Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1)
- 1967 Additional Protocol (1)
- 1980 Refugee Act (1)
- Alien Friends Act (1)
- Annual Survey of Books Related to the Law (1)
-
- Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs) (1)
- Asylum claims (1)
- Asylum-seekers and refugees (1)
- Attorney-client relationships (1)
- Banananization (1)
- Biden Administration (1)
- Chinese Exclusion Case (1)
- Citizenship Act of 2021 (1)
- Citizenship rejection (1)
- Detention transfers (1)
- Family separation at the border (1)
- Federal immigration laws (1)
- ICE detention infrastructure (1)
- Immigration Clause (1)
- Immigration Clause before 1876 (1)
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (1)
- Immigration and Nationality Act (1)
- Immigration policy and law (1)
- Lawful permanent residents (LPRs) (1)
- Legislative constitutionalism (1)
- Non-refoulement (1)
- Refugee and asylum law (1)
- Regulation of immigrants (1)
- Right to retained counsel (1)
- Safe third country (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Keeping Counsel: Challenging Immigration Detention Transfers As A Violation Of The Right To Retained Counsel, Natasha Phillips
Keeping Counsel: Challenging Immigration Detention Transfers As A Violation Of The Right To Retained Counsel, Natasha Phillips
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
In 2019 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) incarcerated nearly 500,000 individuals. More than half of the individuals detained by ICE were transferred between detention facilities, and roughly thirty percent of those transferred were moved between federal circuit court jurisdictions. Detention transfers are isolating, bewildering, and scary for the detained noncitizen and their family. They can devastate the noncitizen’s legal defense by destroying an existing attorney-client relationship or the noncitizen’s ability to obtain representation. Transfers also obstruct the noncitizen’s ability to gather evidence and may prejudicially change governing case law. This Note describes the legal framework for transfers and their …
Asylum-Seekers Are Not Bananas Either: Limitations On Transferring Asylum-Seekers To Third Countries, Tally Kritzman-Amir
Asylum-Seekers Are Not Bananas Either: Limitations On Transferring Asylum-Seekers To Third Countries, Tally Kritzman-Amir
Michigan Journal of International Law
Despite the similarities between the movement of people and the movement of goods, many developed nations have maintained high barriers to migration even as barriers to trade have fallen sharply. However, as Jennifer Gordon points out, both bilateral and multilateral treaties governing migration have proliferated within this weaker global patchwork of regulation. For example, the ability of developed states to gain concessions on other matters such as trade or investment has led to the proliferation multilateral agreements, while bilateral agreements have arisen due to a desire to refrain from integrating migrant workers in destination states.
This paper focuses on a …
Rejecting Citizenship, Rose Cuison-Villazor
Rejecting Citizenship, Rose Cuison-Villazor
Michigan Law Review
A Review of Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era. By Ming Hsu Chen.
Dismantling The Wall, Charles Shane Ellison, Anjum Gupta
Dismantling The Wall, Charles Shane Ellison, Anjum Gupta
Michigan Law Review Online
In this Essay, we will summarize the status quo of this crisis. We will highlight warning signs that began to appear even before the Trump Administration to understand how we reached this point. We will then propose solutions to chart a pathway forward, exploring strategies for implementing lasting reforms aimed at tearing down this administrative wall and replacing it with a more fair and welcoming system.
The Imaginary Immigration Clause, Nikolas Bowie, Norah Rast
The Imaginary Immigration Clause, Nikolas Bowie, Norah Rast
Michigan Law Review
The political convulsions of the past decade have fueled acute interest in constitutional For the past century, the Supreme Court has skeptically scrutinized Congress’s power to enact healthcare laws and other domestic legislation, insisting that nothing in the Constitution gives Congress a general power to “regulate an individual from cradle to grave.” Yet when Congress regulates immigrants, the Court has contradictorily assumed that Congress has “broad, undoubted power” to do whatever it thinks necessary—even though no clause of the Constitution gives Congress any specific immigration power. The Court has explained this discrepancy with reference to the Chinese Exclusion Case, …