ImmigrationProf Blog

Immigration Article of the Day: Introduction to the Symposium on Sanctuary Cities: A Brief Review of the Legal Landscape by Andrew F. Moore

Introduction to the Symposium on Sanctuary Cities: A Brief Review of the Legal Landscape by Andrew F. Moore, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, Vol. 96, 2018

Abstract

This Introduction to the 2018 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review Symposium tries to set the stage by addressing three basic issues surrounding sanctuary cities: the extent to which the federal government can compel state and local assistance in immigration enforcement; the extent to which state and localities can choose to participate in immigration enforcement; and the extent to which states and local government can completely refuse to cooperate with such enforcement. These three topics involve important federalism questions that are currently working their way through the courts following President Trump's Executive Order to punish sanctuary jurisdictions.

In addition, this Introduction also discusses separation of powers problems that arise in the fight over sanctuary jurisdictions. With legislative gridlock over immigration policy, increasingly the courts have been used as a method for protecting or discouraging the adoption of sanctuary policies. One way to discourage sanctuary policies has been to allow private causes of action against localities that fail to adequately support immigration enforcement. These efforts raise important questions about the appropriate role of the courts in policy making that are encompassed in doctrines such as sovereign immunity and the public duty doctrine.

KJ

Immigration Article of the Day: Defending Refugees: A Case for Protective Procedural Safeguards in the Persecutor Bar Analysis by Charles Ellison

Defending Refugees: A Case for Protective Procedural Safeguards in the Persecutor Bar Analysis by Charles Ellison, Georgetown Immigration Law Review, Vol. 33, p. 213, 2019

Abstract

For refugees and asylum seekers, application of the so-called persecutor bar is tantamount to a death sentence. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals -- without any real deliberation--has arrived at an interpretation of a generic-relief, burdenshifting regulation to allow for application of the persecutor bar based upon very little evidence. Even mere membership in a group with a poor human rights record has been held sufficient to switch the burden of proof and apply the bar. While the recent holding of Matter of Negusie, 27 I&N Dec. 347 (June 28, 2018) can be read and understood largely as a victory for refugees on the question of the duress defense to the bar, that decision is under review by the AG. Additionally, more work is needed to solidify capacious procedural safeguards in the application of the bar ab initio before adjudicators even reach questions of duress. Safeguards are crucial because the current procedures allow adjudicators to apply the bar merely where there is possible assistance in persecution. Given the dearth of past scholarly attention devoted to procedural application of the persecutor bar, this article aims to contribute to this nascent, timely, and largely-untouched discussion. I argue here that it is only where the record contains a preponderance of the evidence to allow an adjudicator to find actual assistance in persecution -- and the applicant is given fair notice and opportunity to respond--that the statute, case law, and international law allow the persecutor bar to be applied.

KJ

Immigration Article of the Day: Nationality Bans by Tally Kritzman Amir and Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Nationality Bans by Tally Kritzman Amir and Jaya Ramji-Nogales, University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2019, No. 2, 2019

Abstract

This Article conducts a comparative analysis between the nationality bans that exist in both Israel and the United States. In exploring the similarities and differences between these two countries’ nationality bans, this Article critically evaluates the publicly projected rationales for the bans and argues that these bans promote blanket discrimination rather than effectuating their stated justifications. Furthermore, the comparison between these two nations’ approaches to nationality bans allows this Article to expose the damaging effects these types of bans can have beyond those directly involved in the immigration system while examining the potential threat of these temporary measures being prolonged.

KJ

Immigration Article of the Day: Private Prisons, Private Governance: Essay on Developments in Private-Sector Resistance to Privatized Immigration Detention by Danielle C. Jefferis

Private Prisons, Private Governance: Essay on Developments in Private-Sector Resistance to Privatized Immigration Detention by Danielle C. Jefferis, Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, Forthcoming

Abstract

Two diametrically opposed events impacting America’s for-profit prison industry occurred within two weeks of each other early this year: On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its opinion in Nielsen v. Preap. In the case, a majority of the justices upheld a broad interpretation of the federal government’s immigration detention authority with respect to certain noncitizens in removal proceedings. In effect, the Court’s decision expanded the category of people subject to mandatory immigration-related confinement, a system of incarceration that currently confines more than 50,000 people per day in mostly private prisons and continues to expand, in part due to the increasingly broad authority under which federal immigration-enforcement authorities confine people. The decision marked a victory for the private-prison industry.

