There is no such thing as a perfect immigration policy. Even ones that have received praise from leaders of other countries have their cracks. Australia recently took note of a flaw in its system when an automated computer program determined that an Irish vet’s oral English fluency was not up to the standards of Australia’s immigration department, putting her residency in the country at risk.

Louise Kennedy has been working as an horse veterinarian on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland for the past two years. She is a native English speaker and has two university degrees in history and politics–both obtained in English. As her skilled workers visa was coming to an end, Kennedy decided to apply for permanent residency on the grounds that there is a shortage of her profession in the country.

Part of the process of applying for an Australian residency visa is a mandatory English proficiency test–administered by Pearson–with both a written and spoken portion. Kennedy got through the writing and reading portions rather easily, but it was during the oral portion that her troubles began.

The test utilizes an automated question system that asks applicants a series of questions on a monitor and records their vocal responses. The recordings are then analyzed by a system and a score is generated. Despite the fact that Kennedy has been speaking English her whole life, she scored a 74 on the oral section when the Australian government requires a 79 or higher to pass. Needless to say, she was shocked.

“There’s obviously a flaw in their computer software, when a person with perfect oral fluency cannot get enough points,” she said to The Guardian.

Anyone who has had their frustrations using voice-operated “intelligent assistants”–like Siri, Cortana, or Alexa–knows that there are still limits to what voice-analyzing technologies can do, especially when someone’s accent differs from the majority of the population. However, Pearson representatives stood by their programs saying the real problem was that the immigration department set the bar very high for people seeking permanent residency, according to Sasha Hampton, head of English for Pearson Asia Pacific.

Even with the Pearson test being as supposedly good as it is, Kennedy was given the opportunity to retake the test because there appeared to be construction noises that were audible in the background of her recording. Unfortunately, time became a bit of an issue. Her current visa would have expired in the timeframe it would take for all of the paperwork to be completed, even if she was recognized as a fluent English speaker by the testing company. Kennedy now has to resort to applying for a more expensive spouse visa.

“Because I’m married to an Aussie I luckily have a back-up visa to go to but there is a $3,000 cost over the skilled immigrant visa which we weren’t banking on 12 weeks before having our first baby,” she told the Ireland Independent.

This comes within days of Donald Trump announcing a move toward re-hauling the current immigration system into a skills and merits-based one. Though Australia’s system has been criticized for its inability to accurately determine the country’s employment needs, and is getting revamped to meet the demands of far-right politicians who want to ban Muslims from entering the country, Trump Administration officials have offered nothing but praise for the model and hope to enact a similar version in the U.S.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Computer-Based Oral English Test Fails Irish Vet in Australia appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump endorsed a bill, introduced by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AK) and David Perdue (R-GA) in February, which would halve the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.

The RAISE Act would cap the number of green cards the U.S. issues at 50,000 over the next 10 years. Currently, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services awards about one million green cards each year; about six million individuals and employers apply for a green card each year.

Green cards grant legal immigrants the right to permanently reside and work in the country, instead of having to apply and constantly renew work visas.

Inspired by the Canadian and Australian immigration policies, the proposed legislation would establish a competitive “merit-based system,” through which applicants would be awarded points based on a slew of factors. Some of the factors would include an applicant’s financial stability, ability to pay for healthcare, earning prospects, and, most controversially, English language skills.

The RAISE ACT “puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and work on their feet,” Cotton said. “Now, for some people, they may think that that’s a symbol of America’s virtue and generosity. I think it’s a symbol that we’re not committed to working-class Americans. And we need to change that.”

The bill also removes the diversity visa program and “chain migration,” the current practice of prioritizing family unity in the immigration process.

I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects U.S. workers & taxpayers. Watch: https://t.co/lv3ScSKnF6 #RAISEAct pic.twitter.com/zCFK5OfYnB

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2017

“American First” 

This announcement comes on the heels of the Senate’s failure to repeal and replace Obamacare. Many equate this push for legal immigration reform to the administration trying to turn the page on healthcare and secure its first legislative win.

Trump campaigned on reforming immigration, legal and illegal, but several of his initiatives have either run into road-blocks or devolved into large-scale media disasters. Trump’s promised wall along the Mexican border remains unbuilt, and the attempted Muslim ban was stopped in court a number of times earlier this year.

However, Trump’s “America first” message remains at the forefront of his policies and his endorsement of this bill further highlights this.

“The RAISE Act prevents new migrants and new immigrants from collecting welfare, and protects U.S. workers from being displaced,” Trump said. “And that’s a very big thing. They’re not going to come in and just immediately go and collect welfare. That doesn’t happen under the RAISE Act. They can’t do that.”

Uphill Battle in Congress 

The bill is very unlikely to pass Congress, as it would need unified Republican support as well as some Democratic votes. Some Republicans have already said they would not support the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released a statement on Wednesday, saying that he agrees with the ideas expressed in the bill, but he would not vote in favor of the legislation.

“South Carolina’s number one industry is agriculture and tourism is number two,” Graham said. “If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also cast doubt on his colleagues’ bill. “I think you have to consider that we do want high-tech people, but we also need low-skilled people who will do work that Americans won’t do,” he said. “I wouldn’t do it. Even in my misspent youth, I wouldn’t do it.”

Strong Reactions 

While many Trump advocates support the policy proposal, the bill is drawing significant criticism from economists, citizens, and immigrants.

“Dramatically reducing overall immigration levels won’t raise the standard of living for Americans,” said Randy Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration, and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, it will likely accomplish the opposite, making it harder for businesses, communities, and our overall economy to grow, prosper, and create jobs for American workers.”

Some see the RAISE Act as focusing too much on making sure Americans in low-wage jobs don’t face competition from immigrants, instead of investing in those same Americans so that they may obtain higher paying jobs.

It's interesting that outside of immigration policy, nobody ever proposes giving strict priority to the interests of high school dropouts.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) August 3, 2017

Others object to the limits the bill would place on bringing in grandparents or extended family members to the U.S. Under the bill, people like First Lady Melania Trump, a non-native English speaker, would have a tough time getting permanent residency.

“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” CNN’s Jim Acosta said during a White House press conference. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’ It doesn’t say anything about speaking English or being a computer programmer.”

In his response to Acosta’s question, Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy adviser, said: “The poem that you’re referring to was added later, [and] is not actually part of the original Statue of Liberty.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Backs Bill to Slash Legal Immigration, Introduce “Merit-Based” System appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department sent letters to a handful of so-called “sanctuary cities” on Thursday, denying them crime-fighting resources until they increase compliance with federal immigration authorities. The letters were in response to requests to take part in the DOJ’s Public Safety Partnerships (PSP) initiative, which would provide additional federal resources to jurisdictions with higher than average crime rates.

The letters, sent to the police chiefs of Baltimore, Albuquerque, and Stockton and San Bernardino in California, said:

Your jurisdiction has expressed interest in receiving assistance through the PSP program. Based on our review, we have concluded that your jurisdiction has levels of violence that exceed the national average, that your jurisdiction is ready to receive the intensive assistance the Department is prepared to provide, and that your jurisdiction is taking steps to reduce its violent crime.

But those four jurisdictions are all sanctuary cities, meaning their officers do not fully cooperate with federal authorities to enforce national immigration laws. So before those cities can participate in the PSP program, they must give federal authorities access to jails. They also must “honor a written request from [Department of Homeland Security] to hold a foreign national for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled release date,” according to the letters. The cities must show proof of compliance by August 18.

The letters mark the second time in a week that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. Last week, he said cities must comply with federal authorities seeking detainees held on immigration violations–or else they would not receive federal grants. But federal judges have recently ruled that withholding grants from cities that limit compliance on immigration matters is illegal.

Announced in June, the PSP is a “training and technical assistance program designed to enhance the capacity of local jurisdictions to address violent crime in their communities,” according to a statement from Sessions that accompanied the letters. Twelve locations have been selected for the program so far.

Sessions, in a statement on Thursday, said sanctuary cities “make all of us less safe.” He added: “The Department of Justice is committed to supporting our law enforcement at every level, and that’s why we’re asking ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions to stop making their jobs harder.”

Of the requests to the sanctuary cities looking to take part in the PSP initiative, Sessions said: “By taking simple, common-sense considerations into account, we are encouraging every jurisdiction in this country to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Denies More Crime-Fighting Resources for Four Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on Monday that state law enforcement cannot hold undocumented immigrants just to buy time for federal authorities to take them into custody.

The ruling–seen as a victory for immigration advocates–is believed to be the first court decision in the country to forbid local authorities from enforcing federal immigration laws. The court ruled that such enforcement would result in a second detainment that state law does not authorize.

“Massachusetts law provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from state custody,” the court wrote in its decision.

A “federal civil immigration detainer” is a written request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to a local jail or law enforcement agency to hold an arrested undocumented immigrant for up to 48 hours, until federal agents can retrieve the detainee. Police departments and court officers are usually given guidance by state officials on how to respond to these requests. Some end up complying. In Massachusetts, for example, state police have held 27 people on detainers as of June 2016.

Other departments, on the other hand, will ignore these requests and release undocumented immigrants before ICE can detain them. Some localities–commonly known as “sanctuary cities”–have faced scrutiny from the Trump Administration, which has threatened to block federal funding. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has claimed sanctuary cities make the country less safe. But now sanctuary cities have a legal basis for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials, as a result of this ruling.

The Massachusetts case revolved around Sreynuon Lunn, an immigrant from Cambodia. Boston Police arrested Lunn last year on larceny charges, and detained him until his trial. The case was dismissed in February after prosecutors were unable to get the alleged victim to come to court.

Lunn should have been freed, but was held for hours after his case was dismissed because of an ICE detainer issued against him. He was taken into custody by immigration authorities, but has since been released without being deported. Though Monday’s decision does not directly affect Lunn, the case persisted because prosecutors and the court knew it would set guidelines for similar situations in the future.

“This court decision sets an important precedent that we are a country that upholds the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. “At a time when the Trump Administration is pushing aggressive and discriminatory enforcement policies, Massachusetts is leading nationwide efforts by limiting how state and local law enforcement assist with federal immigration enforcement.”

Naturally, ICE was quick to speak out against the court’s decision. “While ICE is currently reviewing this decision to determine next steps, this ruling weakens local law enforcement agencies’ ability to protect their communities,” C.M. Cronen, the field office director for ICE in Boston, said in a statement.

Massachusetts is not the first state court system to rule on ICE detainers. Both California and Connecticut have statewide laws that limit who can be held at ICE’s request. Those laws also state that detainer requests are not binding for state and local officials. Boston and Cambridge each have similar citywide laws as well.

However, the state legislature could still undo this ruling if they choose to pass a law allowing Massachusetts state police to honor ICE detainers. Sheriff Thomas Hodgson of Bristol County–an outspoken critic of undocumented immigrants–is currently working on legislation with three Republican state lawmakers.

“It will make the Commonwealth safer if we can get this bill passed by the legislature, which authorizes court officers and law enforcement officers to honor ICE detainers,” Sheriff Hodgson said.

As comments on immigration policy begin to focus on safety, it should be worth noting the Cato Institute found in 2015 that immigrants as a whole–both legal and undocumented–commit less crimes than native-born Americans. Additionally, a University of California analysis of federal data found that sanctuary cities are often safer than non-sanctuary cities.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Court Rules State Police Can’t Honor ICE Detainers appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jared Kushner Releases Remarks, Denies Collusion

Today, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and close adviser, Jared Kushner, released his prepared remarks to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The meeting will be behind closed doors and Kushner will not be under oath when he testifies–although it is illegal to lie to Congress regardless. According to the prepared remarks Kushner released prior to his testimony, he will be claiming that he was in no way involved with any sort of Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

At particular issue is the 2016 meeting between Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., and a Kremlin-connected lawyer, among others. Emails released by Trump Jr. reveal that the lawyer claimed to have information about Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton; Kushner claims that he had no idea what the meeting was going to be about. Kushner also claimed in his prepared remarks that his failure to disclose certain meetings and information on his SF-86–a security form–was based on inexperience and miscommunication with his staff. But not everyone is buying Kushner’s excuses.

Just because Jared Kushner tried to set up a back channel with the Russians doesn’t mean he tried to set up a back channel with the Russians

— Jim Gaffigan (@JimGaffigan) July 24, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

This article has been updated. Click here to jump to the update.

President Trump’s travel ban–which according to his aides and representatives is “not” a travel ban, but based on the president’s tweets, is in fact a travel ban–has just been handed another discouraging ruling from the courts.

Late Thursday, a U.S. District in Hawaii, ruled that the president’s executive order restricting immigration from six Muslim-majority countries can’t be used to exclude “grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States.” The ruling rejected the government’s interpretation of recent guidance issued by the Supreme Court.

That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

The ruling, from Judge Derrick Watson, stems from Trump’s revised executive order that was issued on March 6. Later that month, Judge Watson issued a nationwide halt on the revised travel ban, ruling that it discriminated on the basis of religion. Judges in other parts of the country issued similar rulings that were upheld by multiple circuit courts. The issue then made its way to the Supreme Court after an appeal from Justice Department. In June, the Supreme Court said that it would hear the case in the fall and issued a partial ruling in the meantime.

The Supreme Court’s order stated that until it makes its final decision, certain aspects of the executive order could proceed. The court said that if someone seeking a visa or a refugee from one of the six countries could establish a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity of the United States then they should be allowed to enter the country.

While the Supreme Court offered guidance as to what a “bona fide relationship” is, much of the interpretation was left to the executive branch. The State Department interpreted the ruling through a diplomatic cable saying the only acceptable relationships include: spouse, parent, parent-in-law, child, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, fiancé, and sibling.

In his ruling, Judge Watson stated that the administration’s definition “represents the antithesis of common sense” by including son-in-law and daughter-in-law but not grandparent as qualifying relationships.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions immediately sought clarification from the Supreme Court, saying that the district court:

Undermined national security, delayed necessary action, created confusion, and violated a proper respect for separation of powers… The Supreme Court has had to correct this lower court once, and we will now reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court to again vindicate the rule of law and the Executive Branch’s duty to protect the nation.

At the Supreme Court’s request, the state of Hawaii responded to the Justice Department’s arguments on Tuesday night, forcefully supporting Watson’s initial ruling and arguing that any appeal should go to the lower courts before the Supreme Court. The Justice Department fought back hours later with another brief making a case for the government’s narrower definition of a bona fide relationship. The government also justified its decision to go directly to the Supreme Court, saying that it is “is the only court that can provide definitive clarification.”

Although the Supreme Court is currently on its summer recess, it’s possible that the justices will decide to weigh in on the dispute in the near future.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Confused About the Latest in the Travel Ban Case?: Here’s What you Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration recently announced it would be delaying an Obama-era rule that would allow foreign entrepreneurs to temporarily live and work in the U.S. to build up their companies. In the administration’s announcement, it said the rule would be delayed until next March. But it made clear that its ultimate goal is to scrap the rule entirely.

The delay will “provide [the Department of Homeland Security] with an opportunity to obtain comments from the public regarding a proposal to rescind the rule,” the announcement said. The rule, known as the International Entrepreneur Rule, was set to go into effect next week. It was approved by former President Barack Obama before he left office in January.

The rule was designed “to improve the ability of certain promising start-up founders to begin growing their companies within the United States and help improve our nation’s economy through increased capital spending, innovation and job creation,” according to a press release issued when the final rule was signed earlier this year.

