Tuesday, April 19, 2022
Ohio GOP Senate Candidate Targets Mexican Immigrants: "JD Vance bets Ohio GOP Senate bid on illegal immigration"
The Washington Examiner headline says it all: "JD Vance bets Ohio GOP Senate bid on illegal immigration." A Yale Law grad and author of Hillbilly Elegy, Vance, with the endorsement of none other than Donald Trump, is running for Senate in Ohio. And immigration is at the center of Vance's campaign:
"J.D. Vance is turning to illegal immigration to rescue his uneven Ohio Senate campaign and come from behind to win the Republican nomination in this key red state primary.
Vance has been stuck in the middle of the pack in a crowded field of Republican contenders, although recent polling commissioned for his super PAC showed the 37-year-old conservative populist in a three-way tie for first. To vault ahead of the competition in the final weeks before the May 3 primary, Vance is streamlining his pitch to GOP voters and focusing almost exclusively on illegal immigration at the Southern border, with a biographical touch."
In focusing on immigration, Vance has a television ad dedicated to the issue, where he decries Mexicans a la Trump, open borders, immigrants voting Democratic, and illegal drugs. Fox News reports that Vance is spending $1 million to broadcast the ad attacking President Biden for the "border crisis."
"Are you a racist? Do you hate Mexicans?" Vance says in a provocative open to the ad. I fear that some viewers may just say yes to both questions. Is Vance trying to appeal to that group of voters?
Politifact takes on Vance's ad: "JD Vance’s ad about ‘open border’ and immigrant voters is wrong."
Immigration Article of the Day: Reassessing the Legislative Veto: The Statutory President, Foreign Affairs, and Congressional Workarounds by Curtis A. Bradley
Reassessing the Legislative Veto: The Statutory President, Foreign Affairs, and Congressional Workarounds by Curtis A. Bradley, Forthcoming, Journal of Legal Analysis
There have long been complaints about the growth of presidential power. These complaints intensified during the Trump administration, and there are now calls for a host of separation-of-powers reforms designed to restore congressional authority. As some advocates for reform recognize, many of the controversial actions that presidents take are based on statutory authorization. For example, the Trump administration’s “travel ban,” its re-imposition of sanctions against Iran, and its shifting of funds to be used to construct the southern border wall were all based, at least principally, on statutory delegations rather than on claims of independent presidential authority. A chief reason that the President is insufficiently constrained when exercising such statutorily-delegated power, it is claimed, is the Supreme Court’s disallowance of legislative vetoes in its decision in INS v. Chadha, a claim that intensified during the Trump administration. This Article challenges this account, arguing that the availability of the legislative veto was less important before Chadha to congressional-executive relations than legal scholars commonly assume, and that, to the extent that the legislative veto was (or would have become) important for checking some exercises of statutorily-delegated authority, Congress has developed a host of effective workarounds in the years since Chadha. It illustrates this claim with case studies concerning war powers, arms sales, and emergency declarations. The Article also argues that the functional case for allowing legislative vetoes is more debatable than many critics of Chadha have acknowledged.
Monday, April 18, 2022
When Huong arrives in New Orleans with her two young sons, she is jobless, homeless, and worried about her husband, Cong, who remains in Vietnam. As she and her boys begin to settle in to life in America, she continues to send letters and tapes back to Cong, hopeful that they will be reunited and her children will grow up with a father.
But with time, Huong realizes she will never see her husband again. While she attempts to come to terms with this loss, her sons, Tuan and Binh, grow up in their absent father's shadow, haunted by a man and a country trapped in their memories and imaginations. As they push forward, the three adapt to life in America in different ways: Huong gets involved with a Vietnamese car salesman who is also new in town; Tuan tries to connect with his heritage by joining a local Vietnamese gang; and Binh, now going by Ben, embraces his adopted homeland and his burgeoning sexuality. Their search for identity--as individuals and as a family--threatens to tear them apart, until disaster strikes the city they now call home and they are suddenly forced to find a new way to come together and honor the ties that bind them.
As reported last week on our blog, the United Kingdom has adopted a new plan to send some of their asylum seekers to Rwanda. Once sent to Rwanda, those granted asylum would reportedly be allowed to remain in Rwanda and those denied their claims may be deported.
As the BBC and other outlets have written, more than 160 non-governmental organizations have written an open letter denouncing the plan, calling it "shamefully cruel."