Less than two weeks before the Preap decision was announced, the industry experienced a significant loss, however. In an unprecedented move, JPMorgan Chase, one of the nation’s largest banks, announced it would no longer finance or invest in private prison corporations. Wells Fargo soon followed. Chase and Wells Fargo’s divestment from the private-prison industry represented a loss of millions of dollars of capital for the corporations managing and profiting from privatized immigration detention, and sends a compelling — and unusual — signal from Wall Street that a company’s conduct, not just its bottom line, matters. Stocks of the two largest private-prison companies took a drastic hit in the aftermath of the banks’ announcements.

For advocates of decarceration and more humane immigration-enforcement protocols, Chase’s divestment from the private-industry is one development in a series of examples of people and organizations disavowing an expectation of public governance and, instead, relying on private governance institutions to impose accountability and push for change. When the government fails to govern, people and groups may turn to private governance institutions to try to change the status quo. Private governance institutions, which may take limitless forms, are the means by which individuals, organizations, and communities aim to address the needs public governance failed to address. In other words, “private governance institutions provide governance without government.” Of the recent examples of private governance action in the field of private prisons, this Essay examines two: shareholder actions and divestment activities.

KJ

Immigration Article of the Day: The Militarization of Immigration Law: How America’s War on Terror Became a War on the Undocumented by Andrea Scoseria Katz

The Militarization of Immigration Law: How America’s War on Terror Became a War on the Undocumented by Andrea Scoseria Katz

Abstract

The draconian turn of U.S. immigration policy in recent years—ballooning budgets and the broadened reach of domestic enforcement agencies like Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the increasing legal precarity of the immigrant population, the massive strain placed on immigration courts and federal criminal dockets—has been thoroughly studied by immigration scholars, who point to important explanatory factors such as the War on Crime launched in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the nativist recrudescence of the 1990s, and failed attempts at system reform in 1965 and again in 1986. Such work, however, has rarely explored the link between immigration law and national security.

This article argues that the rise of terrorism has been one major driver of the immigration law crackdown. With statutes like the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the 2001 PATRIOT Act explicitly linking border control and crime by non-nationals with a larger fight against terrorism, immigration law and national security police came to share sources of statutory authority, patterns and techniques of enforcement, and, not least, common tropes and imagery (“enemy aliens,” “terrorist organizations,” and so forth).

I introduce the concept of policy militarization to explain this process. A militarized sphere of public policy is one increasingly defined in terms of war or crisis. The American preoccupation with terrorist attacks emerged after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Nairobi, but it was the events of September 11, 2001 that hurled the nation into a conflict lacking geographic borders, time horizons, or a clear enemy. “Everything became war,” says a former Pentagon official, to include control over the non-citizen population. As in war, militarized policy features a centralized and heightened administrative response. After the 9/11 Commission deemed “information silos” to blame for the failure to stop the attacks, the national security community spearheaded massive growth in intelligence-gathering agencies and increased data-sharing between them. Immigration agencies grew in size, picked up new tools and techniques imported from counterterrorism, and crucially, adapted their mission to the lens of ever-present foreign threat. Finally, at the level of the political branches, militarized policymaking becomes highly bureaucratic. Security experts take a lead role in designing policy, often at the expense of ordinary legislators and judges, producing a governing regime in which policy is made through administrative, not legislative channels. As a result, rights enforcement and the fixity of legal standards can wane. I call this a state of extralegality, because traditional sources of law cease to truly bind administration action, even though they may shape it. Critics of the administrative state, attuned to the phenomenon of legislative “rules” being replaced by administrative “standards,” may recognize this argument, albeit applied in a new context.

That war and threats of it can trigger the growth of the state is not a new insight. However, as the militarization of immigration shows, the same effects—delegation of responsibility, expansion of executive power, and dilution of legal standards—do not, in fact, require an actual war, but instead can be built on rhetorical foundations and the threatening specter of wars to come.