To qualify, foreign entrepreneurs would have to show they have raised at least $250,000 from known American investors, or at least $100,000 from government entities. Qualified applicants would have been granted stays of up to 30 months, with possible extensions. The rule would also have applied to a grantee’s spouse and children. Under the Obama Administration, DHS estimated roughly 3,000 entrepreneurs would have benefitted from the rule.

In explaining its decision to scrap the rule, the Trump Administration pointed to an executive order President Donald Trump signed in January, titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.”

The order directs the DHS to “take appropriate action to ensure that parole authority is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.”

Investors, along with many tech industry representatives, blasted the administration’s decision to delay, and potentially delete, the rule. In a statement, Bobby Franklin, the president and CEO of the National Venture Capital Association, said the announcement “is extremely disappointing and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the critical role immigrant entrepreneurs play in growing the next generation of American companies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Delays Implementation of International Entrepreneur Rule appeared first on Law Street.

A pair of Senate immigration bills could imprison undocumented immigrants convicted of felony reentry and cause sanctuary cities and states to stop receiving certain federal grants.

Kate’s Law would increase penalties against immigrants who have been convicted of felony reentry–or reentering the country after being deported. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit cities and states that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving grants from the Justice Department and Homeland Security.

Both bills, which were sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), were passed by the House of Representatives along mostly party lines on June 29. They now move on to the Senate, where Republicans face a steeper challenge from Democrats in passing either bill. Senate Republicans would need to vote unanimously and persuade at least eight Democrats and Independents to vote in favor of the bills in order to clinch a filibuster-proof majority. A 2016 version of Kate’s Law and the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, a 2016 bill similar to the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, both previously failed to pass the Senate.

Kate’s Law is named after Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was charged with Steinle’s murder. Before his arrest, Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times. Lopez-Sanchez’s original December 2016 trial date was postponed. He is scheduled to appear in court on July 14, when another trial date could be set.

White House Support

The White House released a statement from President Donald Trump on June 29 regarding the two immigration bills.

“The implementation of these policies will make our communities safer,” Trump said in the statement. “Opposing these bills, and allowing dangerous criminals back into our communities, our schools, and the neighborhoods where our children play, puts all of us at risk.”

Trump also urged the Senate to pass the bills in a video address over the weekend, saying, “If the government had simply enforced our immigration laws, these Americans would still be alive today.”

Weekly Address #KatesLaw#NoSanctuaryForCriminalsAct
Statement: https://t.co/I8cqKGDK2B pic.twitter.com/00mao6Vk7R

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Growing Opposition

Immigrant rights advocates are opposed to the bills, and over 400 organizations have signed a letter urging the Senate to vote against both pieces of legislation.

Jose Magaña-Salgado, Managing Policy Attorney at the Immigration Legal Resource Center, said in a statement that the bills would not only tear apart families and undermine the rights of immigrants in the U.S., but they would also put an even heavier burden on the federal prison system.

“Legislation that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns represents an abdication of the Congress’ responsibility to enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy,” Magaña-Salgado said.

Instead, he proposes that Congress enact legislation that provides ” a roadmap to citizenship for the nation’s eleven million aspiring Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation programs that undermine fundamental human rights.”

GOP lawmakers believe both bills will crack down on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, but the bills’ impact on immigrant communities is not quite so cut-and-dry. Under Kate’s Law, undocumented immigrants previously convicted of a crime who attempt to re-enter the United States after being deported could face fines and between 10 to 25 years in prison depending on the severity of their original conviction.

However, the bill also includes sentencing guidelines for undocumented immigrants who have not been previously convicted of a crime. Undocumented immigrants who reenter the U.S. after being removed could face up to two years in prison; those who reenter after being repeatedly removed three or more times could face up to 10 years in prison. Additionally, the bill limits “collateral attack on underlying removal order.” In other words, undocumented immigrants would not be allowed to challenge the validity of any prior order under which they were removed from the country.

Trump’s Immigration Agenda

During his first week in office, Trump issued an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement, signaling a stricter stance than his predecessor on illegal immigration. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 41,318 immigrants, a 37.6 percent increase from the same period last year, according to a statement from ICE.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is part of a months-long endeavor by the Trump administration to restrict federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. Trump issued an executive order to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement authorities, but that order has been tied up in a legal challenge over its constitutionality since April.

The ACLU issued a warning that both immigration bills were intended to “empower Trump’s depotation force and anti-immigrant agenda,” and urged the Senate in a statement to “reject these bills, to defend the Constitution, and protect the rights of all people, no matter their background.”

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants,” Lorella Praeli, the group’s director of immigration policy and campaigns, said in the statement.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump-Backed Immigration Bills Face Uphill Battle in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

For a president who has defined himself by his harsh immigration stance, President Donald Trump’s recent announcement seemed to go against this position. Dreamers, for now, will not have their protections eliminated, Trump said. In a June 15 statement, the Department of Homeland Security said: “The June 15, 2012 memorandum that created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will remain in effect.”

This seemed like good news for Dreamers. But White House officials said that the long-term plan for DACA and Dreamers has not been officially set, leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants in limbo. Trump’s statement followed an interview with the Associated Press in April, when Trump said that Dreamers could “rest easy.” The Trump Administration is “not after the dreamers, we are after the criminals,” he said.

Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is a long process. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services lists the 10 steps that one must take to become a naturalized citizen. Though it’s broken down into 10 steps, these steps can, and do, take years. USCIS also created a “worksheet” that people can follow to see if they qualify to become U.S. citizens. For those without help–legal or otherwise–the process can seem daunting.

DACA created a channel for certain immigrants, specifically children brought to the U.S. by their parents to gain the legal documentation to remain in the country. Calling this channel into question causes anxiety for many immigrants who previously thought they were safe. 

What is a Dreamer?

“Dreamer” is the term often given to those covered by DACA. This gets confusing because there is a separate act, the “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2011,” commonly referred to as the DREAM Act. The distinction is that the DREAM Act was never passed. A report released by University of California, Los Angeles summarizes the program as such:

First introduced in 2001 by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), the DREAM Act is a bipartisan bill that would provide undocumented youths who came to the United States before the age of sixteen a path toward legalization on the condition that they attend college or serve in the U.S. military for a minimum of two years while maintaining good moral character

Former President Barack Obama ultimately created an executive order that came to be known as DACA (see below for more details on the specifics). DACA, while it did not provide a path to citizenship, worked to ensure that immigrants who came to the United States as minors and who were now pursuing work or education, could not be deported. The fact that DACA is an executive order and not an act  opens it up to vulnerability at the hands of Obama’s successors, including Trump, who could roll it back.

The protections of DACA provide peace of mind for the Dreamers it covers. For young immigrants who are trying to earn a college degree, the program provides assurances that they can continue their studies without the risk of deportation. But under Trump, Dreamers cannot rest easy quite yet. On June 16, a day after announcing the program will stay for the time being, White House officials said that the long-term fate of the program has not yet been decided.

What exactly is DACA?

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is an immigration policy enacted in 2012 under the Obama Administration. Rather than working toward a path to legalization, DACA allows immigrants who entered the country illegally as minors to apply every two years for a work permit. The purpose of this policy was to take the pressure off non-threatening illegal immigrants. If an immigrant came to the U.S. as a minor and was working or attending school and not getting in trouble with the law, he or she would not be deported. DACA currently covers around 750,000 immigrants.  

Obama’s Legacy

Obama left a mixed legacy in terms of immigration. While Obama never incited chants to “Build a wall,” he still cannot be considered a savior for immigrants. According to the Department of Homeland Security, he deported more illegal immigrants than any of his predecessors. Compared to George W. Bush, Obama’s deportation numbers are far higher. Obama deported roughly three million compared to Bush’s two million. Obama, too, was stricter about fining companies that employed illegal immigrants.

But right now the most important remaining aspects of Obama’s immigration legacy stem from DACA. Immigrants protected under this policy do not represent the majority. In fact, of the almost 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, DACA covers about 750,000. So while the Trump Administration’s current promise to retain DACA is a step forward for those who support immigration, the status of a majority of illegal immigrants remains in jeopardy.

“You Need to be Worried”

White House officials have been careful to not mince words. Thomas Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, had direct advice for illegal immigrants. At a recent House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, he said, “If you are in this country illegally, and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable, you should look over your shoulder, and you need to be worried.”

The Trump Administration’s statement released on June 15 also said DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) would be rolled back. DAPA, a policy to protect the illegal immigrant parents of American citizens or people who have legal documentation to be in the country, was never actually put in place. After making it all the way to the Supreme Court, a deadlocked 4-4 court could not rule on the proposed plan. But it has now been effectively voided by Trump.

More Uncertainty for Immigrants

Trump ran a campaign that was hardly subtle about his feelings about immigrants. Trump began his campaign making unsavory comments about Mexican immigrants. “Build a wall,” an allusion to increased security on the Mexican border, was one of the bastions of the president’s election rallies. But many immigrants, not just from Mexico, have felt the hostility of the current administration.

And once he got into office, Trump wasted no time in trying to stymie immigration. After exactly one week in office, the president signed an executive order suspending citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from coming to the United States for 90 days. The following day, federal Judge Ann M. Donnelly blocked part of the executive order on the grounds that it “violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

On February 2, the administration eased the executive order to exclude those with green cards. A month later, on March 6, the president released another revised travel suspension, this time excluding Iraq. This revised ban was blocked by district court Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii. Additional parts of the revised ban have been blocked by federal judges as well. The actions taken by the Trump Administration have been for the safety of the American people, the president says. But more than protect Americans, the attempted bans have cast the Trump Administration as one that is unfriendly to immigrants.

While Trump has yet to sign an executive order that suspends immigration from Mexico or other Latin American countries, he has not been extending an open welcome to any of those citizens either. Trump has repeatedly emphasized the need to build a wall on the Mexican-American border– a wall that Mexico will pay for, he has said. Before Trump was inaugurated, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto made clear that Mexico would not be paying for the wall. For now, the fate of the wall (and who will pay for it if it ever gets built) remains uncertain.

What also remains uncertain is the fate of certain immigrants with DACA status. Juan Manuel Montes, 23, had been in the United States since he was nine. Montes had protection under DACA that allowed him to live in the United States legally, as long as he kept renewing his two-year work permit. Montes says that back in February he forgot his wallet (with his ID and DACA papers in it) in a friend’s car. While waiting for a ride home, border patrol agents stopped him.

Without papers, Montes had no way to prove he had legal justification to not be deported. He was swiftly sent to Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security denies deporting Montes at all. Rather, they said they found him crossing the U.S. border, an action Montes claims he took after being deported. While the details are unclear, the overall message is not. Immigrants protected by DACA are safe from deportation now, but their status could change.

Conclusion

The future remains murky for immigrants. Those coming from the Middle East could be subject to yet another revised travel ban. Those already in the country, living under protections that formerly guaranteed their safety may eventually not have those same privileges. The volatility that the Trump Administration has been demonstrating likely won’t put anyone at ease. With the president saying or tweeting something one day and then his officials clarifying his statements days or hours later, it makes it hard to know what is happening. Uncertainty is the biggest concern right now.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Future for Dreamers: A Road of Uncertainty Under President Trump appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration recently approved even harsher vetting processes for people applying for a visa to travel to the United States. The U.S. currently has one of the most complicated visa processes in the world, and many groups believe that even stricter rules will put off foreign students, scientists, and others from coming here.

The new rules would allow officials to question applicants about their social media accounts, email addresses, and phone numbers from the past five years. Applicants would also have to divulge their home addresses, employment, and travel history from the past 15 years, as well as all previous passport numbers. So people would need to keep all the passports they have owned throughout their lives to apply for a visa to America.

All visa applicants wouldn’t face these new questions. It would be up to each consular official to determine whether additional questions are needed to “conduct more rigorous national security vetting,” according to a State Department official. They would also be voluntary, as the questionnaire states, but not answering them could result in the visa being delayed or denied.

Trump admin’s ridiculous new visa rules will hurt the economy. Total contribution of tourism in 2016: 8.1% of GDP https://t.co/jJQkgt5m5r

— Rachel Glickhouse (@Riogringa) June 2, 2017

The Office of Management and Budget approved the new questions last week. More than 50 academic groups representing college admission counselors and advisers criticized the new rules in a letter to the State Department. They wrote that the new rules could act as a deterrent for foreign students seeking to study in the U.S. and might also lead to confusion, uncertainty, and long delays in processing times.

It is also very ill-defined and vague in regard to who is affected by the new rules. One estimation said that the questions would apply to about 65,000 visa applicants every year. Earlier, the State Department said the new questionnaire would affect those “who have been determined to warrant additional scrutiny in connection with terrorism or other national security-related visa ineligibilities.”

But it’s likely that not everyone will remember every single place they traveled to in the past 15 years, or even every social media handle they are signed up for. Immigration advocates have said such detailed questions are likely to stop travelers who make honest mistakes from being granted visas. And since the questions are voluntary, and not answering could–or could not–mean that your visa is denied, it makes it an arbitrary process.

For now, the questionnaire has been emergency approved to be used for six months–the usual time for this type of vetting is three years. Considering the majority of the 200 comments submitted when the new rules were open for public comments were negative, this is likely to create more frustration and protests in the near future.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Tightens Vetting Process for Visa Applicants appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration issues were on the docket for Texas lawmakers on Monday, and protesters were present throughout the day. But one lawmaker, Republican state representative Matt Rinaldi, shocked his colleagues when he said that he reported the protesters to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was the final day of an intense four-month session debating sanctuary cities, and over 1,000 demonstrators showed up to protest a new state law that makes it illegal for local law enforcement to refuse to comply with immigration laws and detention requests.

Rinaldi told his colleagues that he had reported the protesters to ICE as he believed they were undocumented immigrants. He allegedly said, “We are going to have them deported,” followed by an obscenity. Democrats were shocked by Rinaldi’s comments. “He assumed that because they were brown, in the gallery and protesting that they were here illegally,” said Representative César J. Blanco.

VIDEO: Lawmakers in Texas House scuffle during #SINEDIE on Monday.
BACKGROUND: https://t.co/q77vMguaXh pic.twitter.com/zlAGEaL0pB

— KVUE News (@KVUE) May 29, 2017

Some lawmakers were upset by Rinaldi’s behavior and a scuffle and some finger pointing ensued. Rinaldi claimed that Democratic Representatives Poncho Nevárez and Ramon Romero threatened his life and physically assaulted him. But according to others, Rinaldi was the one making the threats. “There was a threat made from Rinaldi to put a bullet in one of my colleagues’ heads,” said Representative Justin Rodriguez, also a Democrat.

Man, Texas knows how to protest. pic.twitter.com/976zeoxYNL

— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) May 29, 2017

Now they have a case of “he said, he said”–Nevárez said he never threatened Rinaldi. Rinaldi claimed he saw protesters holding signs saying, “I am illegal and here to stay” and that some of the Democratic lawmakers encouraged them. Blanco said he didn’t see any signs of that nature. ICE didn’t confirm whether or not it sent officials to Austin. But Blanco blamed President Donald Trump’s rhetoric for the conflict, saying that the president promotes hate speech:

The Trump rhetoric is trickling down and allowing current elected officials and candidates to resort to racism and violence making it sound like it was O.K. This has to stop. It is not what our country or what Texas is about.

