Category Archives: Immigration

Panel on Immigrant Family Separation and Family Detention, Wash. D.C., June 25, 2018, 12-1 pm.

Panel on Immigrant Family Separation and Family Detention, Wash. D.C., June 25, 2018, 12-1 pm.

Immigrant Family Separation Poster

Immigrant Family Separation Poster in PDF.

Advertisements

New Op-Ed: How Scapegoating Immigrants Hurts All Workers

New Op-Ed: George Goehl, How Scapegoating Immigrants Hurts All Workers, The Nation, June 19, 2018.

“When people are so dehumanized that forcing kids to sleep in kennels becomes acceptable, the value of life for everyone goes down.”

Immigrant Family Separation Collection: news coverage, volunteer/giving links, and responses conservative disinformation

MoralsIf you follow my twitter feed (@EzraRosser) you know the family separation at the border really bothers me (it may be connected to the fact that my wife and children are Salvadorans, but I think there are plenty of non-personal reasons to be upset about what we have become). I decided it would be worthwhile to do a post that collects a lot of the news coverage, volunteer/giving/protest information, and responses to the conservative disinformation that is trying to obscure just how evil the Trump administration’s family separation policy is. My op-ed from last week in The Hill is here. But there is a lot coming out about the policy, conditions, and horror so I hope this small collection effort helps people sort through everything. If you have things that would be good to add, please email me and I will add things. It is broken down into sections: A. Overview of the Policy, B. Coverage of Conditions and ICE Practice, C. Responses to Conservative Disinformation, D. Volunteer/Giving/Donation Opportunities, E. Protest Information, and F. Additional Responses.

A. Overview of the Policy

B. Coverage of Conditions and ICE Practice

Not sure how to classify this. . . justifications given by Trump administration officials:

C. Responses to Conservative Disinformation

D. Partial List of Volunteer/Giving/Donation Opportunities (Thanks to Jayesh Rathod!) (if you would like to add more, just email me).

E. Protest Information (Thanks to Jayesh Rathod!)

F. Additional Responses 

Academic:

Advocacy:

New Op-Ed: At the border, my son was taken from me

asylummotherNew Op-Ed: Mirian G., At the border, my son was taken from me, CNN, May 29, 2018.

 

New Article: Fear and the Safety Net: Evidence from Secure Communities

New Article: Marcella Alsan and Crystal Yang, Fear and the Safety Net: Evidence from Secure Communities, SSRN (2018). Abstract below:

We study the impact of deportation fear on the incomplete take-up of federal safety net programs in the United States. We exploit changes in deportation fear due to the roll-out and intensity of Secure Communities (SC), an immigration enforcement program administered by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) from 2008 to 2014. The SC program empowers the federal government to check the immigration status of anyone arrested by local law enforcement agencies and has led to the issuance of over two million detainers and the forcible removal of approximately 380,000 immigrants. We estimate the spillover effects of SC on Hispanic citizens, finding significant declines in ACA sign-ups and food stamp take-up, particularly among mixed-status households and areas where deportation fear is highest. In contrast, we find little response to SC among Hispanic households residing in sanctuary cities. Our results are most consistent with network effects that perpetuate fear rather than lack of benefit information or stigma.

[Self-promoting post] New Op-ed: “Trump administration’s hypocritical immigration policies demand public outrage”

[Self-promoting post] New Op-ed: Ezra Rosser, Trump administration’s hypocritical immigration policies demand public outrage, The Hill, June 13, 2018.

New Op-Ed: Trump’s brutal policies target the most vulnerable Americans

New Op-ed: Katrina vanden Heuvel, Trump’s brutal policies target the most vulnerable Americans, Wash. Post, May 15, 2018.

This should be denounced forcefully and strongly… from the White House (not just Trump speaking, but an official policy statement): What You Need To Know About The Violent Animals Of MS-13

As someone who has a house in El Salvador, I know there are lots of issues with gangs, BUT this sort of dehumanization (which echos Trump’s earlier statement) should be denounced forcefully. Shame on all those who worked on this and all those who hesitate before resigning when asked to do similar things.

New Op-ed: What kind of country would tear apart and lock up families fleeing violence in their homelands? Ours

New Op-ed: LA Times Editorial Board, What kind of country would tear apart and lock up families fleeing violence in their homelands? Ours, L.A. Times, May, 8, 2018.

