Law Commons^™

The Pressure Is On—Criminal Defense Counsel Strategies After Padilla V. Kentucky, Bill Hing

Bill Ong Hing

The Supreme Court’s message to criminal defense attorneys in Padilla v. Kentucky was clear: when there is a risk of deportation, defense counsel has a constitutional duty to inform an immigrant defendant of the potential for deportation or adverse immigration consequences prior to pleading guilty. In my view, this constitutional duty places tremendous pressure on defense counsel to do more than advise, because once advised, the client very naturally may want to know what options are available other than going to trial. Rather than simply focusing on how to minimize the time of incarceration for the client under a particular …

Clear And Simple Deportation Rules For Crimes: Why We Need Them And Why It's Hard To Get Them, Rebecca Sharpless

Rebecca Sharpless

Nativism, Terrorism, And Human Rights -- The Global Wrongs Of Reno V. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Berta E. Hernández-Truyol

Berta E. Hernández-Truyol

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee decision (American-Arab or AADC) is the most recent U.S. Supreme Court pronouncement regarding the intersection of immigration regulations and fundamental constitutional rights enjoyed by foreign subjects present within the United States. In American-Arab, the U.S. government commenced deportation proceedings against two legal permanent residents and six temporary visa holders on the basis of an ideological bias: the plaintiffs were alleged to be members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Popular Front or PFLP) -- a charge all the plaintiffs denied. The Supreme Court's ruling endorsing the legality of the government's deportation actions wholly …

Access To Protection: Negotiating Rights And Diplomatic Assurances Under Memoranda Of Understanding, Mariagiulia Giuffré

Mariagiulia Giuffré

With the pretext of the global ‘war on terror’, States have repatriated a notable number of individuals who are considered threats to the public safety of the host country. Expulsion orders have often been issued on the basis of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs)—written accords that enumerate a long list of undertakings dictating guarantees for the fair and human treatment of returnees. This paper aims to investigate whether the implementation of diplomatic assurances, whether formalized or not within MoUs, can undermine core refugee rights. Through a detailed review of international human rights case law, it observes that the text of MoUs …

Redressing The Shame Of U.S. Immigration Laws And Enforcement Policies, Bill Hing

Bill Ong Hing

n this chapter, I provide a focused view of certain examples of U.S. immigration laws and enforcement policies that have gone too far. I provide a fuller picture of employer sanctions enforcement and Operation Gatekeeper, along with harsh deportation policies that are enforced in the name of protecting our borders and ourselves from a so-called invasion of immigrants. I explain how the lack of sufficient visas and U.S. trade policies have exacerbated the alleged “illegal immigration” problem. And I discuss how a system based on ethical values is needed to remedy the evils of current U.S. immigration policies.

The experiment …

The Waivers Book: Advanced Issues In Immigration Law Practice, Irene Scharf

Irene Scharf

Immigration practitioners finally have one book they can turn to that addresses one of the most important issues in their practices: waivers and other advanced remedies. Assuming at least an introductory knowledge of the issues pertinent to practicing immigration law today, and covering a broad array of topics that arise in any sophisticated immigration practice, The Waivers Book: Advanced Issues in Immigration Law Practice will be useful reference tool, not only to those who are relatively new to this area of law, but also to those who already have considerable practice experience.

A People's Guide To U.S. Immigration Law, Irene Scharf

Irene Scharf

The goal of this book is to help those who are already here to understand their rights, responsibilities, and choices under the ever-more complicated immigration laws. In these insecure times, it is crucial to understand one's legal rights during work and home raids, how to act if charged by the authorities, how to avoid being deported/removed, how to decide whether to hire a lawyer and if hiring one how to choose one, how to assist one's lawyer to reduce fees, and much more.

What Process Is Due?: Unaccompanied Minors' Rights To Deportation Hearings, Irene Scharf, Christine Hess

Irene Scharf

Thousands of foreign-born children enter the United States every year. Many, particularly those crossing at the Mexican border, arrive without legal immigration status and unaccompanied by adults. Once here, these children have certain rights under the Constitution and the immigration laws of this country. Their primary right is to a deportation hearing. Under the current procedures used by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), however, these children are encouraged to waive that right and "elect" voluntary departure. The voluntary departure process requires that they admit to having entered the country illegally, choose the country to which they will return, and leave …

Are You A Terrorist Or An American?:An Analysis Of Immigration Lawpost 9/11: Introduction, Mark A. Drumbl

Mark A. Drumbl

No abstract provided.