Members of the Texas House Mexican-American Legislative Caucus said at a press conference on Monday that Rinaldi approached them repeatedly just to tell them he had called ICE. “F*ck them, I called ICE,” were his specific words, according to several members. Rinaldi said the protesters broke the law. But the chairman of the caucus, Rafael Anchía, said he simply saw Texans exercising their First Amendment rights.

The new law banning sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 4, will go into effect in September. Several law enforcement agencies opposed the law, and citizens have continued to protest it even after Governor Greg Abbott signed it.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Matt Rinaldi: The Texas Republican Who “Reported” Protesters to ICE appeared first on Law Street.

After 100 days of aggressive anti-immigrant action, the Trump Administration may be approaching a stumbling block: keeping American farms running without immigrant farmworkers. At a roundtable last month, American farmers explained to Trump that they are dependent on immigrant labor as local hires are rarely willing to work the farms.

Farms across the country, but especially in California, have faced labor shortages for years and as immigration restrictions tighten, the labor supply is quickly dwindling. The White House declined to discuss the specifics of the conversation but Trump reportedly said that he was focused on “criminals” rather than farmworkers and that he won’t destroy the labor force for American farms. However, it is difficult to make such a promise when more than half of American farmworkers are undocumented.

The H 2-A visa program provides agricultural guest workers with legal entry into the United States and as use of the program has risen over the past several years, fewer agricultural workers have been entering the country illegally. However, the H 2-A visa is only a temporary permit. Senate Democrats are currently sponsoring a “blue card” bill that would protect undocumented farmworkers who have worked at least 100 days in each of the past two years from deportation. A “blue card” is a modified green card, designed specially for agricultural workers to fast-track them toward permanent residency in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the bill lacks bipartisan support and there is little incentive for Republican senators to reach across party lines as the majority of their farming constituents voted for Trump, despite the fact that his administration plans to gut spending for farms across rural America. The blue card bill is a viable path to citizenship that will keep farms running and actually stabilize the labor market. Farmers often lose seasonal workers after they return home in the off season and don’t want to risk the passage back into the U.S., but with blue cards, the farmworkers could stay legally and work multiple seasons in a row.

Farmers only stand to benefit from having a steady labor supply but their loyalty to the Trump “pro-business” platform might push them to act against their own self-interest and be satisfied with the empty promise he made at last month’s roundtable. Even if Trump expanded the H-2 visa program, without a path to permanent residency, it is only a Band-Aid over a much more serious labor shortage. The blue card bill could be the path to citizenship that keeps farms running but it’s flown pretty much under the radar up to this point and without a grassroots campaign pushing for it, it will fade before it ever gets close to becoming a law. Undocumented workers do not always have the resources to speak for themselves and fear of deportation after a spike in arrests only makes speaking out seem more dangerous. It is up to the farmers, who have organized unions, lobbying groups and above all, stock with the Republicans, to fight for the blue card bill. If they let this bill fade into obscurity, their farms could take a hit.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Why Farmers Must Support the “Blue Card” Bill appeared first on Law Street.

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

A vast majority of those arrested, 41,318 from January 22 to April 29, have criminal records. But the number of detained non-criminal undocumented immigrants also rose sharply, reflecting the directive President Donald Trump issued in January that deemed any immigrant in the U.S. without documentation a priority for arrest and deportation.

“These statistics reflect President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board,” Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, said in a statement. “If you look at the numbers, then men and women of ICE are still prioritizing these arrests in a way that makes sense,” he added in a phone call with reporters after the figures were released.

Acting on his promise to strictly enforce immigration laws, Trump issued an executive order on January 25 “to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.” The order effectively reversed an Obama Administration policy that directed ICE agents to prioritize for deportation undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes. Under Trump, all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.

Trump’s crack-down on illegal immigration, a stance that helped propel him to the White House, has not been implemented with impunity, however. A recently-passed spending bill does not include funding for Trump’s long-proposed border wall on the Mexican border. And federal judges throughout the country have stymied his efforts to ban or severely limit travel from a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

Still, Trump is on-track to match or surpass the arrests of undocumented immigrants at the Obama Administration’s peak in 2013, when over 662,000 undocumented immigrants were arrested. After a pointed effort to focus only on high-level criminals, that number dropped in subsequent years.

And although the number of migrants crossing the southern border has precipitously dipped–which accounts for the 12 percent decrease in total deportations this year so far–the rise in arrests of non-criminal undocumented immigrants suggests a greater willingness to enforce the existing rules.

According to the ICE figures, over 10,800 undocumented immigrants without criminal records have been arrested so far. More than 2,700 have been convicted of violent crimes, however, including assault, rape, kidnapping, or murder.

But of those that made up the 38 percent jump in arrests during the first three months of the Trump Administration, over half had been immigrants without criminal records. Their only crime: being in the country without documentation.

Omar Jadwat, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, sees the increase in arrests as a way to beef up numbers without implementing a broader strategy. “What it tells me is that the department is willing to put enforcement numbers ahead of any kind of strategy that would actually try to keep us all safer going forward,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months appeared first on Law Street.

On May 7, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill that will allow law enforcement officers in Texas to inquire about people’s immigration status during stops. It also threatens to punish officers who do not cooperate with federal immigration agents. While the signing–which took place spontaneously on a Sunday night–caught opponents by surprise, the places targeted by the law, known as sanctuary cities, have been a large part of the public immigration debate lately. What is less clear is what exactly sanctuary cities are and why there has been so much controversy surrounding them. Read on to find the answers to these questions and the outlook for so-called sanctuary cities going forward.

Sanctuary Cities

So what exactly are sanctuary cities? Although the term is frequently thrown around, there is actually no legal definition for what constitutes a sanctuary city, it’s more of a concept. Much of the debate boils down to how local law enforcement cooperate with federal immigration efforts. There are several cities and local governments that have laws preventing local law enforcement from turning over suspects to federal authorities for deportation. Although this may seem surprising, as the law currently stands, local authorities have no legal obligation to assist federal immigration enforcement. There are currently at least five states and 633 counties with some sort of laws limiting law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration agents.

The video below details what sanctuary cities are and how they work:

The Political Battle

On his fifth day in office, President Donald Trump entered the fray by drafting an executive order that threatened to punish any local governments that do not aid federal authorities in tracking down and detaining people who entered the country illegally. Not only did Trump’s executive order threaten to punish these cities, it also made more people eligible for deportation. Namely, the order now allows anyone who has, “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense or pose a risk to public safety in the judgment of an immigration officer” to be deported. Before Trump’s executive order, the focus for deportation had been a crime-based removal rational, specifically targeting those who had already been convicted of crimes.

The previously established guidance allowed local law enforcement to choose to hold someone or not while Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiated with deportation proceedings. If a local jail had someone targeted for deportation, federal immigration authorities would ask local law enforcement to hold that person for additional time, typically 48 hours, so that they could initiate the deportation proceedings. However, with the recent executive order, counties that limit their cooperation with federal authorities–an example of which may be declining federal detention requests–would need to change their policies or face a potential loss in federal funding.

Local law enforcement had the option to deny retainer requests in the first place because the Department of Homeland Security determined that holding someone without a warrant while deportation proceedings began could actually be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And given additional legal issues surrounding conditions placed on federal grant funding, President Trump’s executive order was frozen in April by a federal judge. Regardless of the order’s fate, there is still confusion between neighboring districts and fear among law enforcement that orders like these will prevent immigrants from speaking to and assisting the police.

While sanctuary cities have taken on greater prominence under the Trump presidency, the sanctuary movement actually goes back more than 30 years to another celebrity Republican president. That president was Ronald Reagan and the people arriving then were from Central America, fleeing authoritarian governments supported by the United States in an effort to stop the spread of communism. In that case, the United States refused to help the refugees trying to escape violence from a government that it had helped keep in power. However, churches, colleges, and even cities responded by whisking these people across the border into safe havens.

The video below looks at the origins of the sanctuary movement:

Although targeting sanctuary cities and increasing deportation efforts have become important issues for Republicans lately, historically, expanding immigration enforcement has not been unique to one party. On the contrary, Trump’s predecessor President Obama, who is often touted as a staunch civil rights defender, enacted similar policies during his two terms. In fact, at one point during the Obama presidency, deportations reached an all-time high with more than 400,000 people deported in one year. Even after policy changes that sought to refocus enforcement efforts to target only convicted criminals were implemented, the number of deportations remained as high as 240,000 people in Obama’s last year in office. Most of the people deported by the Obama Administration were from either Mexico or Central America.

As for sanctuary cities themselves, in many ways, former President Obama actually helped fuel their rise. While the sanctuary movement had been around for decades, Obama’s Secure Communities program–built off of an earlier Bush presidency idea, which made it mandatory for local police to share information with federal authorities–vaulted the issue into public debate. Obama did eventually end the program, however, he remained focused on immigration enforcement, as the numbers indicate, up to the end of his term. While immigration enforcement has been a priority for presidents from both parties, Obama’s policies shifted the focus toward punishing convicted criminals and sharing information rather than targeting all immigrants. President Trump’s recent efforts go further to increase the number of people considered priorities for deportation and he has started directly confronting cities that limit cooperation with federal authorities.

What’s next?

Although the Sanctuary Movement has been around since at least the 1980s, its future is unclear. As part of the same executive order President Trump signed in January, he also threatened to cut off all federal funding to sanctuary cities. While experts doubt that Trump would be able to cut off all funding for these cities, many of the legal questions have not yet been resolved by the courts. The Trump Administration could also consider getting an injunction against certain policies in certain sanctuary cities that go beyond not helping and actually hinder federal efforts. The following video looks at what President Trump might do to sanctuary cities that refuse to change their laws:

The Obama Administration also predated any of Trump’s actions by threatening to withhold funds for not complying with federal laws. Last February, the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, agreed to transfer illegal immigrants who have completed their federal sentences into the custody of immigration officers instead of local authorities if those local authorities have shown resistance to ICE in the past. Additionally, threats to withhold federal grants for places that do not share information when requested by federal authorities came in 2016 under the Obama Administration.

These were not the only efforts to dissuade sanctuary cities either. In 2015, the House also passed a bill, which would prohibit sanctuary cities from receiving certain Justice Department grants. That bill would block federal funding for immigration-related grants, like a program that reimburses cities for the costs involved in detaining deportation targets for additional time, as well as more general law enforcement funding like money from the Justice Assistant Grant program and the Community-Oriented Policing Services program. Despite these efforts at the federal level, many cities have remained defiant. In Boulder, for example, the city voted to recognize itself as a sanctuary city even though doing so would open it up to further funding threats.

Conclusion

In February, shortly after President Trump took office, federal immigration enforcement executed a number of raids across 12 states in an effort to sweep up illegal immigrants. However, these raids differed from those that took place during the Obama Administration in that they targeted a higher percentage of people who had not been convicted of crimes. Although differing from the past administration’s policy guidance, these actions followed in line with the executive order issued by Trump soon after his inauguration.

The sanctuary movement, and sanctuary cities in particular, have sprung up since the 1980s to respond to increased enforcement efforts. However, efforts both by the previous Obama Administration, and now President Trump, have sought to undercut local governments who seek to restrict cooperation with federal authorities. This has been done through vehicles such as Trump’s executive order but also primarily through threats of reduced federal funding. While the president’s efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities involves several unanswered legal questions, the scope of potential funding losses could cause a significant blow to local budgets. Nevertheless, these places have for the most part continued to stand up and resist federal immigration policies that would require them to assist in deporting illegal immigrants.

With Trump’s executive order on immigration enforcement and others, such as the travel ban, currently working their way through the courts, these issues are in the process of being resolved. An important question after that point is whether the parties involved will abide by the decision reached by the courts.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Safe Havens? The Story Behind Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

Over a two-hour period on Monday, a federal appeals court in Richmond heard arguments on a case concerning President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, issued via executive order in March. The 13-judge panel was split between those who argued that Trump’s order should be examined on its merits and text, and others who contended that the directive should be viewed in the context of the president’s past statements on Muslim immigration.

The hearing, which was the first test for Trump’s contentious executive order in a federal appellate court, saw arguments from Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general of the U.S. who defended the government’s position, and Omar Jadwat, a lawyer from the ACLU representing the plaintiffs. The fact that 13 judges heard arguments–in a court that usually consists of a three-judge panel–indicates the weight that this case holds.

Questions over how the travel ban should be viewed–either by its merits or in light of Trump’s public statements–were generally split between the Democratic-appointed judges and the Republican-appointed ones. Judge Robert King, appointed by President Bill Clinton, said Trump has “never repudiated what he said about the Muslim ban,” alluding to Trump’s calls for a freeze on Muslim immigration during the campaign.

Judge Pamela Harris, appointed by President Barack Obama, likewise read the travel ban as an anti-Muslim missive. The ban “has a disparate impact on Muslims,” she said. But Judge Paul Niemeyer, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, questioned the wisdom of reading too much into past statements. “Can we look at his college speeches?” he asked. “How about his speeches to businessmen 20 years ago?” He added: “I just don’t know where this stops.”

Wall, representing the Trump Administration in the hearing, said Trump’s past statements do not indicate any motives beyond the text of the order. That is, that it’s a national security measure. “Candidates talk about things on the campaign trail all the time,” he said. Wall also denied the charge that the ban is effectively a Muslim ban. “This is not a Muslim ban” he said. “It has nothing to do with religion. Its operation has nothing to do with religion.” 

Trump’s revised March order banned travel for 90 days from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Somalia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. It also froze admittance of refugees for 120 days, and dropped the number of refugees allowed to enter the U.S. from 120,000 to 50,000. Two federal judges, one in Maryland and one in Hawaii, blocked parts of Trump’s order in March.

Monday’s hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is an appeal of the Maryland ruling. Next Monday, a federal appeals court in Seattle will review an appeal of the Hawaii ruling. Ultimately, regardless of how the judges in Richmond rule, the case is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Latest with Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall that will cover the border between the United States and Mexico, as a means of cracking down on illegal immigration. But those promises seem less certain each day, with Congressional Republicans hesitant to allocate billions of dollars to fund the wall and Mexico’s president denying Trump’s claims that his country would fund the project.

Now, the state of California is also pushing back against the wall by weighing the possibility of a blacklist against any contractors that Trump would hire to work on the structure.

California state Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles County, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would block companies that participate in construction of the wall from being hired by the state of California in the future. The state currently shares a substantial border with Mexico. Lara compared businesses that would potentially assemble the wall to those that would help build internment camps or segregated schools.

However, construction businesses don’t want to politicize the issue. Felipe Fuentes, a lobbyist for the state’s contractors, warned that the measure could set a precedent of “hand-picking projects that are not politically favorable to the California Legislature”–and could affect construction of everything from Planned Parenthood facilities to prisons.

Financial resistance to the wall could be the latest growing trend among mainly-Democratic states and cities looking to hit back at Trump on the local level. Soon after he resumed office, a number of mayors and governors across the country vowed that their cities would be “sanctuary cities,” in which undocumented immigrants would be protected from deportation.

Now, in addition to California, legislators in at least four other states have proposed indirect ways of opposing the wall. A public advocate in New York City introduced a bill that would blacklist contractors hired by Trump, and would require the city’s largest public pension fund to divest from participating companies. A Rhode Island representative has called for his state to withdraw its investments in businesses working with Trump. A proposed bill in New Mexico would prevent the state from selling 22 miles of land that it owns to the federal government for the purposes of building the wall. Meanwhile, legislatures in Arizona and Illinois are considering similar blacklist and divestment measures.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will California Say “You’re Fired” to Companies That Build Trump’s Wall? appeared first on Law Street.

