The New Day Films' synopsis describes the film as follows:
"Soledad tells the story of a young woman from Central America who was imprisoned in the Eloy Detention Facility when she sought asylum in the United States in 2017. Soledad set out on a perilous journey from her homeland after enduring horrific persecution where she was kidnapped, sex-trafficked, tortured and nearly killed. . . .
Through one woman's story, Soledad illustrates the plight faced by many asylum seekers and refugees arriving at the U.S. border and highlights the incredible work of lawyers and activists who donated their time to fight for another woman's future. Soledad puts a human face to our current immigration system and invites audience members to reflect on what kind of country we want to be and how our stance on immigration impacts real human lives."
Many regions have been experiencing heat waves due to climate change this summer, exceeding 100 degrees and breaking many records. While the heat may mean discomfort for some and natural disasters for others, one group is distinctively impacted: farmworkers, who are predominantly immigrants.
Severe weather warnings state that “extreme heat will significantly increase the potential for heat-related illnesses, particularly for those working or participating in outdoor activities.” The heat has also caused hundreds of deaths. Yet for poor and undocumented workers, staying indoors would mean missing out on wages they cannot miss. So they do the work at risk to their own health. One immigrant worker said succinctly:
“The heat is too much. But what choice do we have? We can’t afford to stop.”
Western states impacted by heatwaves and ripe in farmwork have varying protections in state laws. For example, California mandates 10-minute rest breaks every two hours (with shade) and access to cool water. Their occupational heat illness prevention standard that includes training and planning. Washington has a similar occupational heat illness prevention standard, requiring employers to create an outdoor heat exposure plan, train employees, increase the amount of water provided to employees on days when temperatures require preventive measures, and be prepared to react to symptoms of heat-related illness. Oregon has a new OSHA regulation to manage the heat after an immigrant worker died there in early July. Colorado is developing protections after Gov. Jared Polis signed SB87 this summer; it is a bill concerning agricultural workers' rights and instructs the state's Department of Labor and Employment to enforce protections for workers when outdoor temperatures reach or exceed 80 degrees.
The results can be dangerous or deadly for immigrant workers. A study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 600 people die each year from heat waves, and farm workers die from heatstroke at a rate 20 times greater than for all civilian workers in the US.
Guatemalan migrants have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border more than 153,000 times this year, according to Customs and Border Protection figures. Exact numbers are hard to know: The majority of those migrants were kicked out of the country, and, separately, thousands of migrants slip undetected over the border each year.
But as the Biden administration navigates the puzzle that is the U.S. immigration system, there’s another far-reaching challenge it faces: climate change. It’s impossible to know the motives of migrants — and it’s rarely just one reason — but U.S. and Guatemalan officials, regional experts and civil society leaders say climate-fueled displacement is a likely factor for thousands who’ve decided to strike out from home and head to the U.S.
This analysis uses data from the Urban Institute’s Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey, a nationally representative internet-based survey conducted in December 2020 to assess the chilling effects, hardships, and financial concerns reported by adults in low-income immigrant families. Our main findings are as follows:
In December 2020, adults in low-income immigrant families had suffered serious employment impacts from the economic crisis, had experienced high rates of food insecurity in the past year, and were worried about meeting their basic needs in the next month.
About half of adults in low-income immigrant families reported that the pandemic negatively affected their or a family member’s employment (51.8 percent).
More than 4 in 10 adults in low-income immigrant families (41.4 percent) reported food insecurity in the past year. More than 1 in 4 reported problems paying family medical bills (26.8 percent) or that a family member did not get needed medical care because of costs (25.7 percent) in the past year. More than 1 in 5 reported problems paying rent or a mortgage (21.7 percent) or utility bills (22.6 percent).
Many adults in low-income immigrant families reported being worried about paying for basic needs in the next month, including having enough to eat (43.2 percent) and being able to pay rent or a mortgage (50.8 percent), utility bills (49.1 percent), or medical costs (52.1 percent).
Adults in low-income immigrant families with green card holders and those in such families with nonpermanent residents were more likely than adults in families with naturalized citizens to be worried about meeting many of these needs in the next month.