KJ

Yale Law Journal Forum Student Essay Competition

The Yale Law Journal has announced its third annual Student Essay Competition. The Competition is open to law students and recent graduates nationwide. Up to three winners will be awarded a $300 cash prize. Winning submissions will be published in the Yale Law Journal Forum, YLJ’s online component. All Forum Essays are fully searchable and available on LexisNexis, Westlaw, and our website. Information on the winning Essays from last year, and the Essays themselves, can be found on our website.

COMPETITION TOPIC:  EMERGING ISSUES IN IMMIGRATION LAW

The goal of this competition is for the next generation of legal scholars and practitioners to reflect on emerging legal problems and challenges. This year, submissions should focus on novel issues in immigration law, broadly understood. Possible topics include, but are not limited to: asylum, refugee, and human rights globally; the meaning of borders and citizenship; children and the immigration system; immigration-reform legislation; and the immigration-court system. We welcome topics in other related areas as well and hope to receive both clinical and academic submissions.

Eligibility and Submission Details

The competition is open to all current law students and recent graduates (JDs and LLMs from the Classes of 2015-2022) from any ABA-accredited law school. Each individual may submit only one previously unpublished Essay, and Essays may not be submitted to other law reviews during the competition period.

The deadline for submissions is September 1, 2019. Submissions must be no longer than 5,000 words, including footnotes. Essays must be submitted via the YLJ online submissions portal. Submissions should be uploaded in the “Yale Law Journal Forum Faculty & Practitioner Submission” category. A selection committee from Volume 129 of the Yale Law Journal will consider all submissions anonymously. Winners will be announced by October 18, 2019. Authors who submit winning Essays commit to publication in the Yale Law Journal Forum and agree to participate in our full editing process. This process involves both structural and substantive suggestions, as well as sourceciting for content and adherence to Bluebook style.

Please submit Essays as a Word document. Your submission should be titled “YLJ Essay Competition - [ESSAY TITLE]” and include a header with “YLJ Essay Competition” in the main text of your document. To ensure blind review, please do not include any identifying information, including name, class year, or institution, in the Essay’s body or metadata.

Disbursement of the cash prize to each winner is subject to any applicable tax reporting and withholding requirements.

Please direct questions about the Student Essay Competition to Managing Editors Josh Blecher-Cohen (josh.blecher-cohen@yale.edu) and Peter Kallis (peter.kallis@yale.edu). We look forward to reading your submissions!

KJ

Immigration Article of the Day: Immigration Adjudication Bankruptcy by Jill E. Family

Immigration Adjudication Bankruptcy by Jill E. Family,  University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2019

Abstract

The Trump Administration is pushing an adjudicatory system on the brink over the edge. The system designed to decide whether to remove (deport) individuals from the United States has longstanding problems that predate the Trump Administration. Those problems are being exasperated rather than improved. It is time to consider the notion of immigration adjudication bankruptcy. Immigration adjudication bankruptcy involves a declaration that the removal adjudication system is not satisfying the basic principles of administrative process: accuracy, acceptability, and efficiency. This Article, a part of a symposium on executive power and immigration law, raises questions about when bankruptcy should be declared and examines issues surrounding the restructuring of immigration removal adjudication.

KJ

Immigration Article of the Day: The Fourth Amendment Implications of "U.S. Imitation Judges" by Mary Holper

The Fourth Amendment Implications of "U.S. Imitation Judges"  by  Mary Holper, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 104, (forthcoming)2020

Abstract

Scholars, immigration judges, attorneys, and congressional committees have been calling for a truly independent immigration adjudication system for decades, critiquing a system in which some judges describe themselves as “U.S. imitation judges.” This article examines the lack of truly independent immigration judges through the lens of the Fourth Amendment, which applies when a noncitizen is arrested for deportation. In 1975, the Supreme Court held in Gerstein v. Pugh that to continue detention after an initial arrest in the criminal context, the detached judgment of a neutral judge is necessary; a prosecutor’s finding of probable cause is insufficient to protect the important Fourth Amendment rights to be free from an unreasonable seizure. In contrast, in the immigration detention context, no such neutral judge has any role in the process. Every person who authorizes a noncitizen’s arrest and detention works for a law enforcement agency, causing one to wonder who exactly is exercising independent judgment over decisions concerning noncitizens’ physical freedom.

