Law Commons^™

Legislating Morality: Moral Theory And Turpitudinous Crimes In Immigration Jurisprudence, Abel Rodríguez, Jennifer A. Bulcock

Faculty Publications

Congress could have framed the country’s immigration policies in any number of ways. In significant part, it opted to frame them in moral terms. The crime involving moral turpitude is among the most pervasive and pernicious classifications in immigration law. In the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is virtually ubiquitous, appearing everywhere from the deportability and mandatory detention grounds to the inadmissibility and naturalization grounds. In effect, it acts as a gatekeeper for those who wish to enter and remain in the country, obtain lawful permanent residence, travel abroad after admission, or become United States citizens. With limited exceptions, noncitizens …

(Un)Civil Denaturalization, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Irina D. Manta

Faculty Publications

Over the last fifty years, naturalized citizens in the United States were able to feel a sense of finality and security in their rights. Denaturalization, wielded frequently as a political tool in the McCarthy era, had become exceedingly rare. Indeed, denaturalization was best known as an adjunct to criminal proceedings brought against former Nazis and other war criminals who had entered the country under false pretenses.

Denaturalization is no longer so rare. Naturalized citizens’ sense of security has been fundamentally shaken by policy developments in the last five years. The number of denaturalization cases is growing, and if current trends …

Quieting The Court: Lessons From The Muslim-Ban Case, Avidan Cover

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s Muslim-ban decision in Trump v. Hawaii and the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court call into question the civil rights litigation enterprise insofar as it challenges U.S. government’s national security and immigration policies. Litigants and advocacy organizations should employ an array of strategies and tactics to avoid the Court’s rulings that almost uniformly defer to, and thus validate, the government’s national security and immigration practices.

This article maintains that The Muslim-Ban Case was a predictable outgrowth of the Supreme Court’s national security-immigration jurisprudence that champions executive power at the expense of marginalized groups, in particular …