Law Commons^™

Forced Back Into The Lion's Mouth: Per Se Reporting Requirements In U.S. Asylum Law, Amelia S. Mcgowan

Marquette Law Review

This Article makes a significant contribution to scholarship on asylum

law by identifying and calling for the abolition of a deadly (but unexplored)

development in asylum law: per se reporting requirements. In jurisdictions

where they apply, per se reporting requirements automatically bar protection

to asylum seekers solely because they did not report their non-state persecutors

(such as cartels or domestic abusers) to the authorities before fleeing, even

where reporting would have been futile or dangerous. These requirements

similarly provide no exception where law enforcement openly support an

applicant’s persecutor.

This Article demonstrates that even though per se reporting requirements

have …

Ice Detention Contracts, Third-Party Beneficiary Suits, And Private Contracts In Immigrant Detention, Patrick Kennedy

Marquette Law Review

none.

Getting It Righted: Access To Counsel In Rapid Removals, Stephen Manning, Kari Hong

Marquette Law Review

None

A Study On Immigrant Activism, Secure Communities, And Rawlsian Civil Disobedience, Karen J. Pita Loor

Marquette Law Review

This Article explores the immigrant acts of protest during the Obama presidency in opposition to the Secure Communities (SCOMM) immigration enforcement program through the lens of philosopher John Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience and posits that this immigrant resistance contributed to that administration’s dismantling the federal program by progressively moving localities, and eventually whole states, to cease cooperation with SCOMM. The controversial SCOMM program is one of the most powerful tools of immigration enforcement in the new millennium because it transforms any contact with state and local law enforcement into a potential immigration investigation. SCOMM has now been revived through …

Applying The U.S. Constitution To Foreign Asylum Seekers: Exposing A Curious, Inconsistent Practice In The Federal Courts, Shalini Bhargava Ray

Marquette Law Review

Asylum law is based on an international treaty, but federal courts routinely invoke U.S. constitutional norms in adjudicating asylum claims. Specifically, they rely on constitutional norms when gauging whether an asylum applicant has suffered harm amounting to “persecution” and whether the harm was inflicted “on account of” a protected characteristic, such as political opinion or religion. In a close analysis of this unusual practice, this Article argues that federal courts have come to inconsistent, and often incompatible, conclusions regarding the use of constitutional norms in the analysis of asylum claims: principally, on whether constitutional norms establish sufficient, insufficient, necessary, or …