This article begins with an overview of the relevant Fourth Amendment law, which requires a neutral judge to review a law enforcement officer’s warrantless arrest in order to continue detention, and demonstrates why the Fourth Amendment applies to immigration arrests, although nominally “civil.” Thus, the lack of a truly neutral judge available to review DHS arrest decisions exposes the entire immigration detention system to a Fourth Amendment challenge. To resolve this issue, I propose that, in order to continue pretrial detention for deportation, federal magistrate judges, rather than immigration judges, must make a probable cause finding. This proposal resolves the Fourth Amendment violations that occur when the only supposedly “neutral” judge, who authorizes the jailing of a human being, is regularly critiqued as not so “neutral.” While others have effectively argued that the entire immigration adjudication system needs a judge who is untethered from a law enforcement agency, in this article I focus only on the initial decision to continue pretrial detention, as this is where, in the criminal pretrial context, the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause hearing requirement attaches.

KJ

Detainees Moved from Southern Border to NYC

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.

-KitJ

Immigration Exceptionalism for Nick Parillo’s ACUS Report on Guidance

Over on Yale JREG’s Notice and Comment blog, there is an online symposium about federal agency guidance and the power to bind. The topic of guidance holds considerable relevance for immigration law scholars. Indeed, some of the most notable immigration decisions to reach the Supreme Court concerning DACA (Texas v US) and rescission of various immigration programs turn on debates about guidance.  

Two posts in the series seem especially relevant to ImmigrationProf Blog readers.

Jill Family writes in her post Immigration Law and a Second Look at the Practically Binding Effect: “Immigration law can serve as a useful lens to examine broad administrative law principles because the nature of regulation in immigration law is distinctive.  The regulated party is an individual noncitizen.  The regulation includes restrictions on fundamental life decisions such as where one will live and work.   While it is true that no two agencies are exactly alike and that the Administrative Procedure Act is meant to tolerate differences among agencies, the distance between immigration law and the mainstream allows immigration law to provide an interesting view to re-examine commonly held notions about administrative law.” 

In the past she has written that an agency by agency approach has greater appeal than a centralized directive that requires all agencies to attempt to fix their guidance document dilemmas in exactly the same way. Her new post gives us new reasons. First, we should not assume that all regulated parties are sophisticated entities that are deeply engaged with guidance documents given that many applicants for immigration benefits are not represented by counsel and would not even know that the guidance exists. Even a US citizen applying for a green card on behalf of a spouse may not know – it doesn’t help that the USCIS online policy manual section on Family-based immigration is not clickable and does not cross-reference guidance elsewhere on the website.

Second, and more importantly for the guidance debate, whereas administrative law scholars worry that there is too much inflexibility with ostensibly nonbinding guidance, immigrants worry more about too much agency flexibility. “In immigration law there are many examples of agency behavior where the agency does act flexibly.  The agency does not seem bound to a guidance document rule because agency heads change their minds or because front line adjudicators are not following the rule in a guidance document.  Borrowing Professor Parrillo’s term, there is no “practical protection.”  No wonder that immigration attorneys complain about this shifting ground problem. Following issuance of a Trump executive order and just before the window opened for H1-B petitions for FY 2018, USCIS rescinded existing guidance and announced new guidance that narrowed the availability of H-1B status for computer programmers. The new guidance “caught thousands of employers and hopeful beneficiaries unaware” as they had already prepared their applications.  Another example is a change to the Foreign Affairs Manual that gives consular officers more discretion to determine that applicants for admission should be excluded from the United States because they are likely to become a public charge. Other changes are never even written down.

In my contribution to the online symposium, A Worm’s Eye View of the Practical Effect of Guidance, I underscore additional examples of shifting immigration policies. Some result from regulated parties seeking to curry favor with regulatory agencies to achieve a desirable benefit or avoid a penalty. Others concern regulated entities - that is immigrants and those protecting them -- acting on the basis of competing values quite apart from self-interest.

