Immigration Law Commons^™

Pajamas For Change, Alexander R. Kohn

Georges Lieber Essay Contest on Resistance

I created a protest called the "Where Are the Children Project" to bring attention to the immigrant children held in detention centers. Throughout the project I was able to see how much others cared about helping these children gain better living conditions, and I was able to learn about leadership and resistance. My values helped drive me into action, and the importance of what I was working towards helped me become more confident. After months of protests, the Homestead Detention Center where reports of maltreatment had been especially high was closed, but my work to improve the rights of immigrants …

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

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Major Federal Court Victory For Religious Liberty Rights Of Immigrants' Rights Activists, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On Monday afternoon, February 3, 2020, U.S. District Court judge Rosemary Márquez issued a sweeping opinion in which she granted the religious liberty defenses raised by four activists working with the Southern Arizona group No More Deaths/No Más Muertes. The opinion reversed an earlier ruling in the case by Magistrate Judge Bernardo Velasco in which he had found the activists guilty of violating federal law for leaving water and food in the desert for migrants in the Cabrieza Prieta National Wildlife Area, a federally controlled refuge in the Southern Arizona desert where human remains of migrants are frequently found. The …

Brief Of Nat’L Assoc. Of Crim. Defense Attorney & Nat’L Assoc. Of Fed’L Defenders As Amicus Curiae, Pereida V. Barr, No. 19-438 (U.S.) (Feb. 2020)., Jenny Roberts

Amicus Briefs & Court Filings

Brief of Nat’l Assoc. of Crim. Defense Attorney & Nat’l Assoc. of Fed’l Defenders as Amicus Curiae, Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438 (U.S.) (Feb. 2020).

A Suspended Death Sentence: Habeas Review Of Expedited Removal Decisions, Lauren Schusterman

Michigan Law Review

Expedited removal allows low-level immigration officers to summarily order the deportation of certain noncitizens, frequently with little to no judicial oversight. Noncitizens with legitimate asylum claims should not find themselves in expedited removal. When picked up by immigration authorities, they should be referred for a credible fear interview and then for more thorough proceedings.

Although there is clear congressional intent that asylum seekers not be subjected to expedited removal, mounting evidence suggests that expedited removal fails to identify bona fide asylum seekers. Consequently, many of them are sent back to persecution. Such decisions have weighty consequences, but they have remained …

The Forgotten Relatives In The Fight Against Family Separation: A Constitutional Analysis Of The Statutory Definition Of Unaccompanied Minors In Immigration Detention, Alysa Williams

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Is The "Hire American" Executive Order A Suspect Classification?, Michael H. Leroy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

President Trump’s Executive Order 13,788 declares a “Hire American” policy for H-1B visas. This action discriminates against Indians to benefit white American workers. The technology workforce in the United States has 4.6 million jobs. Most employees in this large workforce—about 76%—are U.S.-born. In this domestic segment, 85% of employees are white. Among foreign-born workers (11.6% of all workers), Asians make up 66%, with Indians predominating.

“Hire American” renews a mostly forgotten history of discrimination against Indian workers. The Immigration Act of 1917 enacted an “Asiatic Barred Zone.” Indian immigration was curtailed to 100 annual arrivals. Typical of the period, the …

Recent Developments, Raelynn J. Hillhouse

Arkansas Law Review

No abstract provided.

Servant Leadership And Presidential Immigration Politics: Inspiration From The Foot-Washing Ritual, Victor C. Romero

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda has been criticized by pundits and scholars alike and has been thwarted by courts concerned about executive overreach. This Article contributes to this chorus of critics by viewing the current immigration regime from a Christian perspective on servant leadership, contrary to the stereotype that Christianity necessarily aligns with any one particular political brand. Jesus Christ’s entreaty that his disciples wash each other’s feet provides a useful lens through which to evaluate whether this Administration’s work effectively advances communitarianism, a value consistent with Christian immigration ethics. An examination of a range of immigration policies—from the Muslim …

Contract Rights Under The I-864 Affidavit Of Support: Seventh Circuit's Reasoning Binds Courts' Hands In A Shifting Landscape For Public Charge Doctrine, John T. Burger

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Courts are currently split on the issue of whether a mitigation of damages defense is available to sponsors to the Affidavit. Leading cases, including Liu, rely upon the unique nature of the form to assert that such defenses are precluded. This Note will argue that the I-864 should be treated under the same principles as a typical common-law contract. Part I of this Note will trace the history of the I-864 form, primarily focusing on the legislation and case law rendering the form an enforceable contract. Part II will discuss Liu v. Mund, focusing extensively on the United States …

Humanity For Asylum Seekers: How Migrant Protection Protocols And The March 20th Cdc Order Violate The Constitutional Rights Of Asylum Seekers During The Covid-19 Pandemic, Madison Beck

Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics

In late 2018, the Trump Administration introduced Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the Remain in Mexico Policy, to curb illegal immigration. The protocols allow the U.S. to remove immigrants, including asylum seekers, to Mexico while their claims are processed. This is problematic on its own, but even more so during the COVID-19 pandemic; makeshift asylum tent-camps are home to thousands of vulnerable individuals where viral spread would be devastating. Additionally, in March 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an “order suspending introduction of certain persons from countries where a communicable disease exists” further worsening …

U.S. Border Expulsions Further Jeopardize Asylum Seekers And Unaccompanied Minors In The Time Of Covid-19, Evan Harris

Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a public health order on March 20, 2020, restricting people seeking asylum in the United States, as well as unaccompanied non-citizen children attempting to cross into the United States, from accessing legal protections guaranteed to them under U.S. and international law.1 Under the order, such individuals are instead immediately expelled from the country in an effort to protect border facilities and the citizenry of the United States from COVID-19.

2 As the order reasons, these immediate expulsions minimize the introduction of persons into “congregate settings” at border facilities and thereby reduce …

Asylum Under Attack: Is It Time For A Constitutional Right?, Stephen Meili

Buffalo Human Rights Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fifty States, But No Room For The Stateless, In Atlas Of The Stateless: Facts And Figures About Exclusion And Displacement (Ulrike Lauerhass Et Al. Eds, 2020), David C. Baluarte

Books and Chapters

“Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...” says a plaque on the Statue of Liberty in New York. Since its founding, the United States has welcomed immigrants and has granted them citizenship. Their children born on American soil automatically become US nationals. The current US administration is trying to overturn this proud tradition.

Protecting Stateless Refugees In The United States, David Baluarte

Scholarly Articles

This article proposes a more complete and nuanced consideration of statelessness in asylum adjudication procedures in the United States and the possibility of reopening previously denied asylum claims for this purpose. The article proceeds in four parts, beginning with a discussion of statelessness in the United States. Next, the article describes the international protection frameworks for both refugees and stateless persons and identifies important points of intersection between these frameworks. Then the article argues that discriminatory denationalization that renders a person stateless triggers refugee protection, thereby making victims of such deprivation eligible for asylum in the United States. The article …

Family In The Balance: Barton V. Barr And The Systematic Violation Of The Right To Family Life In U.S. Immigration Enforcement, David Baluarte

Scholarly Articles

The United States systematically violates the international human right to family life in its system of removal of noncitizens. Cancellation of removal provides a means for noncitizens to challenge their removal based on family ties in the United States, but Congress has placed draconian limits on the discretion of immigration courts to cancel removal where noncitizens have committed certain crimes. The recently issued U.S. Supreme Court decision in Barton v. Barr illustrates the troubling trend of affording less discretion for immigration courts to balance family life in removal decisions that involve underlying criminal conduct. At issue was the “stop-time rule” …

Distancing Refugees, Geoffrey Heeren

Articles

Today, two systems exist for addressing the humanitarian claims of persons fleeing persecution. One system consists of refugees living in host countries, often in large camps, who ideally are then resettled in other countries or repatriated when it is safe to do so. The other system involves refugees arriving in a country and seeking asylum-a right with ancient religious roots. The first "encampment model" is fundamentally broken, as most refugees are housed in the developing or least developed world in terrible conditions for extended periods of time, with little or no realistic hope of resettlement elsewhere or repatriation. The developed …

An Inconsistent Chevron Standard: Refining Chevron Deference In Immigration Law, Juan P. Caballero

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

Recent developments in the composition of the Supreme Court have fueled academic and journalistic speculation about the future of one of the foundational cases in modern administrative law, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Thirty-five years ago, Chevron established the current legal foundation for judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. This Article contains an empirical study of the manner in which courts of appeals have applied Chevron in one specific area of administrative law: immigration law.

Immigration law provides a unique case study because it implicates …

Ideological Exclusion Of Foreigners In Israel And In The United States, Yuval Livnal

Buffalo Human Rights Law Review

This article explores the challenge which free speech poses to Israeli immigration policy. It does so, first, by looking into the American immigration policy regarding ideological exclusions, i.e. refusing entry of a foreigner to the U.S., or the deportation of one from it, solely due to the foreigner's ideological belief As discussed in this article, the U.S. Supreme Court has been consistently reluctant to strike down laws and regulations barring entry of foreigners due to their ideological convictions, from the beginning of the previous century, throughout the Cold-War era, and up until the recent upholding of President Trump's travel ban. …

Justice-Free Zones: U.S. Immigration Detention Under The Trump Administration, Eunice Hyunhye Cho, Tara Tidwell Cullen, Clara Long

United States Department of Homeland Security

In the last three years, the Trump administration has grown the immigration detention system in the United States to an unprecedented size, at times holding more than 56,000 people per day. Since 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has anchored this growth in places where immigrants are most likely to be isolated from legal counsel, remain in detention without real opportunity for release, and are more likely to lose their cases. These new detention centers also exhibit patterns of mistreatment and abuse, including medical and mental health care neglect, that have been present since the inception of ICE’s detention system …