Wisconsin Law Review Symposium on Access to Justice

Lots of good articles. See below:

Democracy, Civil Society, and Public Interest Law by Catherine Albiston

Public interest law organizations (PILOs) play a significant role in democracy and American society. Historically, they have enabled underrepresented voices to be heard in the political process and have vindicated public values by enforcing civil rights laws. They also have shaped and expanded the public sphere through litigation, media coverage, and their association with social movements seeking social change. As public interest law expanded dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s, it came to mean much more than pro bono representation of the poor. Courts and lawyers recognized public interest litigation as a legitimate form of political expression and civic participation.

The Keys to the Kingdom: Judges, Pre-hearing Procedure, and Access to Justice by Colleen F. Shanahan

Judges see themselves as—and many reforming voices urge them to be—facilitators of access to justice for pro se parties in our state civil and administrative courts. Judges’ roles in pro se access to justice are inextricably linked with procedures and substantive law, yet our understanding of this relationship is limited. Do we change the rules, judicial behavior, or both to help self-represented parties? We have begun to examine this nuanced question in the courtroom, but we have not examined it in a potentially more promising context: pre-hearing motions made outside the courtroom. Outside the courtroom, judges rule on requests such as motions to continue or for telephone appearances that allow parties to participate in and access the hearing room. These requests have significant consequences for the party, do not implicate the merits of the underlying case, and are a pared-down environment in which to examine the interaction of judicial behavior and procedures.

Studying the “New” Civil Judges by Anna E. Carpenter et al.

We know very little about the people and institutions that make up the bulk of the United States civil justice system: state judges and state courts. Our understanding of civil justice is based primarily on federal litigation and the decisions of appellate judges. Staggeringly little legal scholarship focuses on state courts and judges. We simply do not know what most judges are doing in their day-to-day courtroom roles or in their roles as institutional actors and managers of civil justice infrastructure. We know little about the factors that shape and influence judicial practices, let alone the consequences of those practices for courts, litigants, and the public. From top to bottom, we can describe and theorize about our existing civil justice system in only piecemeal ways. Given legal scholarship’s near complete focus on federal civil courts, the stories we tell about the civil justice system may be based on assumptions and models that only apply in the rarefied world of federal court. Meanwhile, state judges and courts— which handle ninety-nine percent of all civil cases—are ripe for theoretical and empirical exploration.

Simplicity as Justice by Kathryn A. Sabbeth

Simplification of the legal system has attracted attention as a means of improving access to justice. A major motivation driving reform is the perception that pro se litigants have flooded the courts and begun clogging up the wheels of justice. Ordinary people do not know rules of procedure, evidence, or substantive law; do not handle their cases effectively or efficiently; and have, the argument goes, generated a “pro se crisis.” A number of states and localities have responded by increasing the availability of legal services, funding programs that offer solutions ranging from limited assistance to full representation, and a few legislatures have even established a statutory right to counsel for particular categories of cases. Given the expense of advocates’ labor, however, most jurisdictions have sought instead to improve litigants’ ability to handle their legal matters on their own. As an alternative to providing litigants with representatives who could help them navigate the courts, a growing number of commentators propose simplifying proceedings to obviate the need for such representation. Methods of simplification include creating form pleadings, introducing technology, and relaxing formal rules that could confuse lay litigants. Proponents of simplification claim that it will decrease the time and cost of proceedings, help litigants meet the technical requirements of the fora in which they appear, and increase litigants’ satisfaction with the process.

Toward Universal Deportation Defense: An Optimistic View by Michael Kagan

One of the most positive responses to heightened federal enforcement of immigration laws has been increasing local and philanthropic interest in supporting immigrant legal defense. These measures are tentative and may be fleeting, and for the time being are not a substitute for federal support for an immigration public defender system. Nevertheless, it is now possible to envision many more immigrants in deportation having access to counsel, maybe even a situation in which the majority do. In this paper, I make no real predictions. Instead, I offer a deliberately—perhaps even blindly— optimistic assessment of how concrete steps that have already been taken could grow into a system of universal deportation defense. In the process, I try to identify what still needs to happen for this to be achieved, and offer some thoughts on how this might change the practice of immigration law in the United States.