While value-driven policy rescissions have been a source of great consternation for immigration lawyers confronted with diminishing protections for their clients, it is the inability to depart from policy worries administrative law scholars who study guidance as a form of policymaking. One reason for the difference is that in civil rights and immigration law, many instances of policy change represent agencies engaging in “unprincipled flexibility,” as opposed to engaging in “principled flexibility” that Parillo’s report encourages as a way to avoid being stymied by “inflexible” guidance. Agencies have treated guidance so “flexibly” that it functions as launch pads for policy volatility. DHS rescinded DACA and TPS for vulnerable immigrants with little explanation or justification. The DOJ repealed 24 civil rights guidances in a single day and the Attorney General has overruled BIA asylum decisions. Executive orders are frequently unaccompanied by any operational guidance, as with the travel ban and family separation. The reaction from regulatory parties has rarely been self-interested. Often immigrants and their attorneys have no choice but to comply with these rash guidances; sometimes sanctuary cities and networks resist on their behalf, defying DHS’s punitive immigration policies because of disagreement with immigration policy and disrespect for the regulators in the relationship. Incentives to comply do not guide them, and lawsuits do not scare them.

Thinking more about value-driven regulatory behaviors and policy volatility would contribute to our understanding of immigration policy. It would also equip us to pursue new and urgent questions about the current policy environment where policy change is not always principled.

-MHC

Promoting Pereira

This past summer, I wrote an essay about Pereira v. Sessions that was published in Columbia's Human Rights Law Review Online. It was just a few short pages, laying out the basics of the jurisdictional issues created by that SCOTUS decision.

HRLR gave me the opportunity to develop that short essay into a full length article for their print edition that has now been published. The essay remains the same, but it's now accompanied by a substantial Appendix that delves deeper into the jurisdiction issues.

The Appendix begins by laying out how the  major players responded to Pereira: DHS posted fake dates on NTAs and struggled to get access to the DOJ's scheduling system; Immigration courts split on its jurisdictional effect until the BIA stepped in to state that Pereria has no effect on subject matter jurisdiction; Federal district courts split on the jurisdictional effect of the case though no federal appellate court has found the decisions to have jurisdictional implications.

The Appendix goes on to discuss the future of Pereira litigation, including whether the BIA's interpretation of Pereria deserves Chevron or Auer deference (I think it doesn't), the merits of the BIA's decision (with which I take issue), and new arguments surrounding the fake date problem as well as aditional points raised by prof (but not immprof) Lonny Hoffman.

At this point, I feel a little bit like I am tilting at windmills. If I have my numbers right, the 11th, 10th, 9th 6th, 5th, and 2nd Circuits have all rejected the arguments I explore in this piece. Naturally, I think I still have it right. I have yet to convince a circuit court, unfortunately.

-KitJ

Call for Papers--AALS 2020, Immigration Control and Environmental Regulation: Toward Justice?

The Section on Immigration Law of the Association of American Law Schools invites papers for presentation at its principal session during the 2020 AALS Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, which will take place January 2-5, 2020. This session has been scheduled for [TBD]. 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 Control and Environmental Regulation: Toward Justice?”.

Natural disasters and social conflicts spurred by deteriorating environmental conditions and climate change are driving people to move across borders. Economically disadvantaged communities, racial minorities and indigenous people are often in the first wave of displaced people in the world’s poorer countries. These same communities are also the most heavily impacted by pollution and environmental degradation in the places that they live and work in the United States. This panel will explore the issues of immigration and environmental regulation. How do environmental regulatory and deregulatory schemes in the U.S. impact immigrant communities? How have arguments about the effects of immigrants on the environment been used to restrict migration and the rights of migrants? How should existing domestic and international legal frameworks governing migration be revised to respond to environmentally motivated migration? How do (and how should) the rights of migrants figure into ongoing discussions and regulatory efforts around environmental justice at the domestic and international level? Do legislative proposals like the Green New Deal encompass and sufficiently address concerns of migrants?

Submission Guidelines: The deadline for submissions is August 15, 2019. 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 2019.