Despite facing hardships, more than 1 in 4 adults in low-income immigrant families (27.5 percent) reported they or a family member avoided noncash benefits or other help with basic needs because of green card or other immigration concerns in 2020.
Adults in families with nonpermanent residents were more likely than adults in other low-income immigrant families to report these chilling effects (43.9 percent).
More than 1 in 8 adults in low-income immigrant families reported that someone in the family avoided a nutrition program (13.2 percent), almost 1 in 9 reported avoiding a health program (10.9 percent), and just under 1 in 10 reported avoiding a housing assistance program (9.8 percent).
Adults in families with nonpermanent residents were more likely to have experienced chilling effects for each type of assistance: 22.0 percent reported avoiding a nutrition program, 18.2 percent reported avoiding a health program, and 17.0 percent reported avoiding a housing assistance program.
Adults reported avoiding programs targeted by the expanded public charge rule, such as SNAP, but also avoided programs excluded from the rule, such as unemployment insurance, free or low-cost medical care for uninsured people, and emergency rental assistance.
Join Marshall Project Contributing Writer Julia Preston and Immigration Judge Amiena Khan for what promises to be a very interesting discussion about the future of the immigration courts, this Friday at 1 p.m. Eastern.
Tax law has long left poor foreigners in precarity. Despite the Supreme Court striking down nineteenth-century state laws taxing migrants upon entry, the tax system has nonetheless determined who deserved a place, and what sort of place, within our borders. That tradition continues when the tax system’s emergency relief deprives otherwise needy noncitizens, giving migrants a lesser place.
This Article sheds light on this phenomenon—“tax law’s migration”—engaging two underappreciated connections between immigration and tax law. First, I use the term to explain the tax system’s long tradition of policing migrants. From colonial tax incentives for selective migration to joint tax-immigration worksite enforcement, tax law crystallizes financial welcome for some and hostility for others. Immigration status-based inequalities give rise to constitutional litigation constraining, but not extinguishing, tax law’s policing of migrants.
Second, I describe how migration and mobility rights are used to police tax compliance. Tax law now fashions penalties through the revocation of driver’s licenses and passports. A striking contrast emerges from comparing (often-affluent) citizen tax noncompliers with noncitizens. Remaining in the country becomes the penalty for those who may take it for granted but the privilege denied to those who seek little else.
Reckoning with tax law’s migration requires acknowledging the bureaucratization of ethnic and racial animus and the abandonment of economically vulnerable migrants during emergencies. We should be concerned about, rather than reflexively ratify, tax law’s migration.
The NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic documented more than one thousand instances of First Amendment retaliation in recent years, including the cases of prominent activists Claudio Rojas, Jean Montrevil, and Ravi Ragbir. Federal immigration officials in Miami detained and deported Mr. Rojas to Argentina in 2019 after a documentary film, The Infiltrators, debuted at the Sundance Film Festival, featuring his activism. Federal immigration officials in New York detained Mr. Montrevil and Mr. Ragbir in 2018 after they spoke critically of the agency as part of the sanctuary movement, deporting Mr. Montrevil to Haiti shortly thereafter. DHS continues to pursue Mr. Ragbir’s deportation to Trinidad and Tobago. The complaint asks DHS to exercise its discretion to protect these individuals and others from the harm of First Amendment retaliation, and seeks broader policy changes.
A coalition of 500 presidents and chancellors issued a statement urging Congress to immediately pass legislation to protect DACA recipients and other DREAMers left vulnerable by a federal court ruling suspending DACA for new applicants.
Three pieces of legislation that would accomplish this goal have been introduced in the current session of Congress: as part of the Citizenship Act of 2021, the Dream and Promise Act of 2021, and as part of the budget reconciliation process.
Jose Magaña-Salgado, DACA Recipient and Director of Policy and Communications for the Presidents’ Alliance, stated: “As an individual with DACA for nearly a decade, I respond with mixed-feelings to today’s decision. While I am heartened that the court will permit the administration to continue to accept renewal applications, I am saddened by the court’s decision that prevents the approval of initial applications–both previously filed and those filed in the future. Today’s decision demonstrates, once again, that DACA remains on the knife’s edge and that Congress must act swiftly to provide a permanent roadmap to citizenship for undocumented youth and students. This includes over 181k DACA-eligible students enrolled in higher education. For students in higher education, DACA represents a vital lifeline to workforce development, professional licensing, and the ability to enter and thrive in their desired career field.”