Max Fisher has a thoughtful article on the plan in yesterday's New York Times. It highlights how the UK is not the first nation to send asylum seekers to a far away location. For example, in 1991 the United States sent Haitian refugees to Guantanamo Bay.
Mary Bosworth's work on noncitizen prisoners in the UK also provides important context for this new development. As Bosworth documented in her 2017 article, Penal Humanitarianism? Sovereign Power in an Era of Mass Migration, published in the New Criminal Law Review, the UK has a history engaging in "offshore practices" to criminalize noncitizens and asylum seekers . Here's the abstract:
Since creating the Returns and Reintegration Fund in 2008, the British government has financed a variety of initiatives around the world under the rubric of “managing migration,” blurring the boundaries between migration control and punishment. This article documents and explores a series of overlapping case studies undertaken in Nigeria and Jamaica where the United Kingdom has funded prison building programs, mandatory prisoner transfer agreements, prison training programs, and resettlement assistance for deportees. These initiatives demonstrate in quite concrete ways a series of interconnections between criminal justice and migration control that are both novel and, in their postcolonial location, familiar. In their ties to international development and foreign policy, they also illuminate how humanitarianism allows penal power to move beyond the nation state, raising important questions about our understanding of punishment and its application.
This Article explores the conceptualization of race and racial justice in relation to international borders in dominant liberal democratic discourse and theory of First World nation-states. It advances two analytical claims. The first is that contemporary national borders of the international order—an order that remains structured by imperial inequity—are inherently racial. The default of liberal borders is racialized inclusion and exclusion that privileges “Whiteness” in international mobility and migration. This racial privilege inheres in the facially neutral legal categories and regimes of territorial and political borders, and in international legal doctrine. The second is that central to theorizing the system of neocolonial racial borders is understanding race itself as border infrastructure. That is to say, race operates as a means of enforcement of liberal territorial and political borders, and as a result, international migration governance is also a mode of racial governance. Normatively, the Article outlines the specific relational injustices of racial borders.
ICE Issues New Guidance on Prosecutorial Discretion
Will It Halt Unnecessary Deportations?
By: Richard Herman, Esq.
While the Biden Administration has significantly curtailed the arrest and deportation of immigrants without convictions, but who are the U.S. without authorization, the fact remains that 1.7 million pending cases in removal proceedings are clogging the immigration courts across the country. These cases have accumulated over the years, dating back to Trump, Obama, and even George W. Bush.
One thing is clear: the current immigration court system is unsustainable, unable to provide protect the due process rights of immigrants and their families, and represents a massive waste of scarce government resources.
Instead of leveraging our tax dollars to target and deport hardened criminals, drug dealers, and violent predators, we are spending billions on a deportation system that is focused on peaceful individuals, many of whom are married to American citizens and have U.S. citizen children.
Their biggest crime? They don’t have papers.
There are now at least 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. In prior generations, Congress has viewed the undocumented issue from a different perspective. From the 1980s all the way until 2001, there were laws that provided a path to legal status. By paying a fine for the civil infraction of not having immigration status, immigrants could come out of the shadows, get fingerprinted, and obtain a green card --- often through family or employer sponsorship.
For over 21 years, due to the political benefits of riding the wave of xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, Congress has refused to pass legislation to provide a path to legal status.
This has created a crisis in our immigration court system, which is incredibly dysfunctional and hearing dates are often pushed out years down the road, while families live in fear that they may never get due process and the opportunity to stay.
There may be relief ahead.
On April 3, 2022, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) Kerry E. Doyle issued new guidelines for its attorneys regarding prosecutorial discretion.
The memorandum titled Guidance to OPLA Attorneys Regarding the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Laws and the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion (Doyle Memorandum) will be effective from 25th April 2022. This memo is consistent with the memorandum titled Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law issued on 30th September 2021 and took effect on 29th November 2021., issued by Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Majorkas (Mayorkas Memorandum).
The new memo provides a strong directive by the Biden administration to ICE attorneys that they must follow the time-honored tradition within the law that prosecutors should “do justice” --- and prioritize scarce government resources in a way that maximizes public safety. The new memo updates and expands the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by ICE attorneys. The Doyle Memo streamlines ICE process for designating enforcement priorities and provides greater discretion to ICE attorneys to exercise various forms of prosecutorial discretion in individual cases.
What is Prosecutorial Discretion?