Please email submissions in Microsoft Word format to jefamily@widener.edu with the subject “AALS Submission.” In your email, please indicate whether you have previously presented your work at a AALS Annual Meeting, and if so when.

Inquiries: Please direct any questions or inquiries to Jill Family (jefamily@widener.edu) and Jennifer Chacón (chacon@law.ucla.edu).

-KitJ

Immigration Article of the Day: Between Institutional Survival and Human Rights Protection: Adjudicating Landmark Cases of African Undocumented Migrants in Israel in a Comparative and International Context by Rivka Weill & Tally Kritzman-Amir

Between Institutional Survival and Human Rights Protection: Adjudicating Landmark Cases of African Undocumented Migrants in Israel in a Comparative and International Context by Rivka Weill & Tally Kritzman-Amir, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 2019

Abstract

States compare asylum and immigration policies. The Israeli immigration and asylum regime influenced American law, and was also directly influenced by it. This Article offers the most comprehensive analysis to date of the Israeli case law on the rights of undocumented migrants, at the core of which is a series of cases on immigration detention. Three times within a two year period, the Israeli Supreme Court invalidated immigration detention laws and the legislature complied with increasing frustration. Our argument is that although the Court courageously protected the undocumented migrants’ rights, it also resorted to strategic ambiguity as a means of institutional survival in light of legislative threats to incorporate a general legislative override clause and executive attempts to “pack” the Court with conservative justices. This high stakes dialogue is unprecedented in the Israeli context and uncommon in comparative law. We argue that courts must not only protect the constitutional and international human rights of undocumented migrants, but also bring the political branches to accountability. They should force states to conduct refugee status determinations in a timely manner rather than be satisfied with temporary protection regimes. They should further recognize that rights may accumulate as a result of a prolonged presence of an undocumented migrant in a country. The article discusses the Israeli judicial techniques used to reduce the conflict with the representative branches, including the use of constitutional avoidance and comparative law, and juxtaposes them with the American approach evident in Zadvydas v Davis and Jennings vs. Rodriguez. The harsh implications of a policy that leaves people in an indeterminate state of mere protection from removal are manifest in the Israeli story and should serve as a warning to the US courts as they formulate their reaction to the recent asylum ban.

-KitJ

Immigration Based on Credit Reports

Back in September, I asked the following question: Should Credit Scores Impact Immigration?

That question was prompted by the Department of Homeland Security's proposed rule changes regarding inadmissibility on public charge grounds. One proposed change would be to allow USCIS to consider a noncitizen’s likelihood of becoming a public charge may be based on the individual’s “credit history and credit score.”

The development moves immigration vetting into the realm of what can be called “FICO-based migration” after the popular credit scoring product that is used by most U.S. lending institutions.

There are significant problems with utilizing indicia of credit worthiness to evaluate the financial health of noncitizens. For one, many countries around the world handle credit differently than the United States and may not have a credit scoring system at all. Immigrants, who may be financially healthy, may nonetheless not have a developed credit history or score. Another significant problem with the new regulation is that it reifies a credit system that scholars have established as having racial and ethnic biases.

I am going to be spending the summer exploring these ideas in a paper that will examine: (i) the proposed rule and the reasons why the government chose to include credit history and score as new evidence of an old inadmissibility ground: public charge, and (ii) problems with credit scores and history that may affect credit’s ability to be a useful tool for examining public charge inadmissibility. If any readers out there have thoughts about must-read scholarship in this area, please reach out!

-KitJ

Call For Papers: Emerging Immprofs @ BYU June 7 & 8

The Works in Progress (WIP) committee for the 5th Biennial Emerging Immigration Scholars’ Conference is now accepting proposals for works-in-progress or incubator ideas. In addition to incubator workshops focused on a research idea, participants are invited to submit proposals for workshops to discuss a litigation or advocacy project that could benefit from group input.

The 2019 Conference will take place June 7 and 8, 2019, at Brigham Young University in beautiful Provo, Utah. If you wish to be considered for a works-in-progress or incubator session, please submit your proposal to EmergingImmWIP2019@gmail.com. Further, this year we are again seeking discussants who will read and comment on the works-in-progress or incubator ideas.