Chobani, best known for producing the popular Greek yogurt, has filed a lawsuit against Alex Jones. Jones, the conspiracy theorist who runs the website InfoWars.com, has claimed that Chobani’s choice to hire refugees at its Idaho factory led to a sexual assault case in a local apartment building. Jones, and InfoWars, also claimed that the refugee workers at the factory led to increased crime in the area and an uptick in TB cases. Chobani is now suing Jones and InfoWars; the lawsuit includes two counts of defamation.

The owner of Chobani, Hamdi Ulukaya, has employed about 300 refugees, mostly from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey, at its Idaho and New York factories. In November, news broke that Ulukaya was getting death threats for those hiring decisions, particularly after some right-wing news outlets started reporting the same type of misinformation as InfoWars.

One particular InfoWars segment claimed that Chobani is tied to a case in the city–Twin Falls–where the factory is located. According to reports, three refugee boys sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl in the area. The assault did happen–the boys pled guilty–but there’s no evidence to suggest that the Chobani factory had anything to do with the children. Here’s one clip:

That clip draws a connection between the factory’s presence in the town and the sexual assault case–the title of the segment was “Idaho Yogurt Maker Caught Importing Migrant Rapists.” Another Jones video that implied that Chobani had something to do with the sexual assault case included “MSM Covers For Globalist’s Refugee Import Program After Child Rape Case.” The lawsuit also points out that these claims were repeated on social media platforms, and remain online to this date.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Idaho District Court, accuses InfoWars of knowingly publishing misinformation about the company and about Ulukaya. Chobani is now seeking at least $10,000 in damages.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chobani Sues Alex Jones, Claims He Spread Misinformation appeared first on Law Street.

“America First,” President Donald Trump’s ubiquitous campaign slogan, is apparently contagious. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull proposed a set of rules on Thursday that would make it tougher for refugees and immigrants to become Australian citizens. And last week, Turnbull announced plans to raise the barriers for migrants hoping to come to Australia for high-skilled jobs on a temporary work visa.

Among the citizenship rules the prime minister proposed on Thursday is an “Australian values” test, more stringent requirements for the citizenship test, and a four-year wait period. Hopeful citizens would also be expected to have a greater knowledge of English than currently required. In a statement, Turnbull explained his crack down on migration:

“We must ensure that our citizenship program is conducted in our national interest,” he said. “Membership of the Australian family is a privilege and should be granted to those who support our values, respect our laws and want to work hard by integrating and contributing to an even better Australia.”

Australia is a multicultural bastion, often overshadowed by the “melting pots” of America, Canada, and other Western nations. In fact, 27 percent of the population is foreign-born, double the foreign-born rate in the U.S. and England. Australia is represented by migrants from 200 countries. The new rules, which must be approved by parliament, would stiffen an already stringent citizenship process.

For instance, prospective citizens must already have solid enough English skills to take the citizenship test, which is only offered in English. Under the proposed new rules, three test failures would spell the end of an immigrant’s or refugee’s chance at citizenship. According to Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 102,029 people took the citizenship test between 2015-2016. Nearly 3,500 people failed it over three times. Prospective citizens must also sign an “Australian values statement.” Here is an excerpt:

Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good.

Around the world, populism and nationalism are on the rise. France may elect the populist, far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen. England left the European Union. Turkey’s president just effectively cemented his hold on power until 2029, a move likely to alienate Turkey from the West. But until now, at least to the outside world, Australia seemed to be eluding the populist trend. But some analysts see Turnbull’s proposals not as a turn toward nationalism, but as a way to placate Australia’s populists.

“These new laws are about trying to keep traditional coalition supporters from turning to the far-right parties,” Haydon Manning, a political analyst in Adelaide told Bloomberg. “Turnbull will be aware that he doesn’t have much to offer voters in the budget because the coffers are bare, so this is a way he can show that he’s still thinking about them and addressing their concerns about jobs and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull Proposes a More Difficult Path to Citizenship appeared first on Law Street.

During a visit to a tool factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin on Tuesday afternoon, President Donald Trump is expected to announce an executive order aimed at reforming the H-1B visa program.

The H-1B, a temporary visa for foreign workers to fill high-tech jobs in the U.S., has been targeted by both Democrats and Republicans for being unfair to American workers. Critics argue that some employers abuse the program by firing American workers and hiring foreign workers, many from India, on the cheap.

Trump’s executive order will essentially make it harder for employers to issue H-1B visas; employers and the prospective visa-holders would have to prove the job is going to “the most highly skilled workers,” according to a White House official familiar with the order.

The visas are designed to help a variety of U.S. companies fill their workforces, but critics contend that they are often used as an excuse to hire cheap foreign laborers. In some instances, American workers even train their eventual replacements–foreigners who work the same job for a lower wage.

According to a senior White House official, the order will direct “the strict enforcement of all laws governing entry into the United States of labor abroad for the stated purpose of creating higher wages and higher employment rates for workers in the United States.” It will deliver on Trump’s promise to “buy American and hire American,” the official said.

Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers apply for the visas each year. The government admits 85,000–a lottery system selects 65,000 applicants, and an additional 20,000 are given to graduate students.

Supporters of the visa program laud it as a way for employers to fill high-skilled jobs that are difficult to fill with American workers. But while the program is designed for engineers, scientists, and computer engineers, most of the H-1B workers are in the information technology sector–jobs that do not require an advanced education.

In fact, the three companies with the most H-1B employees–Tata Consultancy, Cognizant Technology, and Infosys–mostly hire foreign workers who only have bachelor’s degrees. An estimated 80 percent of employees at those three firms only have bachelor’s degrees.

In addition to reforming the H-1B program, the official said Trump’s order will call on a number of government agencies to clamp down on “fraud and abuse” in the immigration system in order to protect American workers.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to Sign Order on H-1B Visas to Encourage Hiring Americans appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

All Eyes on Georgia’s Sixth

Today, the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia is holding a special election to fill the House seat that became vacant when Tom Price left to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Although the state is very red and most of the candidates are Republicans, 30-year-old Democratic candidate and documentary filmmaker Jon Ossoff is hoping to snag more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff. This election has been deemed the first litmus test for Donald Trump’s presidency. Many are hopeful that Ossoff can pull it off.

Georgia’s special election: Can Jon Ossoff land a knockout in Round 1?https://t.co/V1MXitS8Y0

— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 18, 2017

However, Republicans have countered with Islamophobic ads featuring images of Osama bin Laden. They’ve called Ossoff untrustworthy because his production company made videos for al-Jazeera, a Qatari news organization. And over the weekend, voting machines were stolen from a Cobb County precinct manager’s car. The machines reportedly have voter information in them, but it is “hard to access.” According to the county’s Elections Director Janine Eveler, the machines could not be used to fraudulently vote. But still, all eyes are on Jon Ossoff today.

Georgia! Don’t forget tomorrow’s special election. It’s either take one hour and vote or go to a town hall every week and scream until 2018.

— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) April 17, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

What do banned airport leggings and messed up immigration policies have in common? They are both stirring up some controversy, topping the list of stories our readers couldn’t get enough of last week. ICYMI, catch up on these top stories with Law Street’s best of the week below!

Seattle Joins the Sanctuary Cities Fight

Seattle sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday over its strict immigration policies, and its threats to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. Arguing that the administration’s warnings are unconstitutional, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said federal authorities “cannot force our local police officials to be involved in federal immigration activities.”

United Prevents Girls Wearing Leggings from Boarding Flight

United Airlines is receiving criticism, after it was reported that two young girls were prohibited from boarding a flight because they were wearing leggings. The girls were reportedly traveling from Denver to Minneapolis when three of them were stopped for their outfits. One changed out of the leggings and was let on the flight, and the other two were prohibited from boarding.

The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

“We stand up here, Mr. Jones. Don’t forget,” Bernard Marks, a Holocaust survivor who now lives in Sacramento as an educator, said on Tuesday. Marks was one of hundreds of protesters who gave pointed and stirring speeches at a public forum in Sacramento featuring County Sheriff Scott Jones and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan.

“When I was a little boy in Poland, for no other reason but for being Jewish, I was hauled off by the Nazis,” Marks said. “I spent five and a half years in concentration camp [sic] for one reason and for one reason only: because we picked on people.”

His speech was the boiling point of an already toxic event. From the very start of the forum, Jones and Homan were shouted at by a hostile crowd, as captured by the Los Angeles Times:

Attendees shouted and cursed, chanted and held up protest signs. “Lies!” some yelled when the officials said authorities did not target immigrants who did not pose a danger to the community.

“Where is the money, Jones?” others asked when the sheriff attempted to explain ICE immigration detention contracts, a budget he said totaled $4.8 million for his department.

“You are bringing the uncertainty,” one man shouted at Homan before deputies escorted him out. “You are bringing the uncertainty to everybody.”

Across the country, numerous stories have popped up about actions taken by ICE against illegal immigrants, including Dreamers, or immigrants who came to the country illegally as children. In Portland, a Dreamer was arrested and held in a detention center, which echoes stories concerning detained Dreamers in places like Seattle and Mississippi. In Fort Worth, Texas, 26 parolees suspected of being undocumented immigrants were recently arrested when they showed up to perform their mandatory community service, according to a local NBC affiliate.

They are now detained at an ICE facility in Dallas while they await their fate. In Los Angeles, the LAPD has said reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among Latino residents has plummeted in 2017, presumably due to concerns over deportation. In the midst of these stories, residents, politicians, and activists around the country have decided to take a stand. And, in a heartbreaking story which has since gone viral, Fatima Avelica, a 13-year-old girl whose father was detained by ICE while he was dropping her off at school, spoke through her tears while telling her story at Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) news conference on Tuesday.

Sacramento isn’t the only city standing up for immigrants. On Monday, hundreds of people gathered in Boston outside the JFK Federal Building (where immigration hearings are held) to protest the arrest of three human rights activists from Vermont. Two of the activists were released on bail later that day. In Somerville, Massachusetts, after Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson called for public government officials of sanctuary cities to be arrested for not following federal immigration orders, Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone taunted him on Facebook, writing “come and get me.”

Further up north, in Rochester, New York, two immigration protests were held in a span of 24 hours after a woman and her brother, originally from Guatemala, were detained. In Charlotte, North Carolina, 200 protesters “shouted down” a city council meeting concerning the city’s coordination with ICE officials and federal immigration orders. In Chicago, immigration advocates staged a sit-in at a regional ICE office. And in Cape May, New Jersey, protesters made their voices heard at a Board of Freeholders meeting at the county courthouse discussing the county’s new proposed partnership with ICE, according to Shore News Today.

People around the country are standing up for immigrants, and for ICE Acting Director Homan, that is something that will be hard to forget.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Around the Country Are Protesting ICE Arrests and Deportations appeared first on Law Street.

Seattle sued the Trump Administration on Wednesday over its strict immigration policies, and its threats to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. Arguing that the administration’s warnings are unconstitutional, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said federal authorities “cannot force our local police officials to be involved in federal immigration activities.”

“Once again, this new administration has decided to bully,” he added. With Wednesday’s lawsuit, Seattle joins San Francisco in bringing legal action against the administration for its January 25 executive order that called for a freeze in federal funding to sanctuary cities–cities that direct their law enforcement officers to withhold the legal status of immigrants who are arrested. On Monday, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a fresh warning to sanctuary cities at the White House, echoing the policy sketched out in the executive order.

“I strongly urge our nation’s states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and to rethink these policies,” Sessions said. “Such policies make their cities and states less safe — public safety as well as national security are at stake — and put them at risk of losing federal dollars.”

The total amount, Sessions suggested, that sanctuary cities could stand to lose—mainly in federal grants for local law enforcement agencies—is $4.1 billion. The administration’s policy has not gone into effect yet. But Murray argues the administration’s threats and coercive tactics amount to a breach of the 10th Amendment, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

On Monday, after Sessions’s missive, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also pledged to fight the administration, tweeting:

The Trump Administration is pushing an unrealistic and mean spirited executive order. If they want a fight, we’ll see them in court.

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) March 27, 2017

The Trump Administration’s executive order, issued five days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, spelled out its hard-line stance on illegal immigration, in a policy that includes stiff penalties for cities that resist cooperating with federal authorities.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States,” the order read, directing that “jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds.”

But Murray said federal funds are not necessarily linked to his city’s immigration policies, and argued that other grant-dependent programs could take a hit if the administration withholds grants. “Things like grants helping us with child sex trafficking are not connected to immigration,” Murray said. “It is time for cities to stand up and ask the courts to put an end to the anxiety in our cities and the chaos in our system.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seattle Joins the Sanctuary Cities Fight appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration courts have long struggled to handle the caseloads created by years of policies aimed at criminalizing undocumented immigrants. Formal deportation proceedings for apprehended immigrants were emphasized under President George W. Bush and would later define President Barack Obama’s deportation legacy.

The influx of asylum-seeking refugees–many from Central America–that began in 2014 compounded the problem by further increasing caseloads and diversifying the type of cases put before judges. While President Donald Trump has ordered new facilities and an expanded border patrol workforce, his policies will likely confuse an already-tangled system.

Shift to Formal Deportation

In the past, immigration agents “voluntarily returned” the vast majority of undocumented people they apprehended. Under this practice, undocumented immigrants, particularly those apprehended along the border, were deported from the U.S. but were not formally processed or subjected to legal consequences. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Clinton Administration deported a total of 12.3 million people (including “voluntarily returned” immigrants), but only formally deported about 900,000 people.

Critics demanding the government formally deport anyone found entering the U.S. without documentation referred to voluntary returns as “catch and release.” Soon there was a concerted government effort to implement policies that would essentially criminalize undocumented immigrants. These policies were meant to deter deported migrants from attempting to re-enter the country.

In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), which resulted in an increase in formal deportations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Bush Administration deported 10.3 million people (two million fewer than Clinton), and formally deported over 2 million people. This trend continued under Obama, who was either unwilling or unable to rollback formal deportations.

In his two terms, Obama formally deported 3.1 million people in spite of the fact that he deported far fewer people (5.3 million) overall than the Clinton and Bush Administrations. About 7.3 percent of undocumented immigrants were formally deported under Clinton, 19.4 percent under Bush, and 58.5 percent under Obama.

The decades-long commitment to criminalizing undocumented immigration has put enormous pressure on immigration courts. For years, immigration courts have lacked the resources necessary to undertake the hundreds of thousands of deportation hearings. While existing policy demands the criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the courts are struggling to keep pace in spite of controversial methods, such as Operation Streamline, designed to expedite hearing proceedings.

Refugees, Not Immigrants

In the summer of 2014, thousands of Central American refugees fled north in search of protection from violence in their home countries. In years prior, the vast majority of migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were Mexican citizens. Since the 2008 recession however, the number of Mexican migrants has dropped dramatically. In 2014, non-Mexicans outnumbered Mexican migrants for the first time on record.

Immigration officers found that far fewer people were attempting to cross the border undetected; instead, many more people were simply turning themselves in and requesting asylum. While approximately 90 percent of non-Mexican migrants crossing the southern border over the past few years have been from Central America, there is an increasing trend of non-Latin American migrants moving through Mexico in need of asylum.

Unwilling to provide asylum to the thousands seeking help and hoping to ease the strain placed on immigration infrastructure, the Obama Administration pressed the Mexican government to act. On July 7, 2014, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the Southern Border Plan, which he claimed would both protect the rights of migrants while ensuring security of the region.