Other posts from immprof on the July 16 Texas decision suspending DACA here, here, and here.
Jul 22, 2021 11:00 AM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)
ONE OF THE BBC’S BROADCASTING STARS OF THE FUTURE, EMMA DABIRI IS A PRESENTER, SOCIAL HISTORIAN AND WRITER. Mapping race, colonialism, and hair, Emma will guide us through the geometries and fractals of African-diaspora braiding and cartography. Her latest documentary Hair Power: Me and My Afro (Channel 4) asks some of the most important questions facing the Black British population - and how it is that hair became one of the most misunderstood, celebrated and debated aspects of the black experience. Emma co-presents Britain’s Lost Masterpieces on BBC 4 and Virtually History on YouTube Originals, Back in Time for Brixton and the Back in Time Confectioners series (BBC Two), Is Love Racist? (Channel 4) and has made a number of social history films for The One Show (BBC).
All keynotes are open to the public, and we hope to post these recordings to our website.
"In his 77-page opinion, district court Judge Andrew Hanen concluded that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, is unlawful because it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal rulemaking, by evading the normal “notice and comment” process in adopting new rules.
Hanen’s decision doesn’t immediately affect the 616,030 people, often known as DREAMers, who are currently protected under DACA — but it does mean that the Department of Homeland Security can no longer approve new DACA applications or grant applicants the protections DACA provides."
in the end, will Judge Hanen's ruling lead to congressional action?
President Biden and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are calling for congressional action:
"In 2012, the Obama-Biden Administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, which has allowed hundreds of thousands of young immigrants to remain in the United States, to live, study, and work in our communities. Nine years later, Congress has not acted to provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers.
Yesterday’s Federal court ruling is deeply disappointing. While the court’s order does not now affect current DACA recipients, this decision nonetheless relegates hundreds of thousands of young immigrants to an uncertain future. The Department of Justice intends to appeal this decision in order to preserve and fortify DACA. And, as the court recognized, the Department of Homeland Security plans to issue a proposed rule concerning DACA in the near future.
But only Congress can ensure a permanent solution by granting a path to citizenship for Dreamers that will provide the certainty and stability that these young people need and deserve. I have repeatedly called on Congress to pass the American Dream and Promise Act, and I now renew that call with the greatest urgency. It is my fervent hope that through reconciliation or other means, Congress will finally provide security to all Dreamers, who have lived too long in fear." (bold added).
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued the following statement:
“I am disappointed by yesterday’s ruling and its impact on families across the country, but it will not derail our efforts to protect Dreamers. The Biden-Harris Administration—and this country—remain as committed as ever to ensuring that Dreamers are protected from the threat of deportation and are allowed to continue to contribute to this country that is their home. DHS remains focused on safeguarding DACA, and we will engage the public in a rulemaking process to preserve and fortify DACA. The Department of Justice also intends to appeal yesterday’s order. Moreover, we will continue processing DACA renewal requests, consistent with the ruling. Still, only the passage of legislation will give full protection and a path to citizenship to DACA recipients. In January, President Biden offered a legislative proposal, and in March the House of Representatives passed the 'American Dream and Promise Act.' I urge Congress to act swiftly to enact legislation through the reconciliation process to provide permanent protection that the American people want and Dreamers have earned.” (bold added).
"In conjunction with its rulemaking, the government may choose to appeal Hanen's ruling, as President Biden has vowed to do. However, courts further up the ladder, including ultimately the Supreme Court, may choose to leave Hanen's decision and remedies in place until the government's rulemaking on DACA is final. That process—which under the Administrative Procedure Act would include notice of a proposed rule, comments by interested parties, and issuance of a final rule—could take up to two years to complete. In the meantime, unless Congress acts to codify DACA's benefits, recipients will be uncertain about their future."