An immigration prosecutor has the authority to make a decision regarding placing a person in immigration court and charging them with removability, or even terminating an existing deportation case. This is called prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutorial Discretion is a wide range of authority that even allows offering plea bargains to a defendant. For example, a law enforcement officer gives you a warning for speeding and lets you go while they can charge you.
ICE is the representative of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in immigration removal proceedings before the United States Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Moreover, the OPLA has the power to use prosecutorial discretion. The OPLA attorneys can decide how they want to proceed and which cases to focus on. For instance, they can agree to remove a case from the immigration court through administrative closure or dismissal.
How Does PD Work?
OPLA lawyers assess your cases independently to decide whether they should use PD or not. Moreover, you can submit a request for PD. Once they receive your submission, they calculate if it is an enforcement priority using the Mayorkas and the Doyle Memoranda.
OPLA reviews the data of your case and considers all the factors to decide about the priority.
Should You Apply for PD?
Firstly, OPLA evaluates if your case is a priority for enforcement or not. If it is a nonpriority case, OPLA is highly likely to use PD such as not filing the Notice to Appear (NTA). For instance, if they have filed NTA already, OPLA will use PD by dismissing the removal proceedings without prejudice.
Depending on the case, they may opt for requests for relief, waiving appeal, a reduced bond amount, administrative closure, and other methods.
When OPLA evaluates that your case is a priority for enforcement, they don’t use PD and refuse to apply for NTA, termination, administrative closure, or dismissal.
In some cases, OPLA still uses PD if your case is a priority. In addition, you can provide evidence to change the status of priority. OPLA lawyers can independently reevaluate your case if they get new information. If they change the priority status, they may support your PD request.
The Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities
For civil immigration enforcement, the Mayorkas Memorandum has defined three priorities. OPLA attorneys are asked to use their resources on noncitizens that are a threat to border security, public safety, or national security.
In this section, we will talk about these three priorities. Moreover, we will share how OPLA attorneys determine priorities.
The Mayorkas Memorandum Priorities
Let’s talk about three priorities of the Mayorkas Memorandum:
- Threat to National Security
Noncitizens who are suspected or involved in espionage or terrorism-related activities are a priority. Moreover, people who are dangerous to national security also come under this priority.
- Threat to Public Safety
Noncitizens that are involved in criminal activities are a threat to public safety. Hence they are a priority for removal. When they pose a threat to the public, they are not determined with bright categories. Instead, it requires a detailed analysis of the circumstances and the conduct of the individual.
- Threat to Border Security
When a noncitizen is dangerous to border security, they will be considered a priority for removal. They are considered a threat when:
- They are captured at the port or border of the United States while trying to enter illegally.
- They are captured in the United States and they entered the country after 1st November 2020.
In addition, there may be some other scenarios that ask law enforcement agencies to remove the person. Depending on the facts and circumstances, there may be some favor for an individual case.
The Bottom Line
The latest guidelines of ICE are welcomed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). The memo will allow prosecutors to resolve cases immediately. It will help in reducing the backlog in immigration court proceedings. Thousands of people are waiting in line for years to get asylum or a green card. The Doyle Memorandum offers clear guidelines for prosecutors.
In the past, ICE Prosecutors have not always closely adhered to PD memos issued by OPLA. In addition, federal courts have, at times, intervened and enjoined prosecutorial discretion policies by ICE.
But one thing is clear. With nearly 1.7 million cases currently pending in immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, let’s hope that ICE Prosecutors will “do justice,” conserve scarce administrative resources best used against high priority cases, and remove low priority cases from the deportation process. This will not only make the U.S. a more safe and equitable nation, but will help keep peaceful and hardworking families together.
On May 12, 2022, ICE Principal Legal Advisor Kerry Doyle and ICE Detroit Chief Counsel Tara Harris will hold a community meeting with interested legal services providers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and community stakeholders who work with immigrant communities in Michigan and Ohio.
This meeting presents a unique opportunity to hear directly from PLA Doyle on her recently issued guidance to ICE attorneys on enforcing the civil immigration laws and prosecutorial discretion. It is anticipated that specific guidance on process will be provided.
For more information on how to submit a request for PD, please see the ICE Website.
