Law Commons^™

Brignoni-Ponce And The Establishment Of Race-Based Immigration Enforcement, Isabel Skilton

Washington International Law Journal

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce solidified the racist enforcement of United States immigration laws by allowing “Mexican appearance” to be a factor forming reasonable suspicion in a roving patrol. The United States Supreme Court rationalized race-based immigration enforcement by relying on erroneous immigration demographics and a misconstrued notion of serving the public interest. This comment demonstrates that the rationales provided by the Supreme Court are illogical, discriminatory, and harmful to communities of color. This comment analyzes the impacts of race-based discrimination and provides alternatives which may cabin the impact of Brignoni-Ponce. Aside from overruling Brignoni-Ponce in its entirety, a probable cause …

Immigration Law, Bianca N. Dibella, Hannah Couch

Mercer Law Review

This Article surveys cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, in which immigration law was a central focus of the case. The Article begins with a discussion of asylum relief, followed by summaries of cases disposed on procedural or jurisdictional grounds. It then discusses the standard of review the Eleventh Circuit applies to cases decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Immigration Court. It then describes the Eleventh Circuit’s recent jurisprudence around issues of habeas corpus law.

Limited Protection: The Impact Of Illegal Entry On Due Process Rights In Expedited Removal Proceedings, Sun Shen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

[...] This Note argues that illegal entry often limits the scope of asylum seekers’ due process rights in court and negatively impacts the asylum process in a way that runs afoul with the spirit of due process and fairness. Asylum eligibility should not hinge on whether entry is legal, but whether applicants are able to meet the evidentiary burden. Conditioning asylum seekers’ procedural due process rights on the legality of entry creates arbitrary asylum results and carries high risks of sending back asylum seekers to danger, simply because they were not able to obtain valid travel documents from the governments …

Supply And Demand In The Illegal Employment Of Undocumented Workers, Brian Owsley

Catholic University Law Review

The United States is in a quandary regarding immigration. There are over eleven million undocumented aliens residing in the country with about eight million of them working in the American economy.

The federal government has criminalized the illegal entry and the illegal reentry into the United States. Moreover, it has enacted a statute making it illegal to smuggle or harbor aliens. Federal prosecutors across the country have aggressively prosecuted people in violation of these statutes. At the same time, Congress criminalized the illegal employment of undocumented workers, but federal prosecutors rarely ever charge employers with violating this statute.

The economic …

Heirs Of An Administration: Unlawful Executive Actions, Jerome Perez

Catholic University Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States in DHS v. Regents on June 18, 2020, decided to stall the Trump administration from rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy that the Obama administration created contrary to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)––even though in 2016 the Supreme Court affirmed a preliminary injunction on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy, which mirrors DACA. This blunder offhandedly sacrifices the Supreme Court’s reputation as nonpartisan by enlisting itself as the future arbiter of administrative issues with self-evident resolutions and deciding contrary to those resolutions to endorse a political agenda. …

The Mother Of Exiles Is Abandoning Her Children: The Systemic Failure To Protect Unaccompanied Minors Arriving At Our Borders, Rosa M. Peterson

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Unaccompanied minors arrive at the United States border every day. Many brought by the hope of finding a life lived without fear, a luxury many United States citizens take for granted. Their truths become the barriers and shackles which keep them in detention centers and unaccompanied minor facilities throughout the United States; children find their very words wielded as weapons against them in immigration court. Words often spoken to therapists in perceived confidence, during counseling sessions. This practice is a systemic failure to protect unaccompanied minors arriving at our borders who are seeking protection and help. The United States …

No Refuge For The Sick: How The Eu's Health-Based Non-Refoulement Standard Compounds The Exclusionary Nature Of International Refugee Law, Cassandra Baker

Washington International Law Journal

The COVID-19 pandemic poses grave threats to the life and health of asylum seekers in Europe. Many potential asylees are forced to reside in cramped, unsanitary facilities and do not have adequate access to medical treatment. On top of these dangers, many are likely to be denied asylum due to the stringency of international refugee law and European Union (“EU”) asylum procedures. As a result, a number of these asylum seekers will turn to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides broader non-refoulement protections. However, even Article 3, as currently interpreted by the European Court of …

Refoulement As Pandemic Policy, Haiyun Damon-Feng

Washington International Law Journal

COVID-19 restrictions on access to asylum likely violate non-refoulement obligations under international and federal law, and while they are extreme, they are not unique. There is a small but growing body of scholarly literature that rightly argues that such policies are pretextual covers used to enact restrictive immigration policy goals, but these arguments generally arise from an ahistorical perspective. This article positions restrictive COVID immigration policies in a broader historical context and argues that the United States has a long history of weaponizing fear of disease and contagion from migrants to justify restrictive immigration policies. The article offers a historical …

Rejecting Citizenship, Rose Cuison-Villazor

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era. By Ming Hsu Chen.

Public Charge Grounds For Inadmissibility: Impact On Noncitizen Health Insurance Coverage, Madeline M. Culbreth

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

The public charge rule is an ongoing barrier to health insurance for lawfully

present immigrants and ought to be removed. Healthcare coverage for

immigrants is a critical aspect of the country’s health care scheme. Recent

changes to the United States’ immigration policy are contributing to growing

fears among immigrant families about participating in Medicaid and CHIP.

The most effective solution is to permanently alter the Immigration and Nationality

Act. Congress should expressly exclude health insurance from being

considered in the public charge grounds for inadmissibility.

The Migrant Protection Protocols: Two Administrations, One Outcome, Alexandria Doty

Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

Immigrants have long seen the southern border of the United States as the last stop before they are able to enter the land of the free. The Department of Homeland Security, however, strives to make the southern border as inhospitable as possible to those hoping to cross. The Migrant Protect Protocols is the latest attempt from Washington to block access to the United States to immigrants who are detained by forcibly returning them to Mexico to await their deportation proceedings. While Americans have read stories of families being torn apart at the border or listened to interviews of politicians promising …

Taking Arlington To New Heights: The Carrillo-Lopez Decision, Caroline Henneman

Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

Former President Trump campaigned on a promise to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. Though President Trump did not fulfill this promise, he highlighted the amount of unchecked power his administration had over immigration law through policy enactments. Throughout the centuries, various Presidents and sessions of Congress utilized this unbridled power to discriminate against migrants on the basis of race. In 1952, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act, which repealed several explicitly racist requirements but overlooked other racially charged laws from prior statutes, such as criminally punishing unlawful re-entry found in 8 U.S.C. §1326. On August …

Immigration And Naturalization, Kevin J. Fandl, Sabrina Damast, Mayra C. Artiles, Poorvi Chothani, Cliodhna Murphy

The Year in Review

No abstract provided.