Mexico deported nearly twice as many Central Americans in 2015 than in 2014, but the plan did little to discourage refugees from traveling through Mexico. While the number of migrants traveling on traditional thoroughfares north through Mexico decreased, they took lesser-known, more dangerous, routes to avoid detection. Central American refugees and refugees from around the world continue to arrive at the southern border demanding their cases be heard by U.S. authorities.

Under both international and domestic law, the U.S. is required to review the case of anyone who arrives on U.S. soil claiming to be a refugee and requesting asylum. While the Obama Administration approved a fraction of the asylum requests, policy dictated that migrants requesting asylum were entitled to have their case formally reviewed.

Trump’s recent executive order accused refugees of abusing the asylum program by forcing asylum proceedings to delay deportation. Trump’s order upended the asylum process by affording border officers the power to review asylum claims. Reports suggest immigration agents are either reviewing cases in brief or simply refusing to accept asylum claims and turning people around. Critics argue that these practices are in violation of domestic and international laws.

The Courts Under Trump

Trump inherits a system that is plagued by backlogs that have been building for over a decade. Nonetheless, Trump’s persistent rhetoric, his numerous executive orders, and a spate of recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids suggest deportation cases will climb under his presidency.

While Trump ordered the expansion of the immigration enforcement workforce and construction of new facilities, the funds would require congressional approval. Furthermore, new appropriations would likely fail to fill existing cracks caused by a decade of aggressive deportation policies. Recent shifts in migration patterns have exacerbated immigration courts’ caseloads.

While Trump’s promises of secure borders and increased deportations won him the support of many, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to fulfill his promises. Trump’s immigration policies present a logistical nightmare for an already overworked system and will likely face numerous legal challenges both domestically and internationally. In attempting to ramp up immigration enforcement to unprecedented levels, Trump may force it to a grinding halt.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Policies Could Further Damage Ailing Immigration Courts appeared first on Law Street.

As the Trump Administration cracks down on illegal immigration in the U.S., immigrants have been crossing the border into Canada. In 2016, 1,222 immigrants fled the U.S. to Quebec alone–a fivefold increase from prior years–and there have been similar spikes in British Columbia.

Stories of frostbitten immigrants crossing into remote, unmarked border towns this winter garnered international attention and set conservative Canadians on the warpath, demanding stricter regulation of the border. But the rise of illegal immigration has also led to calls for alterations to (and even the repeal of) the Safe Third Country Agreement, which states that refugees must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in. Many immigrants who were hoping to seek shelter in the U.S. are crossing into Canada illegally because they believe their asylum claims will be denied in the U.S. but upheld in Canada. If the act was repealed or suspended, immigrants could request asylum at official border crossings and enter the country legally.

In the Justin Trudeau era, Americans tend to glamorize Canada as the last moral outpost on the continent but the nation is not quite the united front we assume it to be. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week, nearly half of respondents want to send illegal immigrants crossing the Canadian border back to the U.S. and a similar number of respondents disapprove of how the government is handling illegal immigration. The subsets that were most in favor of deportation were men, adults without a college degree, higher income individuals, and older individuals. This is by no means a perfect representation of Canadian attitudes. Yet in an era where xenophobia is encouraged and even enshrined by executive orders, it’s important to keep an eye on shifts in public opinion.

The U.S.-Canada border has historically been a “soft” one but as illegal immigration rates climb, Canada appears to be moving slowly toward a more hardline stance. Trudeau has defended proposed legislation that would allow U.S. customs agents to question, search, and detain Canadians on Canadian soil. Trudeau publicly stated in February that the government would not take steps to quell irregular migration–yet by giving more power to U.S. customs agents, he is essentially passing the buck. Policing the border is a cooperative effort between the two countries and if Trudeau steps away from that responsibility, he will be enabling the Trump Administration.

Trudeau met with Trump earlier this year in a carefully coordinated encounter that let Trudeau hold strong on all of his positions without actively attacking Trump. While it is diplomatic common sense not to antagonize an ally, Trudeau could take a stronger stand against the Trump Administration through legislative action–such as scrapping the Safe Third Country Agreement. Trudeau has done outstanding work with the Syrian refugee population, striving to fast-track their entry into Canada so that tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have now been granted asylum in Canada–but can he keep it up?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Other Border: Pushback Against Illegal Immigration in Canada appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump recently issued a revised travel ban temporarily preventing people from six countries and all refugees from entering the United States. The original ban was immediately met with condemnation, protest, and legal action, leading the administration to change course. The revised version amounts to a significant scaling back relative to the original, but many of the longer term consequences remain the same. While this is the most recent and perhaps one of the most chaotic efforts to control who comes into the United States, it is far from the first. The history of U.S. immigration policy is littered with restrictions, quotas, and preferences for certain groups. Read on further to find out how President Trump’s executive action fits in the long lexicon of American immigration policy.

History of Immigration

The United States is and has been a land of immigrants long before it was even a country. European migration began in the 16th century, first with the French and Spanish then later with the English, who founded their first permanent colony in Jamestown in 1607. Many of the earliest European settlers traveled either to avoid religious persecution in their native land or to seek better opportunities. There was also a dark side to this original mass migration. Many white Europeans arrived as indentured servants and even more black slaves were forcibly removed from Africa and brought to the new world.

The second batch of migrants, which came to the United States in the 19th century, was also predominantly from Western Europe. Along with English settlers, came large numbers of Irish and German migrants. Approximately 4.5 million Irish made their way to the United States between 1820 and 1930, settling mostly along the coast. Meanwhile, roughly five million Germans arrived during the 19th century and often moved into the interior of the country. These groups were also joined by a large number of Chinese workers who came to the United States in search of gold. The Chinese immigrants tended to settle in the western portions of the United States.

At the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the demographics of immigration shifted again. During this period there was a large rise in immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. This was most clearly characterized by the nearly four million Italians who entered the United States. Following this wave, however, immigration slowed dramatically due to international events such as World War I and II, as well as the Great Depression. After World War II, refugees from Europe and the Soviet Union flocked to the U.S., along with those from Cuba following Castro’s rise. The video below from Business Insider provides a good illustration of where immigrants came from and when they arrived in the United States:

According to numbers from Pew Research Center, the highest percentage of foreign-born people living in the United States occurred back in 1890 when nearly 15 percent of the population was foreign-born. The lowest point occurred back in 1970 when just 5 percent of the population was born outside the United States. Recent data suggests we will likely reach a new high very soon. In 2015, about 14 percent of the population was foreign-born, a percentage that is projected to increase to nearly 18 percent by 2065.

The History of Immigration Restrictions

For almost as long as people have been migrating to the United States, policymakers have enacted a variety of different pieces of legislation to restrict immigration in general and for specific groups of people. First was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which made only free white people of good moral character who have lived in the U.S. for at least two years eligible for naturalization. This requirement was later changed to 14 years of residency and eventually back down to five years, due to political reasons. Another restriction was put in place in 1819 when Congress started requiring ship captains to provide a list of any foreign-born people onboard intending to immigrate.

Immigration restrictions did not really intensify until after 1850, which was the first time the U.S. Census asked what country people came from. This was followed by a dramatic increase in migration restrictions, particularly those targeting people from Asia. In 1862 the “Anti-Coolie” Act was passed with the aim of preventing Chinese immigration to California and forced California businesses that hired Chinese workers to pay an additional tax. There was also the Naturalization Act of 1870, which made free white people and “persons of African descent” and “nativity” eligible for naturalization but excluded Asians. Perhaps the most infamous example was the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, which barred all Chinese immigration for 10 years. This act was extended in 1892 by the Geary Act for 10 more years and then again indefinitely in 1902.

These restrictive measures extended into the 20th century as well, starting with the 1907 gentlemen’s agreement with Japan, where Japan agreed to discourage Japanese migration to the U.S. in exchange for more protections for Japanese people already in the U.S. There were additional restrictions at the state level as well, including in 1913 when California passed the Alien Land Law preventing Chinese and Japanese nationals from owning land. In 1917 Congress went a step further, banning immigration from many Asian countries with notable exceptions being Japan and the Philippines.

Another major immigration policy shift occurred in 1921 when the first of the Quota Acts was enacted. The law placed immigration quotas on countries to restrict the number of people from a certain country to three percent of the number that lived in the United States after the 1910 census. A similar act was passed in 1924 limiting the number of migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe to two percent of the 1890 levels. The adoption of the National Origins Formula delivered the final blow, completely banning immigration from Asia, while still allowing immigration from the Western Hemisphere.

It did not end with Asian immigrants either, as the Oriental Exclusion Act prohibited most immigration from Asia but also included foreign-born wives and the children of American citizens of Chinese ancestry. The Expatriation Act went even further, stating that an American woman who marries a foreign national loses her citizenship; this was partially repealed in 1922 but still held for women marrying Asian citizens. Even the Supreme Court entered the debate over race and citizenship in the case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. The court ruled that a caucasian man from India did not meet the definition of white person used in established immigration law, and therefore could not become a citizen.

In addition to people from Asia, other groups were also barred over the years for reasons that were not explicitly related to race or ethnicity. The Immigration Act of 1882, for example, put a $0.50 charge on people immigrating and forbid lunatics and those likely to become dependent on the state. The Alien Contract Labor Law was passed in 1885 to prohibit bringing foreign contract laborers to the country, except for certain industries. In 1891 Congress made polygamists, people with diseases, and those convicted of specific misdemeanors also ineligible for immigration. Political groups were also targeted–following the assassination of President William McKinley, Congress passed the Anarchist Exclusion Act in 1901 barring anarchists and political extremists.

Along with all these outright restrictions were a host of other measures to simply make the immigration process harder–like literacy tests on citizenship applications and additional agencies set up to oversee immigration–that, while not explicitly forbidding it, significantly hindered immigration for many groups. It was not until 1965 when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act that many of the quotas and restrictions were finally eliminated.

The video below gives an overview of the immigration practices of the United States:

Immigrants in the U.S. Today

Despite the complicated history of immigration policy, the number of foreign-born people in the United States has increased dramatically since 1965. As of 2015, there were about 43.3 million foreign-born people living in the United States, which is approximately 13.5 percent of the total population. Of that amount, about 20 million are naturalized citizens, with the rest being permanent residents, people with temporary status, and people who entered the country illegally. The Pew Research Center estimates that in 2014 there was a total of 11.1 million foreign-born people in the United States who entered the country illegally.

The immigrant population rose from 9.6 million in 1970 to the 43.3 million here today. Over that time, the primary source of immigrants has shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia. Specifically, in 2015 the top five countries of origin for new immigrants were: India, China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Canada. The 2015 numbers generally reflect the leading countries of origin for the total foreign-born population as well, which are led by Mexico, India, China, and the Philippines.

The immigrant population in the United States skews slightly female, at a little more than 50 percent. It is also older than the general U.S. population with a median age of 43.5 years. Demographically, nearly half of immigrants identify themselves as white, a little more than a quarter identify as Asian, and about 9 percent identify themselves as black. Ethnically, Hispanics and latinos are the largest group of immigrants, representing about 45 percent. In terms of education, the percentage of immigrants with at least a bachelor’s degree is almost the same as the national average, at about 30 percent. And geographically, states that border Mexico or have large population centers tend to have the most immigrants, with California leading the way followed by New York, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey.

Immigration and the Economy

From 2009 to 2011, the amount of money earned by immigrants was nearly 15 percent percent of all U.S. wages, although immigrants make up 13 percent of the overall population. Immigrants are more likely to be prime working age and work in higher proportions relative to their share of the population. Immigrants also own nearly one-fifth of all small businesses. Finally, nearly half of all immigrants work in white collar jobs and are often overrepresented in some middle-class occupations such as nursing.

While immigrants are working in disproportionately high numbers, they also generally do not harm the work opportunities for most native-born Americans either. While immigration’s effects on domestic workers is a hotly debated subject, many economists agree that it provides an overall economic benefit, although it could also have significant economic consequences for certain groups. In the long-run, immigrants can actually be beneficial to the American job market overall. Moreover, when immigrants drive wages down, it is often because they lack the protections that American citizens have and thus are susceptible to exploitation.

Immigrants, particularly undocumented workers, often pay into programs such as Social Security, which they cannot draw from, and are actually a net positive for the national budget. A review from the Social Security Administration found that undocumented workers paid as much as $13 billion into Social Security in 2010–which came in the form of payroll taxes from immigrants using fraudulent identification–but only received about $1 billion in benefits.

Aside from economic impacts, immigrants also affect American society in other positive ways. These include introducing new or different foods and cooking styles, presenting alternative forms of spirituality, and even incorporating non-traditional medical treatments.

Conclusion

The words inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty in New York read, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” These inspiring words, originally written by the poet Emma Lazarus, perfectly encapsulate the ideals that many speak of when they refer to the United States as a nation of immigrants. However, for much of the nation’s history, the people and practices of this country have failed to live up to that ideal.

Donald Trump’s ban, while definitely not the first, is the latest in a long line of efforts to restrict immigration from certain areas and for certain groups of people. Although these restrictions are often passed under the guise of being in the best interest of America or its citizens, they can have the opposite effect. This is because immigrants are often willing to do many of the jobs native born citizens will not, at lower wages. Despite the United States’ complicated history, immigrants have continuously added to and enriched American culture.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Before the Ban: The History of U.S. Immigration Policy appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order blocking travel from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa faced its first legal challenge on Wednesday. Doug Chin, the attorney general of Hawaii, is suing the Trump Administration. The order, Chin said in his complaint, violates the Constitution and will have deleterious effects on his state’s economy and educational institutions.

A hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, and the travel ban is set to go live on Thursday. While Trump’s first order, issued during his initial days in office, faced a torrent of litigation, the revised order, released on Monday, did not experience any immediate challenges. Lawyers and state attorneys general are taking a more cautious approach to legal action; they are taking time to examine the new order’s legality, while acknowledging that it was more carefully written than its predecessor.

In the State of Hawaii’s brief, which requests a temporary restraining order on the travel ban, the plaintiffs argue the ban “severely damages the State’s schools and universities.” The plaintiffs also said the executive order “detracts from the University of Hawaii’s diversity and impedes the State’s commitment to international scholarship and global exchange—inflicting the very harms Congress’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination was designed to prevent.”

Trump’s new travel ban is different from the initial directive. Residents of six countries–Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Syria–will not be allowed into the U.S. for at least 90 days. Iraq, which was included in the initial order, has been removed from the list of affected countries. And in what is the new order’s potential bulwark against legal action, green card-holders and people who already have visas from the six countries are allowed entry into the U.S. Like the first executive order, the country’s refugee program will be put on ice for at least 120 days.

Another of Trump’s immigration policies was hit with a legal challenge on Wednesday. Dennis Herrera, the city attorney of San Francisco, asked a federal district court judge to block the president’s January 25 executive order. That order threatens to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities,” jurisdictions that shield undocumented immigrants from federal immigration authorities. “This court action is designed to protect our residents and provide financial clarity,” Herrera said in a statement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hawaii AG Files Lawsuit Over Trump’s Revised Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday morning the White House announced that President Donald Trump–presumably after taking a break from tweeting about everything from wire “tapps” to Arnold Schwarzenegger–signed a new executive order to revise his controversial travel ban.