If you want to propose a work-in-progress by email: Please put “ImmProf WIP [Lastname]” as the subject line Please submit an abstract of no more than one page, with a title.

If you want to propose an incubator (for a scholarly or litigation/advocacy project) by email: Please put “Incubator [Lastname]” as the subject line Please submit a description of no more than one paragraph, with a title.

If you would be willing to be a discussant: Please email us if you wish/are willing to serve as a discussant with a list of your areas of expertise.

The deadline for submissions is Monday, April 8 at 12 noon (PT). We anticipate notifying accepted WIP or incubator proposals by April 14. Final papers will be due on May 17, 2019. We look forward to receiving your submissions!

Please feel free to contact any member of the WIP committee, or conference planning committee, with questions or concerns. More information will be coming soon about the conference and how to register.

Sincerely,

The WIP Committee:
Lauren Aronson (laronson@lsu.edu), Louisiana State University Law Center
Kate Evans (katee@uidaho.edu), University of Idaho School of Law

Other Members of the Planning Committee:
Sabrina Balgamwalla, Wayne State University Law School
Pooja Dadhania, California Western School of Law
Kit Johnson, University of Oklahoma College of Law
Carolina Núñez, Brigham Young University Law School
Shalini Ray, University of Alabama School of Law

-KitJ

Do Immigrants Threaten U.S. Public Safety?

Authors Pia Orrenius & Madeline Zavodny

Do Immigrants Threaten U.S. Public Safety? is a new working paper from the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University.

Here is the summary:

Opponents of immigration often claim that immigrants, particularly those who are unauthorized, are more likely than US natives to commit crimes and that they pose a threat to public safety. There is little evidence to support these claims. In fact, research overwhelmingly indicates that immigrants are less likely than similar US natives to commit violent and property crimes, and that areas with more immigrants have similar or lower rates of violent and property crimes than areas with fewer immigrants. There are relatively few studies specifically of criminal behavior among unauthorized immigrants, but the limited research suggests that these immigrants also have a lower propensity to commit crime than their native-born peers, although possibly a higher propensity than legal immigrants. Evidence about legalization programs is consistent with these findings, indicating that a legalization program reduces crime rates. Meanwhile, increased border enforcement, which reduces unauthorized immigrant inflows, has mixed effects on crime rates. A large-scale legalization program, which is not currently under serious consideration, has more potential to improve public safety and security than several other policies that have recently been proposed or implemented.

-KitJ

Call For Papers: Emerging Immprofs @ BYU June 7 & 8

The Works in Progress (WIP) committee for the 2019 Emerging Immigration Scholars’ Conference is now accepting proposals for works-in-progress or incubator ideas. In addition to incubator workshops focused on a research idea, participants are invited to submit proposals for workshops to discuss a litigation or advocacy project that could benefit from group input.

The 2019 Conference will take place June 7 and 8, 2019, at Brigham Young University in beautiful Provo, Utah. If you wish to be considered for a works-in-progress or incubator session, please submit your proposal to EmergingImmWIP2019@gmail.com. Further, this year we are again seeking discussants who will read and comment on the works-in-progress or incubator ideas.

If you want to propose a work-in-progress by email: Please put “ImmProf WIP [Lastname]” as the subject line Please submit an abstract of no more than one page, with a title.

If you want to propose an incubator (for a scholarly or litigation/advocacy project) by email: Please put “Incubator [Lastname]” as the subject line Please submit a description of no more than one paragraph, with a title.

If you would be willing to be a discussant: Please email us by March 29 if you wish/are willing to serve as a discussant with a list of your areas of expertise.

The deadline for submissions is Friday, March 29 at 5pm (PT). We anticipate notifying accepted WIP or incubator proposals by April 14. Final papers will be due on May 17, 2019. We look forward to receiving your submissions!

Please feel free to contact any member of the WIP committee, or conference planning committee, with questions or concerns. More information will be coming soon about the conference and how to register.

