from the United States.
A new generation of migrants is arriving in Mexico: young adults who were born in Mexico, raised in the United States and are now returning — some voluntarily, some by force — to the country of their birth. They've been dubbed "Generation 1.5."
With only limited support available from the Mexican government for these often well-educated returnees, several nongovernmental organizations and at least one private company are looking to help them out and take advantage of their skills.
At the start-up Hola Code in Mexico City, 20 or so young people in a conference room pepper their instructor with questions about coding and finding jobs in Mexico's software industry. Their queries flicker between Spanish and English. "How long does the whole interview process take? What do they ask you?"
A New Family Separation Policy?: Trump Administration Separates Some Migrant Mothers From Their Newborns Before Returning Them to Detention
Trump Administration Separates Some Pregnant Migrants From Their Newborns Before Returning Them to Detention is part three in an investigative series by Tina Vasquez for Rewire News. As Rewire.News reported in part one of the series, migrants prosecuted under the “zero-tolerance” policy are remanded to U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) custody, where they are not receiving adequate services, and are shackled when accessing prenatal and postpartum care. Some women are even shackled during birth, as Rewire.News reported in part two of this series.
Recent scholarship on immigration detention diagnoses, dissects, and interprets the multiple meanings of detention sites, and what can be done about them. The discussion on why and how to abolish detention is virtually absent. The recent 'De-Carceral Futures' workshop invited scholars, practitioners, and people with lived experiences to discuss current and future worlds without immigrant incarceration. Some of the workshop's outputs are already available via a Policy Options podcast and the Queen's Faculty of Law's archiving the keynote plenary with Jonathan S. Simon and Harsha Walia.
Key points for the Special Issue (SI) include:
- detention’s complex relationships to other social movements;
- the underappreciated roles of women’s voices and actions in countering or resisting state violence;
- questions of global justice for local anti-detention actions;
- visions for alternative modalities of migration management that are not predicated on incarceration;
- and the interconnections between liberty, legal status and citizenship
Accordingly, the SI aims not to produce a consensus on ways to achieve migrant justice but will instead generate a potentially path-breaking space to explore different interpretations and implications of detention abolitionism.
Manuscript preparation guidelines: Your paper should be compiled in the following order: title page; abstract; keywords; main text introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion; acknowledgments; declaration of interest statement; references; appendices (as appropriate); table(s) with caption(s) (on individual pages); figures; figure captions (as a list). A typical paper should be no more than 8000 words, inclusive of references, figure captions, footnotes, endnotes. Any spelling style is acceptable so long as it is consistent within the manuscript.
Please double space and submit as a Word document to: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you are interested but might require additional time, please also get in touch.
For more information about submission requirements, see the Taylor and Francis Style
Any additional queries, comments, or questions to email@example.com
From the Bookshelves: Race, Criminal Justice, Migration Control edited by Mary Bosworth, Alpa Parmar, and Yolanda Vazquez
A formidable team of crimmigration scholars will be discussing the book, Race, Criminal Justice, Migration Control (Oxford Press 2018) at an Author's Meet Reader session at the LSA Annual Meeting in DC on Friday May 31 11:50 AM - 12:35 PM in Hyatt Thornton A.
Book Summary: Race and the meaning of race in relation to citizenship and belonging is excavated through the chapters in this book, helping us to transform the way we think about migration. By placing race at the center of its analysis, this book examines, questions, and explains the growing intersection between criminal justice and migration control. Through the lens of race, we see how criminal justice and migration enmesh in order to exclude, stop, and excise racialized citizens and non-citizens from societies across the world within, beyond, and along borders.
Felicia Arriaga, Appalachian State University
Ingrid Eagly, UCLA School of Law
Doris Marie Provine, Arizona State University
Jayesh Rathod, American University Washington College of Law
Emily Ryo, USC Gould School of Law
Carrie Rosenbaum, Golden Gate University & Berkeley Law
From the Bookshelves: Immigration and Democracy by Sarah Song
Another AMR will be held for Sarah Song's book Immigration and Democracy (Oxford Press 2018) at LSA on Sat June 1 at 11:50 AM - 12:35 PM in Hyatt Capitol A.
Her book was previously featured on ImmigrationProf Blog. Here is the book summary: The book explores the politically contentious terrain of immigration and borders. What does justice in immigration require? Song argues against restrictionism and open borders and develops a moral theory of immigration that takes seriously both the claims of political community and the claims of migrants. Song considers the implications of her moderate cosmopolitan theory for immigration law and policy, including refugee policy, family-based immigration, temporary worker programs, and unauthorized migration.
Sarah Song, University of California, Berkeley
A collection of short essays and stories, Defending Latina/o Immigrant Communities: The Xenophobic Era of Trump and Beyond focuses on one of the most vilified, demonized, and scapegoated groups in the United States: Latina/o immigrants. Using his rigorous academic training, public policy knowledge, and community activist background, as well as his personal and familial experiences as the son of Mexican immigrants, Alvaro Huerta defends and humanizes los de abajo / those on the bottom. He skillfully re-frames how Latina/o immigrants should be viewed as productive and important members in this country, debunking the xenophobic tropes, lies, and myths about Latina/o immigrants as criminals, social burdens, and national security threats. Accompanied by the brilliant art of an internationally acclaimed artist, Salomon Huerta, and powerful photos of two established photographers, this book also investigates intersectional issues related to race, class, place, and state violence.
Monday, May 27, 2019
Happy Memorial Day! And, as Patrick Young wrote for Citizen Path writes, remember the fallen immigrants who fought for the United States. Here are two fun facts that I did not know:
"During World War I, immigrants joined the army in such large numbers that a Statue of Liberty Division was organized and sent to France. Many of its soldiers were immigrants. In fact, there were so many Italians in the unit that German troops opposite them thought that part of the Italian army had been moved to France. As during the Civil War, orders were given in the native languages of the immigrant soldiers."