Immigration Law Commons^™

The Case Against Prosecuting Refugees, Evan J. Criddle

Faculty Publications

Within the past several years, the U.S. Department of Justice has pledged to prosecute asylum-seekers who enter the United States outside an official port of entry without inspection. This practice has contributed to mass incarceration and family separation at the U.S.–Mexico border, and it has prevented bona fide refugees from accessing relief in immigration court. Yet, federal judges have taken refugee prosecution in stride, assuming that refugees, like other foreign migrants, are subject to the full force of American criminal justice if they skirt domestic border controls. This assumption is gravely mistaken.

This Article shows that Congress has not authorized …

Build The Wall And Wreck The System: Immigration Policy In The Trump Administration, Ediberto Román, Ernesto Sagás

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Enabling The Best Interests Factors, Adrián E. Alvarez

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

For over a century, state courts and other child welfare agencies in the United States have been applying the “best interests of the child standard” to all decision-making concerning children. The standard is also enshrined within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)—a treaty that every nation in the world has ratified except the United States. Notwithstanding its widespread adoption in family law, the standard is, with only a few exceptions, noticeably missing from American laws and policies pertaining to children in the immigration system.

There is a rich literature arguing that children should enjoy special …

Digital Internment, Margaret Hu

Faculty Publications

In Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and the Second Monster, Eric L. Muller explores whether Korematsu v. United States is dead post-Trump v. Hawaii, and whether by failing to strike down Hirabayashi v. United States, the “mother” of Korematsu and a “second monster” lives on. This brief response Essay contends that answering these questions first demands grasping how Trump v. Hawaiifailed to fully address the program implemented by the Muslim Ban–Travel Ban: Extreme Vetting. Extreme Vetting can be characterized as a form of “digital internment” through a complex web of cybersurveillance, administrative-imposed restraints, and “identity-management” rationales that are …