COVID-19 has spread quickly through immigration detention facilities in the United States. As of December 2, 2020, there have been over 7,500 confirmed COVID-19 cases among detained noncitizens. This Article examines why COVID-19 spread rapidly in immigration detention facilities, how it has transformed detention and deportation proceedings, and what can be done to improve the situation for detained noncitizens. Part I identifies key factors that contributed to the rapid spread of COVID-19 in immigration detention. While these factors are not an exhaustive list, they highlight important weaknesses in the immigration detention system. Part II then examines how the pandemic changed the size of the population in detention, the length of detention, and the nature of removal proceedings. In Part III, the Article offers recommendations for mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on detained noncitizens. These recommendations include using more alternatives to detention, curtailing transfers between detention facilities, establishing a better tracking system for medically vulnerable detainees, prioritizing bond hearings and habeas petitions, and including immigration detainees among the groups to be offered COVID-19 vaccine in the initial phase of the vaccination program. The lessons learned from the spread of COVID-19 in immigration detention will hopefully lead to a better response to any future pandemics. In discussing these issues, the Article draws on national data from January 2019 through November 2020 published by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), two agencies within DHS. The main datasets used are detention statistics published by ICE for FY 2019 (Oct. 2018-Sep. 2019), FY 2020 (Oct. 2019-Sep. 2020), and the first two months of FY 2021 (Oct. 2020-Nov. 2020). These datasets include detention statistics about individuals arrested by ICE in the interior of the country, as well as by CBP at or near the border. Additionally, the Article draws on separate data published by CBP regarding the total number of apprehensions at the border based on its immigration authority under Title 8 of the United States Code, as well as the number of expulsions at the border based on its public health authority under Title 42 of the United States Code.
Asylees need and merit protection. That is why asylee status is supposed to be “indefinite,” meaning it does not have an end date.
However, it is possible for the U.S. government to terminate asylum status. For asylees who were granted asylum affirmatively, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, Asylum Office has the authority to issue a Notice of Intent to Terminate asylum status, or NOIT. Following the issuance of a NOIT, the asylum office schedules an interview with the asylee, and makes a determination whether the asylee should continue to hold their status, or whether the asylum status should be terminated, and the former asylee placed into removal proceedings. Only an immigration judge can terminate asylee status that has been granted by the court, so the USCIS statistics only reflect termination proceedings before the USCIS asylum offices, not those before the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR.
Concerned about the Trump administration’s remarks targeting asylum seekers and a potential increase in asylum terminations, on Oct. 3, 2019, CLINIC submitted a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request to USCIS seeking information about the numbers of NOITs issued by each asylum office, how many asylum grants were terminated and how many left in place, and the grounds for the asylum offices issuing NOITs.
Here are some key takeaways from the data:
The overall number of NOITs issued by the asylum offices was relatively low—a total of 892 over a the 12-year period from 2009-2020
Of those issued NOITs, the Asylum Office issued Notices to Appear in immigration court, following termination, in 655 cases
Of those issued NOITs, the Asylum Offices issued Notices of Continuation of Status, meaning the asylees retained their asylee status, in 231 cases
“Fraud in the application” was far and away the number one reason for termination, accounting for 562 terminations out of 717 during this period. It is worth noting, however, that 106 of these terminations occurred in the New York Asylum Office, most likely as a result of a significant criminal investigation into asylum fraud by several attorneys.
By contrast, “reavailment” only accounted for 14 terminations, a number worth noting as advocates must often counsel asylee clients about the risk of securing a passport from their country of feared harm, or of returning to visit a sick family member
Other grounds for termination included: changed country conditions; Terrorist Grounds of Inadmissibility; committing a particularly serious crime; Grounds of Denial Act; and “null”
The offices with the highest number of NOITs issued were the NY Asylum Office with 211, followed closely by the Arlington, VA Asylum Office with 203
In addition to principal asylees who had their status terminated, 380 dependents lost their asylee status.
The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law is pleased to announce a call for papers to be presented in the course of its October 2021 conference on Business Accountability for Human Rights: Addressing Human Rights Issues in Global Supply Chains. The conference will bring together government officials, business people, lawyers, scholars, and representatives of faith traditions to explore human rights issues in global supply chains. The program will feature discussions of overarching challenges, cross-sector commitments to eliminating human rights violations, the benefits and costs of transnational regulation, ESG strategies, and financial issues. Specific topics will include subjects such as supply chain management, leading technologies, public/private partnerships, and emerging standards of human rights compliance. We welcome paper presentations from scholars in law, business or religion, as well as in other disciplines involving the study of matters germane to business accountability for human rights in global supply chains. The conference website may be found here.