Unlike the hectic nature of the initial executive order’s rollout, the revised order was announced throughout Monday morning, with Kellyanne Conway going on “Fox & Friends” to explain the alterations, the administration releasing a somewhat comprehensive fact sheet, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions explaining the legality and importance of the new order. Additionally, unlike the original order, which took effect immediately, the updated version will not be implemented for another 10 days. No cameras were around for the actual signing.

.@POTUS has signed a new executive order that will keep the nation safe. Read it at https://t.co/XcBwwEJJHF pic.twitter.com/Yx2mikXl2A

— Sean Spicer (@PressSec) March 6, 2017

Here’s what you need to know about this new EO:

1. The 90-day travel ban will prohibit the issuance of new visas for people from six countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). While the initial order targeted seven countries, Iraq is no longer on the list because “the Iraqi government has expressly undertaken steps to enhance travel documentation, information sharing, and the return of Iraqi nationals subject to final orders of removal.”
2. The order only applies to people who do not already have a visa, which was a point of confusion for the last order. Therefore, green card-holders and current visa-holders will not be affected.
3. There is no longer an exception for people of minority religions. The previous order and subsequent comments by President Trump included a not-so-subtle hint that Christian refugees could be prioritized.
4. Decisions on applications for refugee status are suspended for 120 days, just like the old EO.
5. The cap for the number of refugees that the U.S. will take in 2017 is now set at 50,000 people. The Obama Administration had previously set a goal to accept 110,000 refugees in 2017 (which led to that stupid Skittles tweet).
6. The indefinite ban on Syrian refugees has been changed to a ban for a 120-day period, during which the refugee program will be reviewed.

As CNN reported, this new executive order was originally planned to be signed last Wednesday. However, after the unexpectedly positive reception of Trump’s address to Congress, the administration decided to ride the wave of positive coverage before instituting an order that surely would ruffle some feathers.

If you need any proof that the Trump Administration was right to expect that the new order would make people angry, within minutes of the announcement of the order’s signing, organizations like the ACLU  released statements criticizing the new ban.

Just in: @ACLU statement on new Trump travel ban — “a scaled-back version that shares the same fatal flaws” pic.twitter.com/WSaKmTkcSJ

— David Mack (@davidmackau) March 6, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About President Trump’s New Travel Ban appeared first on Law Street.

In a time when anti-immigrant sentiments are spreading through the western world, we don’t often get hear about good news. But here’s some: Ali Sonko is a Gambian immigrant who spent 14 years working as a dishwasher in the Michelin-starred restaurant Noma in Copenhagen, and he was just named co-owner. He will take on new duties as a host and own stakes in the company; he will share 10 percent with two other managers. The star chef and co-owner René Redzepi owns about 20 percent and the rest is divided over four business partners. But Sonko says he will still spend time by the sink and wash plates, like he is used to. “I am so happy,” he said.

Heartwarming #Gambia story as dishwasher, and Gambian immigrant, becomes part owner of Michelin star restaurant. https://t.co/zxjQ8unv9u

— Jim Wormington (@jwormington) March 3, 2017

Redzepi said he had a special connection with Sonko, as he shares a first name with Redzepi’s father, who also was a Muslim immigrant–an Albanian born in Yugoslavia. He also worked as a dishwasher when he came to Denmark in the 1970s. Of Sonko, Redzepi said: “He has spent every hour of his life at that restaurant, works hard and hardly takes a day off. He is a great example of an immigrant done good.” The restaurant recently closed its original location and is rebranding itself as an urban farm. It plans to open again in December.

Sonko is 62, has 12 children, and used to be a farmer in Gambia. He fell in love with a Danish woman when on vacation in Denmark, and moved there 34 years ago. When asked about immigration in Denmark, he said, “Everybody does their best.”

Denmark, along with many other countries in Europe, has seen a rise in far-right ideology.  The right-wing Danish People’s Party has seen new success. In the middle of February, the party was criticized for handing out flyers with fake one-way tickets for immigrants to go “home,” to a destination that translates to “far away-istan.”

Ali takes down the sign pic.twitter.com/VRyL77yV0q

— Rene Redzepi (@ReneRedzepiNoma) February 26, 2017

Denmark recently passed a law that requires immigrants to hand over any jewelry or expensive personal belongings as they enter the country, to help pay for their stay. Earlier this week, right-wing politician Inger Stojberg published an opinion piece in a newspaper in which she called a Syrian immigrant family “greedy” and accused them of abusing the Danish welfare system.

When the Noma staff traveled to Britain in 2010 to receive a prize for being the world’s best restaurant, Sonko couldn’t join the team since he couldn’t go to Britain without a visa, despite having lived in Denmark for 34 years. So to show their appreciation of him, everyone from the restaurant wore a t-shirt with his portrait during the ceremony. And by the time Noma received that prize for the third time in 2012, Sonko could come along.

“Ali is the heart and soul of Noma. I don’t think people appreciate what it means to have a person like Ali in the house. He is all smiles, no matter how his 12 children fare,” Redzepi said in a recent speech to his staff.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Noma: Famous Restaurant Just Named its Immigrant Dishwasher a Co-Owner appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Felix Walworth received the contract from the organizer of the music festival he would soon be playing, South by Southwest (SXSW). “If SXSW determines, in its sole discretion, that showcasing acts or their representatives have acted in ways that adversely affect the viability of their official SXSW showcase, the following actions are available to SXSW,” the contract said. It listed a number of consequences, including: “SXSW will notify the appropriate U.S. immigration authorities of the above actions.”

Walworth, whose band Told Slant was slated to perform at the festival in Austin, Texas next week, promptly tweeted his response:

After looking through this contract sent to me by sxsw I have decided to cancel Told Slant’s performance at the festival pic.twitter.com/rI2Xv0duJl

— Told Slant (@Felixixix666) March 2, 2017

Unlike other festivals that focus on a few major headliners and medium-level acts, SXSW, which had its inaugural festival in 1987, is one of the world’s premier showcases for emerging artists. According to Roland Swenson, the festival’s managing director, 62 international artists are slated to perform at this year’s festival. This year, SXSW will feature an event called “Contrabanned: #MusicUnites,” which will host acts from countries affected by President Donald Trump’s failed travel ban.

After Walworth, also a member of the bands Eskimeaux and Bellows, canceled his performance, Swenson issued a statement. “We were sorry to learn that one of our invited performers chose to cancel his performance at this year’s SXSW Music Festival due to a misunderstanding of our policies regarding international artists,” he said. Swenson continued:

We understand that given the current political climate surrounding immigration, the language that was published seems strong. Violating U.S. immigration law has always carried potentially severe consequences, and we would be remiss not to warn our participating acts of the likely repercussions.

Swenson said the clause in question is intended as “a safeguard to provide SXSW with a means to respond to an act that does something truly egregious, such as disobeying our rules about pyrotechnics on stage, starting a brawl in a club, or causing serious safety issues.”

Other artists, 35 as of Friday afternoon, joined Walworth in demanding SXSW to apologize, and to “immediately drop this clause from their contract.” In a letter directed at SXSW, the artists said: “SXSW is a well respected institution and has a responsibility to show leadership by refusing to collaborate with the government’s campaign of fear and hate toward non-citizens.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SXSW Contract Threatens to Report Artists to U.S. Immigration Authorities appeared first on Law Street.

By now, you’ve probably heard the story of Daniela Vargas, a 22-year-old woman who, at the age of seven, was brought to America by her family from Argentina on a visa waiver program. On Wednesday, the Huffington Post reported that Vargas, a Dreamer, was arrested by ICE agents immediately after she spoke about her father and brother, both of whom were detained by ICE agents because of their expired visas, at a news conference put together by immigration advocates in Jackson, Mississippi. Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that her attorney said that Vargas was set to be deported without a court hearing because she entered the country using the visa waiver program, which abdicates an individual’s right to contest their removal.

Vargas is now being held at an ICE facility in Louisiana, and shared a message through her attorney that the Huffington Post has published: “I don’t understand why they don’t want me. I’m doing the best I can,” part of the statement reads. It continues:

There’s so much that I can bring to the table, so much, like I can even teach music, I’m an excellent trumpet player you can ask my mom about any of that.  I’m great with math, I speak Spanish. You know, there’s a lot of stuff that I can do for this country that they’re not allowing me to do. I’ve even tried to join the military, and I can’t do that. But, I mean that’s not the point, the whole point is that I would do anything for this country.

Her story has sparked outrage from many, and a petition started by the immigrant rights group United We Dream has collected almost 20,000 signatures. While there are many people on both sides of the argument, from people who are fuming at the injustice of the government’s treatment of Vargas to those who think an illegal immigrant is recklessly breaking the law, another perspective has emerged below the fold. It manages to walk the tight-rope between the two binaries and mixes performative empathy with a subtle “rules are rules” detachment. This perspective argues that this whole situation could have been prevented if Vargas had only managed her money better.

The reason why ICE has detained Vargas is because she is not technically a Dreamer with DACA status. According to the Huffington Post, Vargas’ DACA status expired in November and she only recently applied for DACA status again on February 10 because she was raising money for the $495 application fee that those under the reprieve of DACA are required to pay to renew their work permit.

Multiple immigration advocacy websites caution DACA recipients to be cognizant of their renewal dates and of the importance of saving up for the renewal fee. United We Dream recommends that one should renew their DACA status about five months before their status expires. The organization also outlines a variety of savings and fundraising advice for the renewal fee, as well as the opportunity for a fee exemption, though the chances of getting that exemption are very slim.

Some have pointed to Vargas’ inability to prioritize her DACA application fee as the reason why it is so hard for them to sympathize with her. Why didn’t she treat her payment with more urgency? Why doesn’t this 22-year-old have her priorities in order?

The $495 is a fee Vargas absolutely should have paid and planned for. Could she be characterized as mildly irresponsible for not paying this on time? Maybe. But according to the 2016 Consumer Financial Literacy Survey, one out of every five Americans do not pay their bills on time. The difference between these people and Vargas is that when they do have an overdue bill, a government official doesn’t show up to detain them and throw them in a detention facility to be deported.

A distinct freedom in America is the freedom to fail–the freedom to make a small mess and, as the saying goes, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on. This is a freedom that is not afforded to people like Vargas who were brought to this country with no choice. People who were raised as Americans and with the privileges that that identity allows, only to be brutally reminded when they reach adulthood that they are not Americans–that they are something else entirely, and every one of their failures is amplified to a dehumanizing degree.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Story of Daniela Vargas: The “Dreamer” About to be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is getting some praise for his joint address to Congress–specifically his tone and the fact that he didn’t say anything too racist while he was addressing the nation. However, there was one moment during his speech that elicited a groan from his audience. This is not a groan in the abstract sense, but a literal groan. It was when Trump introduced the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office (VOICE).

As Trump outlines in his speech, VOICE is supposed to provide a voice (oh, I get it now!) for those who have been affected by crimes committed by illegal immigrants. However, the language Trump used in his speech was vague to say the least.

So what actually is VOICE? Here’s a quick breakdown of where this office came from, what it is, and whether it really is groan-worthy.

VOICE comes from a January 25 Executive Order

Trump has signed a lot of executive orders since he got into office. The one that VOICE is related to was signed on January 25 and called “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” It concerns issues related to illegal immigration and the expansion of the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS oversees the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).

Aside from threatening to restrict federal funds from jurisdictions that don’t turn over detained illegal immigrants and authorizing the DHS secretary to allow state and local officials to effectively act as immigration officers, the EO calls for two actions that are instrumental to VOICE:

1. The creation of something called the “Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens,” an office that provides professional services to victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This is basically the start of VOICE (although without that super-cool and snazzy title).
2. An alteration to the Privacy Act so that persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents are exempt from certain protections.  This is a break from a Bush Administration action that required agencies like the DHS  to afford undocumented immigrants certain privacy rights. According to the New York Times, some of these Privacy Act rights included blocking information obtained by an agency from being shared with other agencies like ICE.

We’ve known about VOICE for almost two weeks now

On February 20, two DHS memos from Secretary John Kelly that were circulating for a while were reported by McClatchy. These memos outlined how the DHS planned to follow through on the executive order’s provisions. One of these memos establishes VOICE, which serves as a “programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims of crimes committed by removable aliens.” The office plans to provide victims, “to the extent permitted by law,” information about crimes committed by illegal immigrants and victims’ families with information about the suspect, such as their immigration status and custody status.

The memo also directs the Director of ICE to reallocate resources used to “advocate on behalf of illegal aliens” to VOICE instead, and “to immediately terminate the provision of such outreach or advocacy services to illegal aliens.”

It also directs ICE to develop the weekly report that Trump called for in the EO. The memo highlights that the ICE Director will develop a weekly report on a medium that can be accessed by the public.

So what does VOICE do exactly? 

What VOICE does is give victims a voice by not giving illegal immigrants the benefits of the Privacy Act which, with the help of Trump’s executive order, is now a lawful practice for government agencies. VOICE would allow victims to have access to their offenders’ information that had been previously withheld by agencies. The potential cost to immigrants here is that, according to the New York Times, those who are seeking legal status could face a harder citizenship process. According to the Chicago Tribune this could also be used to target immigrants for deportation. And since VOICE is so closely tied to privacy protections for illegal immigrants, what happens to all that information when an illegal immigrant goes through the process to become a citizen? What will the DHS do with that information?

The DHS memo seems to attempt to shed light on this issue, but with very vague language. In the memo, Kelly outlines how the DHS Privacy Office and the Office of the General Counsel will work together to “develop new guidance specifying the appropriate treatment of personal information DHS maintains in its record systems.” We still do not know exactly what that “new guidance” is, which is alarming considering Trump’s joint address has now brought the existence of VOICE to the forefront.

VOICE does a lot to tackle a small national issue

The issue with VOICE lies in its specific acknowledgment of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and framing the issue as if it is a dire national crisis. A study published by the American Immigration Council shows that not only are immigrants less likely than native-born citizens to engage in criminal behavior, but higher immigration is associated with lower crime rates.

It would be ignorant to say illegal immigrants do not commit crimes, whether violent or non-violent. But we have seen that what illegal immigrants contribute to this country is not simply violence, rape, and crime. We see that immigrants make vital contributions to this country not only in terms of taxes and labor, but through art and culture as well.

VOICE is a practice of proxy racism–it seeks to cover a racist notion of a whole people with a cynical dose of fear for terrifying uncertainties. The office would elevate the worst stories that immigrants have to offer and have them serve as referenda for these human beings as a whole. VOICE shouts over the cries of the vital and vibrant immigrant communities that so desperately want and need to be heard in this country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Need to Know About VOICE appeared first on Law Street.

In his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, President Donald Trump spoke for an hour about healing, unity, and, most uncharacteristically, America’s current greatness. The speech was a departure from past addresses in tone and demeanor–there was no “American carnage” to be found–but its content hardly tread new ground. Trump attacked Obamacare, promised to reform the tax code, and floated other ideas–some that skewed closer to Republican orthodoxy, and others that were closer to the left’s policy doctrine.

He began by denouncing bigotry and hatred, two things his opponents often accuse him of espousing: “Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City,” he said, “remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.”

In contrast to his dire Inaugural Address, or his smattering of grim remarks throughout the presidential campaign, Trump pointedly spoke to all Americans, not just the slice of the electorate that supported him. “We are one people, with one destiny,” he said. “The time for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us. We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts.” It was unclear if Trump’s mention of “trivial fights” was referring to the skirmishes he incites–he called House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “incompetent” a few hours earlier–or is he was simply condemning his detractors.