Richard Herman is a nationally renowned immigration lawyer, author, and activist. He has dedicated his life to advocating for immigrants and helping change the conversation on immigration. He is the founder of the Herman Legal Group, an immigration law firm launched in 1995 and recognized in U.S. World News & Report’s “Best Law Firms in America.” He is the co-author of the acclaimed book, Immigrant, Inc. Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (John Wiley & Sons, 2009). Richard’s poignant commentary has been sought out by many national media outlets, including The New York Times, USA Today, BusinessWeek, Forbes, FOX News (The O’Reilly Factor), National Public Radio, Inc., National Lawyers Weekly, PC World, Computerworld, CIO, TechCrunch, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicle and InformationWeek. He serves as counsel to the Consulate of Mexico, Michigan/Northern Ohio.
Sunday, April 17, 2022
Photo courtesy of Supreme Court website
The Supreme Court is considering the Biden administration's effort to rescind the Remain in Mexico policy. Briefing is closing in on completion in the case of Biden v. Texas. Last week, the State of Indiana filed an amicus brief and announced it in this press release:
"Attorney General Todd Rokita today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to sustain the nation’s `Remain in Mexico' policy as a means of protecting states from the tidal wave of illegal immigrants flooding over the nation’s southern border.
He is leading a 19-state coalition fighting the Biden administration’s unlawful efforts to provide illegal immigrants free and easy entry into the United States.
`As I witnessed firsthand on behalf of all Hoosiers, we pay an enormous price for the Biden administration’s complete disregard of their duties at the southern border,' Attorney General Rokita said. `No one is above the law in America, and we are simply insisting that the Biden administration follow the law.'
On behalf of Hoosiers, Attorney General Rokita has traveled to the border twice during his administration to assess conditions and discuss policies with leaders from other states."
Here is the brief. The States of Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia joined the amicus brief in support of the States of Texas and Missouri.
The argument in the Supreme Court in Biden v. Texas is scheduled for April 26,
From the Bookshelves: A Place at the Nayarit: How a Mexican Restaurant Nourished a Community by Natalia Molina
A Place at the Nayarit: How a Mexican Restaurant Nourished a Community by Natalia Molina. The publisher, University of California Press, describes the book as follows:
"In a world that sought to reduce Mexican immigrants to invisible labor, the Nayarit was a place where people could become visible once again, where they could speak out, claim space, and belong. In 1951, Doña Natalia Barraza opened the Nayarit, a Mexican restaurant in Echo Park, Los Angeles. With A Place at the Nayarit, historian Natalia Molina traces the life’s work of her grandmother, remembered by all who knew her as Doña Natalia––a generous, reserved, and extraordinarily capable woman. Doña Natalia immigrated alone from Mexico to L.A., adopted two children, and ran a successful business. She also sponsored, housed, and employed dozens of other immigrants, encouraging them to lay claim to a city long characterized by anti-Latinx racism. Together, the employees and customers of the Nayarit maintained ties to their old homes while providing one another safety and support.
The Nayarit was much more than a popular eating spot: it was an urban anchor for a robust community, a gathering space where ethnic Mexican workers and customers connected with their patria chica (their `small country'). That meant connecting with distinctive tastes, with one another, and with the city they now called home. Through deep research and vivid storytelling, Molina follows restaurant workers from the kitchen and the front of the house across borders and through the decades. These people's stories illuminate the many facets of the immigrant experience: immigrants' complex networks of family and community and the small but essential pleasures of daily life, as well as cross-currents of gender and sexuality and pressures of racism and segregation. The Nayarit was a local landmark, popular with both Hollywood stars and restaurant workers from across the city and beloved for its fresh, traditionally prepared Mexican food. But as Molina argues, it was also, and most importantly, a place where ethnic Mexicans and other Latinx L.A. residents could step into the fullness of their lives, nourishing themselves and one another. A Place at the Nayarit is a stirring exploration of how racialized minorities create a sense of belonging. It will resonate with anyone who has felt like an outsider and had a special place where they felt like an insider."
The podcast The Hidden History of Los Angeles has an interesting interview of the author, Natalia Molina.
The immigration system operates through the looming threat of the arrest, detention, and removal of immigrants from the United States. Indiscriminate arrests of immigrants result in family separation. Immigrants languish in carceral facilities for months or even years. For most undocumented immigrants, there is no available pathway to citizenship. To protest this injustice, undocumented immigrants, lawful immigrants, and native-born citizens defy the law by engaging in direct action, deportation resistance, or hunger strikes.