Sincerely,

The WIP Committee:
Lauren Aronson (laronson@lsu.edu), Louisiana State University Law Center
Kate Evans (katee@uidaho.edu), University of Idaho School of Law

Other Members of the Planning Committee:
Sabrina Balgamwalla, Wayne State University Law School
Pooja Dadhania, California Western School of Law
Kit Johnson, University of Oklahoma College of Law
Carolina Núñez, Brigham Young University Law School
Shalini Ray, University of Alabama School of Law

-KitJ

Call for Papers: AILA Law Journal

The brand-spanking-new AILA Law Journal has issued a call for papers. The journal is looking for lightly-cited papers in the range of 3,000 to 9,000 words. The topic, naturally, should be immigration law and policy.

The submission deadline is January 4, 2019. Proposed pieces should be sent, in Word format, to ailalawjournal@aila.org .

-KitJ

Immigration Article of the Day: Who Needs DACA or the Dream Act? How the Ordinary Use of Executive Discretion Can Help (Some) Childhood Arrivals Become Citizens by Susan B. Dussault

WHO NEEDS DACA OR THE DREAM ACT? HOW THE ORDINARY USE OF EXECUTIVE DISCRETION CAN HELP (SOME) CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS BECOME CITIZENS by Susan B. Dussault (Willamette), Lewis & Clark Law Review.

Over two million immigrants without legal status entered the country as children. These childhood arrivals have the constitutional right to attend public schools without charge, and billions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in their education. Offering these young people the opportunity to remain in the United States, use their education to contribute to the communities in which they have been raised, and become citizens would let the country realize its return on this investment. Yet thus far Congress, which has the exclusive power to create new paths to citizenship, has failed repeatedly to pass legislation that would enable childhood arrivals to earn some form of legal immigration status and eventually naturalize.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which the Obama Administration launched in August 2012, partially addressed this issue by letting eligible childhood arrivals stay and work in the country for two-year renewable increments. In September 2017, the Trump Administration rescinded DACA, citing the Attorney General’s conclusion that it was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch. Less than eight hours later, Trump stated that if Congress failed to legalize DACA within six months he would reconsider the issue.

If Congress fails to codify DACA or enact some form of the DREAM Act (which would let childhood arrivals earn permanent residence and eventually citizenship), it seems highly unlikely that the Trump Administration could, or would, reinstate DACA, given that its attorney general has declared the program unconstitutional. But there are other steps the Executive Branch could take to make it easier for childhood arrivals to legalize. Moreover, neither DACA nor the DREAM Act offers a complete solution: codifying DACA gives its recipients no legal status, and every iteration of the DREAM Act Congress has considered imposes requirements that disqualify many childhood arrivals. Therefore, regardless of what Congress may do, it is worth examining the unilateral and uncontroversial steps that the current administration (or a subsequent one) could take to help childhood arrivals become citizens. This Article identifies the discretion that the Executive Branch has with the military, cancellation of removal, parole, admissibility waivers, deferred action, and surplus immigration application fees. The Article then assesses the various ways the Executive Branch could employ that discretion to improve childhood arrivals’ access to the paths to permanent residence and citizenship created by Congress.

-KitJ

Immigration Article of the Day: Citizenship for Sale? in The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) by Ayelet Shachar

Citizenship for Sale? in The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) by Ayelet Shachar 

Abstract

“There are some things that money can’t buy.” Is citizenship among them? In her contribution to the Oxford Handbook of Citizenship, Professor Shachar explores this question by highlighting the core legal and ethical puzzles associated with the surge in cash-for-passport programs. The spread of these new programs is one of the most significant developments in citizenship practice in the past few decades. It tests our deepest intuitions about the meaning and attributes of the relationship between the individual and the political community to which she belongs. This chapter identifies the main strategies employed by a growing number of states putting their visas and passports “for sale,” selectively opening their otherwise bolted gates of admission to the high-net-worth individuals of the world. Moving from the positive to the normative, the discussion then elaborates the main arguments in favor of, as well as against, citizenship-for-sale. Shachar draws attention to the distributive and political implications of these developments, both locally and globally, and identifies the deeper forces at work that contribute to the perpetual testing, blurring, and erosion of the state-market boundary regulating access to membership.

KJ