Immigration Law Commons^™

Suspicious Suspect Classes - Are Nonimmigrants Entitled To Strict Scrutiny Review Under The Equal Protection Clause?: An Analysis Of Dandamudi And Leclerc, John Harras

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Note provides the background necessary to understand the different alienage classifications, equal protection jurisprudence, and the confusion in the Supreme Court's alienage equal protection precedent. Part II describes the differences of opinion among the circuit courts on the application of the Equal Protection Clause to nonimmigrants. Part III argues, in greater detail, that nonimmigrants are not a suspect class for the reasons stated above.

Plenary Power Is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power, Michael Kagan

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

For decades, scholars of immigration law have anticipated the demise of the plenary power doctrine. The Supreme Court could have accomplished this in its recent decision in Kerry v. Din, or it could have reaffirmed plenary power. Instead, the Court produced a splintered decision that did neither. This Essay examines the long process of attrition that has significantly gutted the traditional plenary power doctrine with regard to procedural due process, while leaving it largely intact with regard to substantive constitutional rights.

Immigration Policy And The Rhetoric Of Reform: “Deport Felons, Not Families,” Moncrieffe V. Holder, Children At The Border, And Idle Promises, Terri R. Day, Leticia M. Diaz

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"Following-To-Join" The Fifth And Ninth Circuits: Why The Supreme Court In Scialabba V. Cuellar De Osorio Erred In Interpreting The Child Status Protection Act, Justin Youngs

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Racial Profiling In The War On Drugs Meets The Immigration Removal Process: The Case Of Moncrieffe V. Holder, Kevin R. Johnson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals could not remove a long-term lawful permanent resident from the United States based on a single misdemeanor conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana. The decision clarified the meaning of an “aggravated felony” for purposes of removal, an important question under the U.S. immigration laws. In the removal proceedings, Adrian Moncrieffe, a black immigrant from Jamaica, did not challenge his arrest and drug conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not review the facts surrounding, or the lawfulness of, the criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, the traffic …

Constitutional Venue, Peter L. Markowitz, Lindsay C. Nash

Articles

A foundational concept of American jurisprudence is the principle that it is unfair to allow litigants to be haled into far away tribunals when the litigants and the litigation have little or nothing to do with the location of such courts. Historically, both personal jurisdiction and venue each served this purpose in related, but distinct ways. Personal jurisdiction is, at base, a limit on the authority of the sovereign. Venue, in contrast, aims to protect parties from being forced to litigate in a location where they would be unfairly disadvantaged. The constitutional boundaries of these early principles came to be …

Immigration Consequences To A Charge Of Simple Assault Or Battery, Deborah Gonzalez

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Supra Synopses, Ryan W. Dumm, Laura Turczanski

Seattle University Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Section 4: International Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Realizing Padilla's Promise: Ensuring Noncitizen Defendants Are Advised Of The Immigration Consequences Of A Criminal Convictions, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

On March 31, 2010 the United States Supreme court decided Padilla v. Kentucky and created a Sixth Amendment duty for defense attorneys to advise defendants of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. While Padilla answered the broad question of whether there is a duty to advise a defendant under the Sixth Amendment, it left many questions unanswered. One critical inquiry is how defense attorneys and the courts will determine what advice concerning the immigration consequences of the criminal conviction will satisfy defense counsels’ Sixth Amendment duty under Padilla.

This Article discusses the potential detrimental impact of Padilla’s ambiguous holding …

Brief For Amici Curiae National Immigration Project Of The National Lawyers Guild, National Police Accountability Project, And Legal Services For Children In Support Of Petitioner, Betsy Ginsberg

Amicus Briefs

Amici have a substantial interest in the outcome of this case. The Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA" or the "Act") provides compensation for victims of government negligence and abuse. All too often, those cases arise in the immigration and law enforcement contexts, like the case at issue here. They arise when American citizens are unlawfully detained or deported. They arise when people in immigration detention are mistreated or denied proper medical care. And they arise when immigration officials engage in unlawful home raids.

A robust and uniform Federal Tort Claims Act is essential both to compensating victims and to preventing …

Section 9: Immigration, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Advising Noncitizen Defendants On The Immigration Consequences Of Criminal Convictions: The Ethical Answer For The Criminal Defense Lawyer, The Court, And The Sixth Amendment, Yolanda Vazquez

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article discusses the tension between the Sixth Amendment analysis by courts on the issue of immigration consequences of criminal convictions and the moral and ethical duties that an attorney owes his noncitizen client. Under the majority of jurisdictions, federal circuit and state courts hold that there is no duty to advise on this issue because they are deemed to be “collateral”. However, a growing number of these jurisdictions have begun to find a Sixth Amendment violation for failure to advise. These jurisdictions have created a Sixth Amendment duty only when: 1) the attorney “knew or should have known” the …

Immigration As Invasion: Sovereignty, Security, And The Origins Of The Federal Immigration Power, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article offers a new interpretation of the modern federal immigration power. At the end of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court and Congress fundamentally transformed the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration, from a species of commercial regulation firmly grounded in Congress’ commerce authority, into a power that was unmoored from the Constitution, derived from the nation’s “inherent sovereignty,” and subject to extraordinary judicial deference. This framework, which is commonly referred to as the “plenary power doctrine,” has stood for more than a century as an anomaly within American public law. The principal legal and rhetorical rationale for the …

Second Class Delivery: The Elimination Of Birthright Citizenship As A Repeal Of "The Pursuit Of Happiness", Sara C. Barnhart