This article examines how this phenomenon, which I call “immigration disobedience,” has fundamentally altered the legal landscape for immigration reform. It begins with a description of immigration disobedience by drawing on hundreds of accounts over the past decade and provides context for the phenomenon within the history of disobedience to the immigration system. Next, it considers the ways in which immigration disobedience consists of a new approach to resistance within the movement for immigrant rights. Immigrants develop their capacities as noncitizen political agents and take on leadership for the movement. Activists create new spaces of contestation to be publicly viewed and heard. As a result, immigration disobedience has produced a more transformative agenda that aims to redefine citizenship, end detention, and abolish ICE.
Ultimately, this Article explores how everyday people in social movements, who have a more personal and sophisticated understanding of the law’s dysfunction, can offer more creative and radical policy possibilities for legal reform. A decade of immigration disobedience has shifted the political demands from a focus on the legalization of immigrants to an overhaul of the existing immigration system. Rather than seek procedural improvements or benefits for “deserving” immigrants, today’s agenda recognizes the need to reconfigure institutions that perpetuate structural racial and economic inequality. More specifically, immigration disobedience teaches us, as lawyers and legal scholars, about the need to look to activism outside the law to work, think, and act in service of social change.
Saturday, April 16, 2022
Immigration Article of the Day: Creating Home: Multilevel Governance Structures for Emerging Climate Migration by Alice Kaswan
Whether in response to sudden disasters or “slow-onset” conditions like sea level rise, intolerable heat, or water scarcity, millions, if not billions, of people in the United States and around the world are likely to move in the coming decades. Where will people go? While considerable attention has focused on how communities can adapt to a changing climate in place, less attention has focused on those who choose or are compelled by circumstances to leave and the neighborhoods, cities, and states likely to absorb them. The experience will be most challenging for marginalized and low-income migrants, who will face significant hurdles in finding adequate housing and other resources. In-migration could also intensify existing stresses within receiving communities, including gentrification, insufficient affordable housing, unemployment, and inadequate resources to manage the needs of an increasing population.
Focusing on housing, this Essay argues that a national strategy to address the needs of migrants and receiving communities is necessary. That strategy should incorporate roles for multiple levels of government. Against a backdrop of key federalism values, including pragmatism, democratic legitimacy, and the prevention of tyranny, the Essay identifies appropriate roles for federal and local governments.
Friday, April 15, 2022
What is going on the UK? Just days ago we were talking about the UK's plans to strip individuals of their citizenship without notice. Now, as the BBC reports, the U.K. is about the launch a pilot program whereby asylum seekers will be shipped to Rwanda, RWANDA (!!), in order to seek U.K. asylum from that nation.
The pilot program will apply only to single men crossing into the U.K. on boats or trucks.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson states the program will "save countless lives" and put an end to human trafficking rings.
Here is a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.K. and Rwanda. It is: "For the Provision of an Asylum Partnership Arrangement to strengthen shared international commitments on the protection of refugees and migrants."
There are a few excellent Twitter threads on this topic. This one focuses on the legal status of the MOU, which, by its terms, "will not be binding in international law." And this one talks about the MOU as the result of "ministerial direction” by the Home Secretary over objections from Home Office.
The program is not yet up and running but, clearly, it will be soon. And we'll have to wait and see how it plays out in practice.
From the Migration Policy Institute:
"Immigrants from the Korean peninsula are one of the ten largest foreign-born groups in the United States, but their numbers have actually shrunk in recent years. Immigrants from Korea tend to be older, better educated, and earn higher incomes than the overall immigrant and native-born populations."
Figure 1. Korean Immigrant Population in the United States, 1980-2019
A mass shooting in New York City was in the news earlier this week. Immigrants once again assisted in law enforcement efforts to ensure community safety. As has often been said, public safety efforts require the assistance of all members of our community, including immigrants.
Frank James, the alleged Brooklyn subway shooter, was arrested. The heroes of the story are Francisco Puebla, a hardware store manager, and Zack Tahhan, a security camera installer, who helped provide information leading police to the suspect.
These men escaped poverty and war in their home countries and came to New York City. Documented spoke with Sakaria Radwan Tahhan and Francisco Puebla, about their immigration stories and lives in New York.
Today by Zoom: UC Davis Immigration and Nationality Law Review presents Immigration in the Biden Era, Noon PST
|UC Davis Immigration and Nationality Law Review presents Immigration in the Biden Era Friday, April 15, 2022, 12 – 2pm|
REGISTER for in-person event
Watch via Zoom
On April 15, 2022 the UC Davis Immigration and Nationality Law Review invites you to their annual symposium entitled Immigration in the Biden Era. The Symposium will consist of a keynote by law professor and immigration scholar Ilya Somin followed by a panel of immigration scholars and professionals. The panel will discuss both the new immigration policies the Biden administration has implemented as well as what, if any, Trump immigration policies Biden has retained. The panel will focus on how these immigration policies and practices have impacted current immigration trends including but not limited to asylum and migration to the U.S. border.