SUBMIT ABSTRACTS FOR CONSIDERATION
If you are interested in presenting a paper at the Conference, please submit a working title and abstract of 200-300 words by September 10, 2021. Abstracts should pertain to works in progress or at least begun by the author, but they need not be completed papers. We hope to award travel stipends available to the authors of the three abstracts that score highest in the selection process. We will notify authors about acceptances by September 21, 2021.
The district court injunction on new DACA applications is a wake up call for Democrats in Congress. Astrid Galvan for The Associated Press reports that immigrant advocates are urging Democrats and President Joe Biden to quickly act on legislation to protect young immigrants after a federal judge in Texas ruled illegal an Obama-era program that offers relief to thousands noncitizens brought into the U.S. as children.
Plaintiffs have vowed to appeal the decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy unlawful, barring the U.S. government from approving any new applications, but leaving the program intact for existing recipients.
Calling the ruling a “blaring siren” for Democrats, United We Dream Executive Director Greisa Martinez Rosas said they would be solely to blame if legislative reform doesn’t happen.
The University of California Press describes the book as follows:
Why does a country with religious liberty enmeshed in its legal and social structures produce such overt prejudice and discrimination against Muslims? Sahar Aziz’s groundbreaking book demonstrates how race and religion intersect to create what she calls the Racial Muslim. Comparing discrimination against immigrant Muslims with the prejudicial treatment of Jews, Catholics, Mormons, and African American Muslims during the twentieth century, Aziz explores the gap between America’s aspiration for and fulfillment of religious freedom. With America’s demographics rapidly changing from a majority white Protestant nation to a multiracial, multireligious society, this book is an in dispensable read for understanding how our past continues to shape our present—to the detriment of our nation’s future."
The Migration Policy Institute has prepared this informational briefing on Canadian Immigrants in the United States.The United States and Canada share the world's longest land border and similar cultures. But Canadians account for a tiny and shrinking share of all U.S. immigrants. Canadian immigrants tend to have higher educations and be older than other immigrant groups.
"Immigration from Canada accounts for a small and shrinking share of total migration to the United States. In 1960, about 10 percent of the U.S. foreign-born population was Canadian, a share that fell to about 4 percent in 1990 and dropped yet again to less than 2 percent as of 2019. Presently, there are about 800,000 Canadians in the United States."
Breaking news from NPR [this thread will be updated]
A federal district judge in Texas has ruled against the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, striking a blow to the Obama-era policy that has protected more than 800,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation since 2012.
The largely expected decision leaves the fate of thousands of the program's beneficiaries, known as DREAMers, in the hands of Congress, the Biden administration and a Supreme Court where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority.
However, the ruling allows for immigrants currently protected by the program to keep their status and allow DACA renewals while the case goes through the appeals process.
The case is Texas v. United States, 1:18-cv-00068. It has been pending since 2018, and it is expected to be appealed to the Fifth circuit and then ultimately resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court.
A new book available here examines challenges to access to justice in the international context. Here is a description of the project:
This project raises one of the most prevalent problems facing the internationalization of access to justice in the continent today: the challenge of facilitating an international debate without the dominance of the English language. Although there exists a diverse global community of scholars dedicated to this subject, people dealing with access to justice in everyday life are primarily local and, when attempting to meet the needs of vulnerable persons in their community, their methods are usually framed by local legal approaches and contexts, being mainly dependent on national languages. Promoting a continental conversation thus proves challenging.
Several chapters touch on themes of interest to the ImmigrationProf community. Chapter six by Fedora Mathieu examines "Persecution Grounds as a Restricting Tool of the Right to Asylum in Canada: The Example of Haitian Women Who Fear Gendered Violence." Chapter seven by Gloria Song and Melisa Handi is titled "Beyond Cookie Cutter Templates to Women’s Lived Experiences: Domestic Violence-based Refugee Claims from Guyana."