Georgia Law Review

In recent years, immigration has been at the forefront of political debate in the United States. In response to concerns over undocumented immigrants, some members of Congress have proposed the elimination of birthright citizenship. Eliminating birthright citizenship means that citizenship at birth would be based on the citizenship of one's parents rather than one's birth in U.S. territory. This Note demonstrates the historical nature of this U.S. immigration controversy by tracing similar movements throughout history. It documents the roots of the common law doctrine of birthright citizenship, followed by a discussion of the protection of citizenship status the Fourteenth Amendment's …

Untied States: American Expansion And Territorial Deannexation, Christina Duffy Ponsa-Kraus

Faculty Scholarship

At the beginning of the twentieth century the United States laid claim to an overseas empire, consolidating its victory in the Spanish-American War by adopting novel structures of colonial rule over a brace of newly acquired island territories. A set of Supreme Court decisions known collectively as the Insular Cases established the legal authorization for this undertaking. As the traditional story goes, they did so by holding that the U.S. Constitution did not "follow the flag" to the recently annexed possessions in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea: thus unfettered, an ambitiously imperial nation could attend to the business …

The Effect Of 8 U. S. C. 1324(D) In Transporting Prosecutions: Does The Confrontation Clause Still Apply To Alien Defendants, Donna F. Coltharp

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Immigration Law In The Supreme Court: The Flagging Spirit Of The Law, 28 J. Legis. 113 (2002), Michael G. Heyman

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Repairing The Legacy Of Ins V. Elias-Zacarias, Shayna S. Cook

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Article examines the evolution of the nexus requirement in United States refugee law since the Elias-Zacarias decision. Part I discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Elias-Zacarias, identifying the choices the Court made among the arguments presented before it that resulted in the motive-oriented approach to nexus. This Part also delves into the Court's statement about the evidence required to demonstrate motive, concluding that the Court's treatment of the evidence before it foreshadows the confusion lower courts have demonstrated in evaluating evidence of motive. Part II looks at appellate decisions on the nexus issue since 1992, highlighting cases that …

Case Comment: Ins V. St. Cyr, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

The Exclusion Of Hiv-Positive Immigrants Under The Nicaraguan Adjustment And Central American Relief Act And The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act, Statutory Interpretation, Communicable Disease, Public Health, Legislative Intent, Shayna S. Cook

Michigan Law Review

The United States has turned away immigrants infected with the human immunodeficiency virus ("HIV") under the public health exclusion of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") since the mid-1980's. Since Congress codified the HIV exclusion in 1993, any alien applying for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, or refugee status must first have a blood test for HIV. The HIV exclusion is not absolute, however. Each HIV-positive alien can apply for one of two waivers of the HIV exclusion that are available in the INA. When an alien applies for immigrant or permanent resident …

Refugee Rights Are Not Negotiable, James C. Hathaway, Anne K. Cusick

Articles

America's troubled relationship with international law, in particular human rights law, is well documented. In many cases, the United States simply will not agree to be bound by international human rights treaties. For example, the United States has yet to ratify even such fundamental agreements as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. When the United States does agree to become a party to an international human rights treaty, it has often sought to condition its acceptance …

Beyond The Supreme Court: A Modest Plea To Improve Our Asylum System, Andrew I. Schoenholtz

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Moderating a session at the Workshop on the Supreme Court and Immigration and Refugee Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, Peter Spiro asked just how important the Supreme Court really is to refugee and immigration law. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has actively interpreted the Refugee Convention and Protocol, and its decisions have had an adverse affect on important protection issues. James Hathaway knows this well. Yet his article focuses on the two Supreme Court decisions that most practitioners and scholars agree have not translated into serious protection problems in the United States or abroad.

California’S Proposition 187--Does It Mean What It Says? Does It Say What It Means? A Textual And Constitutional Analysis, Lolita K. Buckner Inniss

Publications

No abstract provided.

Irreconcilable Differences? Divorcing Regugee Protections From Human Rights Norms, Karen Musalo

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article will discuss in greater detail the profound defects of the Court's Zacarias decision. Section I will discuss the interpretation of key provisions of the 1980 Refugee Act, and describe the case of Jairo Elias Zacarias. Section II will review the plain language and legislative intent of the Act, including the congressional purpose of conforming to the 1967 Protocol. Section III will consider issues of burden of proof, and will examine the substantive impact which Zacarias has had on refugee cases. Section IV will focus on religious persecution as a paradigm of the inadequacy of an intent-based requirement and …

The Haitian Refugee Crisis: A Quest For Human Rights, Thomas David Jones

Michigan Journal of International Law

On June 14, 1993, the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, sponsored by the United Nations, commenced its opening session mired in controversy over the validity of a universal human rights doctrine. Many Third World or developing nations contended that Western norms of justice and fairness were not applicable to their societies. Thus, the developing nations articulated a culture-bound or relativistic concept of fundamental human rights. The developing nations' particularistic position was championed by such nations as China, Iran, Cuba, and Vietnam, signatories to the Bangkok Declaration of 1993. The Bangkok Declaration provides, inter alia, that though human rights are …

The United States Supreme Court And The Protection Of Refugees, Lung-Chu Chen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Public Relief And Care

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Aliens And The Burger Court, Bruno Joseph Bembi

NYLS Journal of Human Rights

No abstract provided.

The Legislative Veto, The Constitution, And The Courts, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.