Before addressing his ideas and governing vision, Trump indulged in his election victory, and the movement he ignited, which he called a “rebellion,” and an “earthquake.” His supporters, he said, “were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first, because only then can we truly make America great again.”

To do that, Trump said, evoking the vision that shaped his campaign promises, the military would be built-up, manufacturing would make a comeback, and infrastructure would be a top priority. Trump also discussed, at length, his plans for immigration. “My job is not to represent the world,” he said. “My job is to represent the United States of America.”

He said he is open to immigration reform, as long as it would “improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.” He added: “If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.”

Earlier in the day, Trump gave a speech to TV anchors at the White House, where he floated immigration ideas that contrasted his usual sentiments. In mostly improvised remarks, he said he is open to a path to legalization for immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. He also posited the idea that children brought to the country illegally by their parents–so-called Dreamers–could attain citizenship.

But his speech to Congress made no mention of the potential changes in his thinking on immigration. Instead, he applauded the work immigration agents are doing to remove “gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very innocent citizens.” He also asked a pointed question to those in Congress who take a softer stance on immigration: “What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income or their loved one, because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?”

Toward the end of the address, Trump commemorated William “Ryan” Owens, the Navy SEAL who was killed during a raid in Yemen in January. Trump was criticized–by lawmakers and Owens’s father–for approving the raid, and has since placed blame on “the generals” and on the Obama Administration. On Tuesday night, Carryn Owens, the fallen soldier’s widow, sat in First Lady Melania Trump’s box. To a raucous standing ovation, Trump looked at Owens and said: “Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Adopts New Tone, Same Ideas, in Congressional Address appeared first on Law Street.

On January 27, the Spanish prime minister appointed Edelmira Barreira Diz to be the “Commissioner for the Demographic Challenge.” The “sex tsar,” as the media has dubbed her, will be responsible for addressing Spain’s depressed fertility rate and relieving the socioeconomic implications of an aging population. Spain is one of many European countries that have begun to recommend that their citizens have more children. Italy, Denmark, and Sweden have all launched fertility campaigns as well. While many have championed immigration as a means of easing Europe’s demographic dilemma, few governments can open their borders without facing backlash from an increasingly xenophobic European public. By sidestepping immigration, fertility campaigns represent an implicitly ethnocentric response to Europe’s aging populations.

A decreasing fertility rate is considered an important trait of economic development. European fertility rates have been dropping for decades and, as a consequence, the age of the average European is climbing. Many experts fear Europe’s growth-oriented economies are reaching an impasse. As retirees begin to make up a larger percentage of the overall population, there will be proportionally fewer young people to pick up the slack. The economic challenges these long-term trends potentially pose are beginning to loom large for many European officials.

While there is debate on whether or not the ratio of workers to retirees holds bearing over economic performance, governments throughout Europe are seemingly behaving as though it does. During the Euro-crisis, the continent’s aging population was often mentioned as a factor possibly hindering the recovery. The fact that the European Union and individual European states are working to reduce the average age of their respective populations is indicative of their belief that youth is key to ensuring long-term economic stability.

Immigrants are often pegged as quick and effective supplements to an aging labor force. However, with anti-immigrant sentiments are flaring, any argument in favor of immigration is bound to cause fervent controversy. By encouraging fertility, governments can address concerns about an aging population and avoid acknowledging the merits of immigration.

In doing so, fertility campaigns hark back to a time when fascist European governments demanded their citizens give more children to the state. Like campaigns of the past, modern efforts ignore the question of immigration and instead encourage the cultivation of a new generation of citizens who will one day contribute to continued economic growth. While seemingly tame, fertility campaigns are a resurgent trend that implicitly enforce nationalistic notions of who is valuable and who is not. Far right groups remain particularly concerned with fertility. They see high rates of domestic fertility as a source of national strength and the fertility of immigrants as a threat to the social fabric. Last year, Germany’s right wing party, Alternative for Germany, leaked a manifesto outlining policies that would incentivize German women to have three or more children.

European governments are unwilling or unable to address their perceived aging problem with policies that would upset the vociferous anti-immigrant faction. While these contemporary fertility campaigns are related in comparatively innocuous terms, they work to emphasize the value of citizens and minimize, or entirely ignore, the value of immigrants.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fertility Campaigns Fight Population Shifts but Reinforce Anti-Immigrant Sentiments appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Homeland Security issued two memos on Tuesday, establishing harsher immigration enforcement when deporting undocumented immigrants. Taken together, the rules amount to a stricter interpretation of existing laws, and the expansion of others. The new guidelines also call for hiring more federal immigration officials, and erecting new detention facilities.

With last month’s executive order on illegal immigration and Tuesday’s memos, President Donald Trump seems to be following through with one of his principal campaign promises: cracking down on undocumented immigrants.

“The faithful execution of our immigration laws is best achieved by using all these statutory authorities to the greatest extent practicable,” DHS Secretary John Kelly wrote in one of the memos. “Accordingly, department personnel shall make full use of these authorities.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday that the rules were designed to “take the shackles off” immigration officers, and that “the number one priority is that people who pose a threat to our country are immediately dealt with.”

While President Barack Obama narrowly focused on deporting gang members, repeat criminal offenders, and high-level criminals who were in the country illegally (some dubbed him the “deporter in chief”), the new order essentially widens the scope of those who could be targeted for deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

“ICE will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement,” said a fact sheet released by DHS on the order. “All of those present in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention, and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States.”

This effectively means that anyone found to have broken the federal immigration law–which is every undocumented immigrant living in the U.S.–is subject to being deported back to their home country. That does not mean this will happen, as there are roughly 11 million undocumented people living in the U.S., and there are not enough resources to deal with them all. But the new memos also call for more resources to help.

For one, the memos ask for an infusion of 10,000 new federal immigration officers. They also call for new detention facilities, and a new office within ICE to work with victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. But it is unclear how the hiring increases and new infrastructure would be funded. In addition, Kelly told lawmakers on Capitol Hill earlier this month that more officers are not necessarily needed to strengthen security.

“I’d rather have fewer and make sure that they’re high-quality people,” he said. “I will not skimp on the training and the standards.” Regardless of whether ICE is able to hire thousands of new officers, it is expanding an existing program, known as 287(g), that uses local law enforcement officers as proxy federal immigration agents. Currently, 32 agencies across 16 states comply with the program; the new memos seek to expand the number of complying agencies. Between 2006 and 2013, the program resulted in about 175,000 deportations.

Immigration activists and some lawmakers strongly oppose the new guidelines. On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), tweeted:

Instead of frightening 11 million undocumented people with deportation, we need comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 22, 2017

“When you tell state and local police that their job is to do immigration enforcement,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project told the New York Times, “it translates into the unwarranted and illegal targeting of people because of their race, because of their language, because of the color of their skin.”

One group that is seemingly safe from the heightened enforcement are undocumented children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents. Obama enacted a program, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which protects the undocumented children, or Dreamers. That program protected roughly 750,000 children. But under the new rules, their parents are at greater risk of being deported.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Homeland Security Broadens the Scope of Immigration Enforcement appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Immigration Enforcement Rules Could Affect Millions

Yesterday, the government began issuing some new guidelines for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. The new rules, detailed via a pair of memos, are very aggressive and would focus on people who are charged with or suspected of crimes–previous guidelines prioritized those who have been convicted. These crimes can include minor offenses, like abuse of government benefits or engaging in “willful misrepresentation” in any official matter.

In the memos, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly also said that officials can deport any undocumented immigrants they believe could pose a threat to national security. He also called for the hiring of 15,000 new border patrol agents and for the building of the wall on the Mexican border to begin. It is unclear how this would be funded, but millions of people could potentially face deportation.

TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON THE ‘UNDOCUMENTED’: Trump’s new barbaric order can literally rip a family apart for jaywalking https://t.co/rIYXPjA20k

— Bill Madden (@activist360) February 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow, in the nation’s capital, people will have a taste of what the city would be like without a vital part of its community. Immigrants across the city will either skip work or walk out of work to participate in “A Day Without Immigrants,” as The Washingtonian reported.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is meant to put the economic significance of the immigrant community on full display and to protest President Donald Trump’s recent immigration policies. The protest comes during a time in which stories about ICE raids have been reported across the country, including one instance in which a Mexican immigrant in Seattle who had previously been protected from deportation under the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy was detained by ICE agents.

According to The Washingtonian, multiple well-known restaurants such as Compass Rose, Bar Pilar, and Pearl Drive Oyster Palace will stand in solidarity with their employees who are protesting, and will possibly close if they are too short-staffed.

Speaking to The Washingtonian, Compass Rose owner Rose Previte said, “We’re just going to go with what we have that day and tell customers, ‘This is what happens when immigrants don’t come to work.’”

Multiple restaurants and restaurant owners have taken to social media to highlight their solidarity with the striking workers.

In solidarity with our immigrant tribe we will close for the day on Thursday for our staff to join in #ADayWithoutImmigrants.

— Busboys and Poets (@busboysandpoets) February 15, 2017

In support of our people & #ADayWithoutImmigrants Thurs 2/16 we will not open @jaleo DC CC MD, @zaytinya or @oyameldc #ImmigrantsFeedAmerica

— José Andrés (@chefjoseandres) February 14, 2017

Staff & customers from around the world are integral to our business & community. Kitchen will be closed Thursday #ADayWithoutImmigrants

— Ivy and Coney (@ivyandconey) February 15, 2017

Public and charter schools in the District will not be participating in the protest and will function on normal hours, according to The Washington Post. However, schools expect many of their teachers and staff members to participate in the protest.

Per The Washington Post:

The chief of schools for D.C. Public Schools, John Davis, sent a note to principals in the school system saying that while many people may participate in the boycott, school will continue as normal and staff and students are expected to be in attendance.

‘We highly value and are committed to fostering a learning environment where staff and students feel safe and secure and we respect the right to self-expression and peaceful protest,’ the letter says.

Some restaurants that have announced their solidarity with their staff members–like Meridian Pint, which is located in the Columbia Heights neighborhood–are located in areas of D.C. that have a high concentration of Latino immigrants.

The protest was spread through social media and flyers that have appeared around the city.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is similar to the “Day Without Latinos” rally held in Wisconsin yesterday. These rallies aren’t the first immigrant-focused protests that have taken place since President Trump’s inauguration. Earlier this month, Yemeni-owned bodegas around New York City shut down in protest of the travel ban.

For those targeted by the latest Republican divide & conquer, look around and remember this: you are not alone. @daywithoutlatinos pic.twitter.com/1vuF6QZ6Oa

— Chris Larson (@ChrisJLarson) February 13, 2017

In addition, on Friday, a “General Strike Against Trump” is taking place in cities across the country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post D.C. Will Have “A Day Without Immigrants” Protest Tomorrow appeared first on Law Street.

Two senators aren’t just looking to prevent illegal immigration–they want to scale back legal immigration too.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Sen. David Perdue (R-Georgia) have introduced a bill called the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act, which aims to slash overall immigration to the U.S. by 40 percent over the next year and 50 percent in the next 10 years.

If approved, the bill would limit the number of refugees who obtain permanent residence to 50,000 a year and end the diversity visa lottery, which distributes 50,000 visas annually to citizens of countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S.

Though Perdue said reducing immigration would “help improve the quality of American jobs and wages,” one Democratic senator argued otherwise.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) said in a statement:

This legislation sends a terrible message to the rest of the world and is unquestionably a job killer. Immigrants contribute greatly to our country’s entrepreneurial spirit, spurring job growth in New Hampshire and across the country. Cutting successful visa programs and needlessly separating immigrant families is just wrong and senseless.

While U.S. citizens are currently allowed to sponsor their spouses, parents, siblings and children for green cards, the bill mandates that moving forward, they would only be able to sponsor spouses and unmarried minor children.

Cotton said in an interview with MSNBC that the RAISE Act would curb non-skills-based immigration. Immigrants with employment-based green cards would not be affected, he said.

“It simply tries to get a handle on 1 million immigrants coming here a year, virtually none of whom are coming here based on their employment skills or demonstrated economic need,” he said. “I don’t think our immigration system is working for Americans.”

He told POLITICO that President Donald Trump’s administration has been receptive to the proposal so far.

“Donald Trump was the only one who saw that most Americans don’t like our current immigration system,” he said. “This is just the area of politics where I think leaders and elites are most disconnected from the people. Not just Republicans but in both parties, in business, in the media, in the academy, culture and so forth.”

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the RAISE Act Would Cut Back Legal Immigration appeared first on Law Street.

Starbucks announced Tuesday that it would offer free legal advice to employees regarding President Trump’s immigration executive order.

In a letter to employees, the company announced that the legal support for employees and family members would be provided via a new Immigration Advisory Program, set up in partnership with Ernst & Young. The letter stated that the company would be “leading with humanity” through the action.

Since its signing, the executive order has created massive confusion throughout the country after its hasty implementation and vague language left it unclear who exactly would be affected. As a result, many major U.S. corporations have pushed back against the order, as it would likely impact many of their employees.

Starbucks is proving to be one of the companies at the front and center of this corporate resistance. Last month, CEO Howard Schultz announced a plan to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years. In the letter to employees, Schultz additionally affirmed his support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, affordable healthcare for all employees, and the continuation of company business partnerships in Mexico. The letter demonstrated the company’s forceful opposition to many of the new administration’s main policies.

The company’s recent actions have not sat well with some Trump supporters–protestors made plans to boycott the brand as a result of its refugee hiring initiative. However, the #BoycottStarbucks trend also had the opposite effect, drumming up more support for the company.

Conservatives: #BoycottStarbucks

Me: pic.twitter.com/vTGvaWKkaf

— (@goIdenflower) January 31, 2017

Uber, Microsoft, Amazon, and many other big names in the tech industry have also vowed to provide immigration-related legal advice in the wake of the order. However, as BuzzFeed News notes, Starbucks stands out among the rest as an employer of predominantly low-wage workers.

Meanwhile, after a fairly political Super Bowl this past weekend and wave of anti-Trump retail boycotts, it’s clear that corporate America will continue to be pressured to take a stance on the current administration and its policies.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Starbucks is Offering Immigration-Related Legal Advice to its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

At almost 5 p.m. on Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, a travel ban, restricting entry to the United States. It has been dubbed by many a “Muslim ban” because of the countries it singles out and Trump’s consistent campaign promises to that effect. Chaos reigned Friday night and into Saturday, as permanent U.S. residents from those seven countries who were traveling abroad were prevented from returning home, protests were launched at numerous domestic airports, and late last night, a federal judge stayed the order for individuals with valid visas who are already in transit or being held in the U.S.

What does the Order Say?

The order is in almost every way a unilateral move by President Trump. It prevents citizens of seven countries–Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen–from entering the U.S. for 90 days. There are some narrow exceptions, but they’re limited mainly to diplomats. The order heavily invokes memories of 9/11, despite the fact that none of the countries listed were ever tied to those attacks.

Refugees, from any nation, are banned for 120 days. And per the executive order, Syrian refugees are banned indefinitely. When refugees are allowed back in, Christian refugees will be prioritized. According to the order:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

Despite claims from the Trump Administration that this is not a “Muslim ban” Rudy Giuliani claims that Trump asked him how to legally create a “Muslim ban.”

Giuliani admits Trump asked him how to “do a Muslim ban legally.” So they focused on nationality. Start at 3:00. https://t.co/9orjNwQBGy

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 29, 2017

For a closer look at the order, check out an annotated version by the New York Times.

