Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

A Poll Tax By Another Name: Considering The Constitutionality Of Conditioning Naturalization And The “Right To Have Rights” On An Ability To Pay, John Harland Giammatteo Dec 2020

A Poll Tax By Another Name: Considering The Constitutionality Of Conditioning Naturalization And The “Right To Have Rights” On An Ability To Pay, John Harland Giammatteo

Journal Articles

Permanent residents must naturalize to enjoy full access to constitutional rights, particularly the right to vote. However, new regulations from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), finalized in early August and originally slated to go into effect one month before the 2020 election, would drastically increase the cost of naturalization, moving it out of reach for many otherwise-qualified permanent residents, while at the same time abolishing any meaningful fee waiver for low-income applicants. In doing so, USCIS has sought to condition naturalization and its attendant rights on an individual’s financial status. In this Essay, I juxtapose the new fee regulations …


Echoes Of 9/11: Rhetorical Analysis Of Presidential Statements In The "War On Terror", Bruce Ching Nov 2020

Echoes Of 9/11: Rhetorical Analysis Of Presidential Statements In The "War On Terror", Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

This article examines persuasive statements by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump involving appeals to national identity as a rhetorical foundation for anti-terrorism policy since 9/11. Their specific rhetorical methods have included the use of memorable catchphrases, alliteration, metaphorical framing, and contrast between values of the United States and those of the terrorists. President Bush focused on rallying the nation’s response against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, identifying the U.S. with “freedom itself” and invoking the phrase “War on Terror.” President Obama emphasized the importance of the nation’s values while denouncing the Bush administration’s torture of …


Presidential Ideology And Immigrant Detention, Catherine Y. Kim, Amy Semet May 2020

Presidential Ideology And Immigrant Detention, Catherine Y. Kim, Amy Semet

Journal Articles

In our nation’s immigration system, a noncitizen charged with deportability may be detained pending the outcome of removal proceedings. These individuals are housed in remote facilities closely resembling prisons, with severe restrictions on access to counsel and contact with family members. Given severe backlogs in the adjudication of removal proceedings, such detention may last months or even years.

Many of the noncitizens initially detained by enforcement officials have the opportunity to request a bond hearing before an administrative adjudicator called an Immigration Judge (IJ). Although these IJs preside over relatively formal on-the-record hearings and are understood to exercise “independent judgement,” …


An Empirical Study Of Political Control Over Immigration Adjudication, Catherine Y. Kim, Amy Semet Mar 2020

An Empirical Study Of Political Control Over Immigration Adjudication, Catherine Y. Kim, Amy Semet

Journal Articles

Immigration plays a central role in the Trump Administration’s political agenda. This Article presents the first comprehensive empirical assessment of the extent to which immigration judges (IJs), the administrative officials charged with adjudicating whether a given noncitizen will be deported from the United States, may be influenced by the presidential administration’s political preferences.

We constructed an original dataset of over 830,000 removal proceedings decided between January 2001 and June 2019 after individual merits hearings. First, we found that every presidential administration—not just the current one—disproportionately appointed IJs with backgrounds in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Homeland …


Vicarious Trauma And Ethical Obligations For Attorneys Representing Immigrant Clients: A Call To Build Resilience Among The Immigration Bar, Hannah C. Cartwright, Lindsay M. Harris, Liana M. Montecinos, Anam Rahman Jan 2020

Vicarious Trauma And Ethical Obligations For Attorneys Representing Immigrant Clients: A Call To Build Resilience Among The Immigration Bar, Hannah C. Cartwright, Lindsay M. Harris, Liana M. Montecinos, Anam Rahman

Journal Articles

This article analyzes the ethical obligations for attorneys representing immigrant clients and the consequences of vicarious trauma, compassion fatigue, and burnout for the immigration bar and immigrant clients. The authors identify barriers for immigration attorneys in preventing, recognizing, and responding to vicarious trauma in themselves and colleagues and suggest practical ways that the immigration bar can and should seek to build resilience.


Darkside Discretion In Immigration Cases, Shoba Wadhia Jan 2020

Darkside Discretion In Immigration Cases, Shoba Wadhia

Journal Articles

"Darkside Discretion" refers to a situation where the noncitizen satisfies the statutory criteria set by Congress to be eligible for remedy but is denied by an adjudicator in the exercise of discretion. Imagine a woman who arrived in the United States six months ago who meets her burden of proving she is a refugee based on a fear of persecution by the government in her home country because of her religious beliefs, but who is denied asylum for discretionary reasons. This kind of decision exposes the "darkside" of discretion because it reflects how the government uses the tool of discretion …


The Case Against Chevron Deference In Immigration Adjudication, Shoba Wadhia, Christopher Walker Jan 2020

The Case Against Chevron Deference In Immigration Adjudication, Shoba Wadhia, Christopher Walker

Journal Articles

The Duke Law Journal’s fifty-first annual administrative law symposium examines the future of Chevron deference—the command that a reviewing court defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute the agency administers. In the lead article, Professors Kristin Hickman and Aaron Nielson argue that the Supreme Court should narrow Chevron’s domain to exclude interpretations made via administrative adjudication. Building on their framing, this Article presents an in-depth case study of immigration adjudication and argues that this case against Chevron has perhaps its greatest force when it comes to immigration. That is because much of Chevron’s theory for congressional delegation …