Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Enforcing Immigration Equity, Jason A. Cade
Enforcing Immigration Equity, Jason A. Cade
Scholarly Works
Congressional amendments to the immigration code in the 1990s significantly broadened grounds for removal while nearly eradicating opportunities for discretionary relief. The result has been a radical transformation of immigration law. In particular, the constriction of equitable discretion as an adjudicative tool has vested a new and critical responsibility in enforcement officials to implement rigid immigration rules in a normatively defensible way, primarily through the use of prosecutorial discretion. This Article contextualizes recent executive enforcement actions within this scheme and argues that the Obama Administration’s targeted use of limited enforcement resources and implementation of initiatives such as Deferred Action for …
Trending @ Rwulaw: Deborah Gonzalez's Post: Reaching The American Dream -- With An Rwu Law Team!, Deborah Gonzalez
Trending @ Rwulaw: Deborah Gonzalez's Post: Reaching The American Dream -- With An Rwu Law Team!, Deborah Gonzalez
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
Obama Fights To Continue Detention Of Migrant Families, Lauren Carasik
Obama Fights To Continue Detention Of Migrant Families, Lauren Carasik
Media Presence
No abstract provided.
Return Of The Jrad, Jason A. Cade
Return Of The Jrad, Jason A. Cade
Scholarly Works
Ignacio Diaz Aguilar’s felony conviction for document forgery made him a priority for deportation and disqualified him from the possibility of discretionary relief from removal, despite apparently significant equities and mitigating factors. And yet, when Federal District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein sentenced Mr. Aguilar, he recommended that the government not deport him, even though no legal rules provided him with a route to that result. This essay places Judge Weinstein’s recommendation in a broader context, explaining its importance within the modern deportation regime. Statutory reforms and new agency practices have made criminal history the primary marker of noncitizen undesirability. …
The Unconstitutional Use Of Restraints In Removal Proceedings, Fatma Marouf
The Unconstitutional Use Of Restraints In Removal Proceedings, Fatma Marouf
Scholarly Works
This Article challenges the constitutionality of indiscriminately restraining civil immigration detainees during removal proceedings. Not only are immigration detainees routinely placed in handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains without any individualized determination of the need for restraints, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the prosecuting party, makes the decisions about the use of restraints, rather than the judge. After examining the rationale for the well-established prohibition against the indiscriminate use of restraints during criminal and civil jury trials, and discussing how some courts have extended this rationale to bench trials, this Article contends that ICE’s practice violates substantive and procedural …
Immigration Law’S Looming Fourth Amendment Problem, Michael Kagan
Immigration Law’S Looming Fourth Amendment Problem, Michael Kagan
Scholarly Works
In 2014, a wave of federal court decisions found that local police violate the Fourth Amendment when they rely on requests from the Department of Homeland Security to detain people suspected of being deportable immigrants. The problem with these requests, known as “detainers,” was that they were not based on any neutral finding of probable cause. But this infirmity is not unique to DHS requests to local police. It is characteristic of the normal means by which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests people and detains them at the outset of deportation proceedings. These decisions thus signal a glaring constitutional …
Assumed Sane, Fatma Marouf
Assumed Sane, Fatma Marouf
Scholarly Works
In 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held in Matter of G-G-S- that a noncitizen’s mental health status at the time of an offense is irrelevant to determining whether the offense is a “particularly serious crime” for immigration purposes. Since a “particularly serious crime” is a bar to asylum and withholding of removal, it can result in a noncitizen’s deportation to a country where he or she faces a serious risk of persecution. In deciding that immigration judges “are constrained by how mental health issues were addressed as part of the criminal proceedings,” the BIA failed to recognize the …