Criminalizing The Undocumented: Ironic Boundaries Of The Post-September 11th ‘Pale Of Law.’, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

The general hypothesis put forth in this Article is that well-accepted historical matrices are increasingly inadequate to address the complex issues raised by various U.S. government practices in the so-called “war on terrorism.” The Article describes certain stresses that have recently built upon two major legal dichotomies: the citizen/non-citizen and criminal/civil lines. Professor Kanstroom reviews the use of the citizen/non-citizen dichotomies as part of the post-September 11th enforcement regime and considers the increasing convergence between the immigration and criminal justice systems. Professor Kanstroom concludes by suggesting the potential emergence of a disturbing new legal system, which contains the worst features …

The Right To Deportation Counsel In Padilla V. Kentucky: The Challenging Construction Of The Fifth-And-A-Half Amendment, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

The U.S. Supreme Court’s pathbreaking decision in Padilla v. Kentucky seems reasonably simple and exact: Sixth Amendment norms were applied to noncitizen Jose Padilla’s claim that his criminal defense counsel was ineffective due to allegedly incorrect advice concerning the risk of deportation. This was a very significant move with virtues of both logic and justice. It will likely prevent many avoidable and wrongful deportations. It may also help some deportees who have been wrongly or unjustly deported in the past. However, the apparent exactness of the case, as a Sixth Amendment decision, raises fundamental constitutional questions. For more than a …

Padilla V. Kentucky And The Evolving Right To Deportation Counsel: Watershed Or Work-In-Progress?, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

Though widely heralded by immigration and human rights lawyers as a “landmark,” possible “watershed,” and even “Gideon decision” for immigrants, Padilla v. Kentucky is perhaps better understood as a Rorschach test, than as a clear constitutional precedent. It is surely a very interesting and important U.S. Supreme Court case in the (rapidly converging) fields of immigration and criminal law in which the Court struggles with the functional relationship between ostensibly “civil” deportation proceedings and criminal convictions. This is a gratifying development, for reasons not only of justice, fairness, proportionality, and basic human decency, but also (perhaps) of doctrinal consistency. The …

Reaping The Harvest: The Long, Complicated, Crucial Rhetorical Struggle Over Deportation, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

No abstract provided.

Deportation And Justice: A Constitutional Dialogue, Daniel Kanstroom

Daniel Kanstroom

Recent statutory changes to the United States immigration law have resulted in a large increase in the number of lawful permanent resident noncitizens who are deported because of prior criminal conduct. Now, deportation is often a virtually automatic consequence of conviction for an increasingly minor array of crimes including possessory drug offenses and shoplifting. Under current statutory law, permanent resident noncitizens may be deported for crimes that were not grounds for deportation when they were committed and there may be no possibiilty of mercy or humanitarian relief. This Dialogue explores arguments for and against this system. Specifically, it examines the …

Systemic Failure: Mental Illness, Detention, And Deportation, Bill Ong Hing

Bill Ong Hing

Our detention and deportation system failed Tatyana Mitrohina. She was born in Russia with heart defects and deformed hands. She was rejected by her parents for many years, spending her infancy in hospitals and institutions. Though she was later able to move back home, her parents abused her and then abandoned her. She immigrated to the United States as a young teen, adopted by U.S. citizens. After more than a decade, she had a child of her own, whom she abused. Tatyana was diagnosed with mental illness. Although she was convicted of child abuse, the state court recommended medication, counseling, …

Toward A True Elements Test: Taylor And The Categorical Analysis Of Crimes In Immigration Law, Rebecca Sharpless

Rebecca Sharpless

When determining the legal effect of a conviction under immigration law, adjudicators claim to apply a uniform, federal standard that prohibits fact finding regarding the underlying circumstances that gave rise to the conviction. This categorical analysis of crimes is firmly rooted in all levels of administrative and federal court case law. Yet fundamental confusion exists concerning what it means to apply a categorical approach to evaluating when a criminal conviction is of a type that triggers deportation. This article demonstrates that a source of this confusion is a misunderstanding of the nature of a conviction and the difference between a …

Detention To Deportation - Rethinking The Removal Of Cambodian Refugees, Bill Ong Hing

Bill Ong Hing

This article is part of a symposium on Immigration and Civil Rights After September 11: The Impact on California.

The United States helped to pull Cambodia into the Vietnam war, initially through secret bombings in Cambodia in 1969 and CIA support for a rightist coup in Cambodia in 1970. After the Khmer Rouge genocide of two million of its own people in Cambodia, thousands of survivors fled to refugee camps. Eventually, the United States admitted 145,000 Cambodian refugees. U.S. resettlement policies provided public assistance and job training for low-income jobs. Refugee families, however, were not provided with the tools necessary …