The Immigration & Nationality Law Review anthologizes a yearly collection of exceptional immigration scholarship published in other law journals around the country. It is one of the two major student-edited American law journals focused on immigration and nationality issues. Student editors identify articles suitable for reprinting, organize an annual symposium, and supervise Associate Members writing student notes. Associate Members' notes can satisfy the writing requirement.
As we previously posted on the blog, earlier this month Governor Greg Abbott of Texas announced a plan to "charter buses and flights" of undocumented migrants from Texas to Washington, D.C. This move is widely seen as a political strategy by the GOP to oppose President Biden's ending of Title 42.
News outlets are now reporting that at least two buses of migrants have been taken to Washington, D.C. ABC News reports that a second bus arrived yesterday.
Organizers from a number of nonprofit groups, including Welcome with Dignity, CARECEN DC, and CASA joined to welcome these asylum seekers to Washington, D.C. and offer them supportive services:
An immigrant rights group, United for Immigration Reform, is taking their activism across the country!
They are currently in the 16th day of a 40-day bicycle ride from Denver, Colorado to Washington, D.C. Their goal is "to pressure the federal government to pass immigration reform before the November 2022 elections."
One of the group's leaders, Omar Gómez, has this to say:
“For many years politicians have made promises to the immigrant community but once elected they forget about us. I am tired of broken promises, at a personal level, these broken promises over decades long feel like a psychological torture. We come to this country to provide for our families and loved ones. I am leading this 40-day bike journey over 1800 miles across the country because I am fed up and tired of broken promises. I will bike all the way to DC and I will not leave without a clear commitment for immigration reform!”
Follow their journey! A map of where they plan to ride each day is available here. They will join with other activists on May 1 in Washington, D.C.
Thursday, April 14, 2022
World Affairs (San Francisco) is conducting a public forum on immigration reform this evening.
Thursday, April 14, 2022 6:00PM - 7:15PM PDT
World Affairs Auditorium
312 Sutter Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA
Hosted ByWorld Affairs
|Free to Attend IN-PERSON
|Free to Attend ONLINE
Here is a description of the program:
"Here at World Affairs we want the public to have a stronger voice when it comes to government policies that impact our communities and a chance to come together and establish solutions across political divides. In partnership with Voice of the People (VOP) and the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, we are hosting an exciting process of citizen consultation and in-person discussion on US immigration policy.
Prior to attending our program, you will have the opportunity to take a survey created by PPC and participate in a “policymaking simulation” on immigration, providing your recommendations on policy options being considered by Congress. Then, join World Affairs in-person for a forum to discuss the results of the survey, compare these with the wider US electorate and share community insight on federal immigration policy.
The format of this event will include a larger discussion moderated by Dr. Steven Kull, PPC Director with audience contributions and expert insight from Kevin Johnson, Dean, UC Davis School of Law. At this nonpartisan event, we do not plan to advocate for certain solutions but uplift the public’s voice."
The new parole program, which could start as early as next week, is expected to help people interested in coming to the US and allow them to stay in the country temporarily. According to one administration official, individuals would need to have a sponsorship application filled out on their behalf by someone in the US in order to come to the country. Details of the plan are still being finalized.The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security are involved in the program, according to the administration official. The approach is similar to the one taken with Afghans following the fall of Kabul.
Readers of this blog may find a podcast of interest. Here is how it is described by the San Diego Union-Tribune:
"Border City is a different kind of story about the U.S.-Mexico border, told by a reporter who has spent more than 25 years trying to understand the dynamics of Tijuana, Mexico, and its relationship to the United States.
In 1994, Sandra Dibble left a prestigious job in Washington, D.C., for Tijuana, Mexico’s largest border city. A few days before she arrived, a major presidential candidate was assassinated there. She was still settling into her apartment when the city’s police chief and his bodyguard were gunned down.
In this eight-part podcast, Sandra introduces listeners to Tijuana the way she was introduced to it — through the news stories she covered but also through her personal connections in the city’s cultural community and her friendships with ordinary Tijuanenses."