How Does it Work in Practice?

It’s very unclear how this order is supposed to work, and from the second it was signed, it sparked confusion. Reportedly, the Department of Homeland Security–the department that has to implement it–was not consulted until right before the order was signed. Certain norms, like consulting the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, appear to have not been undertaken. And once the order was signed, the Department of Homeland Security’s legal understanding of how to deal with it was allegedly overridden by Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, a top policy aide. The “two Steves” insisted that legal permanent residents, also known as green card holders, from the listed countries be stopped from re-entering the U.S.

That implementation began. People who are legal permanent residents from the seven countries and had left the U.S. for whatever reason–students, individuals visiting family, vacationers–were restricted from coming back in to the U.S. Protests swelled at airports:

“No hate, no fear, Muslims are welcome here”

— Protests at JFK airport where people have been detained after Trump’s executive order pic.twitter.com/SvXba2C0r5

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 28, 2017

The #MuslimBan airport protests. #NoBanNoWall #Resist @realDonaldTrump @POTUS pic.twitter.com/Ulw8xcOARN

— Maxim Dmitriev (@max_dmitriev07) January 29, 2017

Airport protests at #JFK, #LAX, #SFO, Dulles, O’Hare and growing. #NoMuslimBan #NoBanNoWall #RefugeesWelcome #ResistOften pic.twitter.com/OZZ9dexGXo

— Mike Hudema (@MikeHudema) January 28, 2017

Lawyers began suing to block the order, and last night Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn ruled that the government cannot hold legal residents who are already in the U.S., or restrict those who are in transit from entering. This still leaves a lot of people in flux, and the legal battles are sure to continue. In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security said it would continue to comply with Trump’s directives.

National Outrage

The ban was immediately met with outrage.

We will not allow a Muslim ban in the United States of America. Here’s what I said at Logan Airport tonight. #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/XqeS9Iy14e

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) January 29, 2017

If you do support the #MuslimBan today, remember this: you will be remembered as the villains of our children’s history books tomorrow.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) January 28, 2017

I want to repeat: Green card holders were handcuffed, their social media was reviewed, and they were asked their views on Trump#MuslimBan

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017

It’s unclear what’s next. But the outrage is warranted–this is an unprecedented move on the part of the Trump Administration. It separates families. It screams isolationism and bigotry. It’s likely unconstitutional. And for many, it’s a nightmare.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Confusion, Chaos, and Court Orders: What’s Going on With Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez signed a memo on Thursday that orders county officials to comply with federal immigration detention requests. This order makes Miami-Dade the first jurisdiction to relinquish its status as an immigrant sanctuary, a title given to it by the Department of Justice in May of 2016, but one that the county itself has resisted.

Gimenez’s action comes a day after President Trump signed an executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” on Wednesday, which denies federal funding to sanctuary cities by instructing the Department of Homeland Security to cut its funding to these cities. This, in effect, coerces counties into cooperating with federal authorities when it comes to detaining undocumented immigrants.

Gimenez’s action directs the county’s corrections director to comply with Trump’s executive order by holding undocumented immigrants who have been detained by police for committing crimes long enough for federal authorities to pick them up, a measure that officials in many cities have resisted so far.

In 2016, the cost that the county would have incurred had it held the almost 100 undocumented inmates long enough for feds to pick them up would have been about $52,000, according to The Miami Herald, which broke the story.

In an interview with The Miami Herald, Gimenez said that his decision was a financial one, stating that “I want to make sure we don’t put in jeopardy the millions of funds we get from the federal government for a $52,000 issue. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to be arresting more people. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to be enforcing any immigration laws.”

On “Fox and Friends” this morning, Gimenez told the show’s hosts that the decision was a “no-brainer,” saying that Trump’s executive order “put an exclamation point” on the issue, and the county is merely returning to its 2014 policy honoring detention requests “regardless of the fact the governments says they’ll pay for it.”

Gimenez’s statement stands in contrast to statements made by mayors of other sanctuary cities such as Bill de Blasio of New York City. He said on CNN that the city would threaten to sue if federal funding was stripped because the city refused to turn over undocumented immigrants who commit low-level crimes. The city’s current policy states that the city will cooperate with the federal government if an undocumented immigrant commits a serious crime.

Gimenez, who voted for Hillary Clinton in the election, and called for Trump to step down as the Republican party’s nominee back in October, was praised by Trump, as the president took to Twitter yesterday afternoon to celebrate the perceived policy victory:

Miami-Dade Mayor drops sanctuary policy. Right decision. Strong! https://t.co/MtPvaDC4jM

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 26, 2017

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Miami-Dade Becomes First Jurisdiction to Comply with Trump’s Sanctuary City Order appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump has spent his first week advancing his hardline campaign promises by signing a slew of executive orders. On Wednesday, the president made his way to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) where he signed two executive orders specifically related to immigration.

The first ordered the construction of his infamous wall along the southern border. The second order demanded federal agents implement more aggressive deportation practices, calls on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hire 10,000 new agents, allows local law enforcement officers to act as immigration officers, and, finally, block federal grants to so-called “sanctuary cities.” In spite of these developments, officials in sanctuary cities and jurisdictions are already standing in defiance.

According to the New York Times, four states, 364 counties, and 39 cities have laws on their books that limit the ability of local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with ICE and/or forbids local authorities from inquiring into one’s immigration status. When local authorities arrest someone, they fingerprint them and share the information with ICE. If ICE finds the detainee is undocumented, they ask local authorities to hold the person for 48 hours longer than they normally would. However, DHS has stated these detainer requests are optional as jailing an individual without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. It seems the president, or more likely his advisors, are aware that they cannot legally force local jurisdictions to comply but that they can possibly coerce local jurisdictions into cooperation by imposing economic sanctions.

Executive orders are not policies in a typical sense and were traditionally implemented as a means of guiding existing laws rather than fabricating new, broad-sweeping ones. While President Trump’s orders are strong statements of intent, they are decidedly vague. There is no telling how much funding and what kinds of grants President Trump intends to deny to sanctuary jurisdictions. The Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota v. Dole that the federal government can restrict funding to indirectly achieve federal objectives, but those mandates cannot be “unduly coercive.” While this may prevent the Trump administration from halting all funding, defiant jurisdictions risk massive and unexpected cuts.

Concerned officials in Washington, D.C. warned that, depending on what the Trump administration decides is constitutionally “reasonable,” the city’s budget could be slashed considerably. Due to its unique status, the District has perhaps the most to lose. Nevertheless, the president’s coercive anti-immigrant order will gravely affect any and every sanctuary jurisdiction.

The president claims that the damage he intends to inflict on communities across the country is in defense of the country at large. Since the campaign, it is clear that President Trump’s anti-immigrant stand is grounded in a long-standing stereotype that immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, bring crime. In his speech at DHS headquarters, President Trump stood in front of a crowd that included the family members of people killed by undocumented immigrants to whom he gestured while claiming his measures would save “thousands and thousands of lives.” Additionally, the preamble of his executive order states that sanctuary jurisdictions “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” However, the “harm” caused by sanctuary cities and undocumented immigrants can be, and has been, measured.

Political scientists at the University of California at Riverside and Highline College found that sanctuary jurisdictions saw no statistically significant change in crime following the passage of sanctuary laws. Furthermore, a study by the American Immigration Council found that “immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime.” And these facts do not even consider discrimination in the American criminal justice system. A large body of research has shown that Latinos, and people of color in general, are disproportionately arrested and convicted. Moreover, once convicted, people of color face longer sentences than white people found guilty of the same crimes.

President Trump’s attack on sanctuaries has already met resistance, and so it is possible that funding for hundreds of communities will drastically diminish. These sanctions will place a huge strain on communities throughout the country for no good reason at all. President Trump is well aware that these communities provide a safer environment for undocumented people. Perhaps he’s forgotten that they are also home to Americans he promised to “never let down.”

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Trump’s Order to Sanction Sanctuary Cities is Met with Resistance appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that fulfilled, at least partially, his campaign promise of building a “beautiful wall” on the Mexican border. According to Trump’s spokesman Sean Spicer, the order will direct the Department of Homeland Security to use existing funds and resources to begin work on the wall, perhaps as early as next month. Drafts of another executive order signal Trump will enact strict visa bans for immigrants from “terror prone” nations. He is also expected to temporarily bar refugees from Muslim-majority countries.

Those executive orders have yet to be signed, but they imply Trump will follow through with his promise to clamp down on immigration, whether from Latin America or the Middle East and Africa. Trump signed the executive action on the Mexican border wall at the DHS headquarters Wednesday afternoon. Any additional funding for the wall, which Trump has promised will ultimately come from Mexico’s coffers, would need congressional approval.

Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

According to another executive order draft on immigration and refugees, Trump will authorize a freeze on refugees fleeing civil wars in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Exceptions will be made for religious minorities who are escaping persecution. The order will also temporarily block visas for immigrants from Muslim-majority countries–Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen–until stricter vetting procedures are in place.

“To think that Trump’s first 100 days are going to be marked by this very shameful shutting of our doors to everybody who is seeking refuge in this country is very concerning,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, told The New York Times. “Everything points to this being simply a backdoor Muslim ban.” It is unclear if Trump will block Muslims from other Muslim-dense countries–Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others–from coming to the U.S.

A draft of another executive order Trump is considering reviews bringing back CIA “black sites,” all of which President Obama shuttered during his first week in office in 2009. But the draft is clear that the Trump Administration will not bring back water torture, a move he flirted with on the campaign trail. The draft states: “no person in the custody of the United States shall at any time be subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as described by U.S. or international law.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Makes Good on Mexican Border Wall Promise appeared first on Law Street.

Cuban migrants landing on American soil without visas will no longer be afforded special treatment over migrants from other countries, President Barack Obama announced on Thursday. In eliminating the 22-year-old “wet foot, dry foot” policy, Obama made what will likely be his final move in his quest to normalize relations with the Cuban government, which has wanted the U.S. to do away with the policy for years.

The “wet foot, dry foot” policy, a 1995 revision to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, essentially allowed Cuban migrants who reached U.S. soil to stay, with or without a visa; the migrants could also apply for permanent residency. The policy favored Cuban migrants over those who fled other countries. Throughout the past few decades, tens of thousands of Cubans have taken advantage of the favorable treatment.

“By taking this step, we are treating Cuban migrants the same way we treat migrants from other countries,” Obama said in a statement. “With this change we will continue to welcome Cubans as we welcome immigrants from other nations, consistent with our laws.” Obama said the change is effective immediately, and that the Cuban government has agreed “to accept the return of Cuban nationals who have been ordered removed, just as it has been accepting the return of migrants interdicted at sea.”

At the moment, the Cuban government does not permit migrants who have been away from the country for four years or more to return. Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said Cuban officials have already agreed to repeal that law, and will allow nearly 3,000 Cubans who fled to the U.S. as part of the Mariel boat-lift of 1980 to re-enter Cuba.

Not everybody was thrilled with Obama’s decision. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) said dropping the “wet foot, dry foot” policy will “tighten the noose the Castro regime continues to have around the neck of its own people.” Menendez, who is a also a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added: “The fact is the recent ill-conceived changes in American policy towards Cuba have rewarded the regime with an economic lifeline while leaving every day Cubans less hopeful about their futures under a brutal totalitarian dictatorship.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Ends Special Asylum Rule for Cuban Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate passed a measure on Thursday that will renew the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, designed to provide asylum for Afghan translators and interpreters who assisted U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Attached to a larger bill–the National Defense Authorization Act–the measure added 1,500 additional visas to the program, which lawmakers from both parties and military officials traditionally support.

Though it easily passed by a vote of 92-7, lawmakers have been at odds during the past few months over the specifics of the measure, including how many visas should be added, and how much it would cost. Earlier this year, President Obama requested 4,000 applicants be added to the program, though the measure missed that mark by 2,500 visas. There are currently 13,000 pending applications from sanctuary-seekers.

Since U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, thousands of Afghans have assisted troops as translators and interpreters. Many face threats when they return home, from the Taliban–which remains a force in the country–other extremist groups, or even from their neighbors who may view them as traitors. The SIV program provides sanctuary for Afghan nationals who were employed for at least two years on behalf of the U.S. military, and who experience an “ongoing serious threat as a consequence of such employment.”

In August, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a vocal proponent of the program, offered a blunt warning on the Senate floor: “People are going to die,” he said to a fellow Republican who wanted to block more visas from being added to the program. “Don’t you understand the gravity of that?”

The program began in 2009 under the Afghan Allies Protection Act, and is traditionally attached as a clause to the annual military bill. This year’s bill, expected to cost $619 billion, also calls for a 2.1 percent wage increase for U.S. troops, the steepest increase since 2010. One lingering question about the SIV program is how President-elect Trump will handle it.

Three of Trump’s cabinet choices thus far are former generals, and the military is a traditional supporter of the program. But more visas would also mean more Muslims in the U.S. Throughout his campaign, Trump often targeted Muslims with harsh rhetoric, and has flirted with banning the entire faith from the country.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Renew Visa Program for Afghans Who Aided U.S. in Wartime appeared first on Law Street.

After the devastating news that Donald Trump will be the next president, so many Americans looked into moving to Canada that the country’s main immigration website crashed. New Zealand was also a popular choice for American citizens looking to flee the country. The Canadian website was down several times on Tuesday night as it became clear that Trump was taking the lead.

The Canadian Immigration website has crashed. Seriously. #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/XXSfCorTd1

— Cause We’re Canadian (@MadelnCanada) November 9, 2016

Lisa Filipps from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada told CNN that the website crashed due to the high number of visitors, but that they were working on getting it up again. It topped Google’s search statistics, along with “how to impeach a president.”

”How to move to Canada” and “how to impeach a president” were just some of the breakout Google queries last night https://t.co/Lw8ATkiyNQ pic.twitter.com/fIYNSfxyoJ

— Fast Company (@FastCompany) November 9, 2016

Many celebrities, like Amy Schumer, Cher, Lena Dunham and Samuel L. Jackson, have threatened to move north if Trump won. On Tuesday night, comedian Ben Schwartz was going to joke about an overloaded immigration website, only to realize it was actually happening.

I was gonna write this as a joke but found out it was real. “The Canada Citizenship and Immigration site crashed around 8 PM” #electionnight

— Ben Schwartz (@rejectedjokes) November 9, 2016

And some Canadian towns even started marketing themselves at Americans, like the island of Cape Breton on the east coast that promoted itself as a safe and quiet refuge for Americans wishing to escape in case Trump won. New Zealand’s main immigration website received 1,593 registrations from the U.S. since November 1, more than 50 percent of what it usually sees over the course of a month.

But it’s not as easy as you may think to just “go move,” even if you are an American. The rules are pretty similar to immigration laws in the U.S. You need a job offer, a spouse, to be wealthy, or a winning ticket in a citizenship lottery. And first of all–you need to get on to the website.

Some Trump supporters had their own ideas about where to go if Trump didn’t win.

I’M MOVING TO RUSSIA IF TRUMP LOSES

— MADAME (@MagicRoyalty) August 23, 2016

But as some people pointed out, you could make more of a difference not by fleeing but by moving to a swing state.

Hey liberals: don’t move to Canada.
Move to Ohio, Florida, North Carolina.

— Dred (@MildredVon) November 9, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If you Want to Move to Canada, Don’t Check Out the Canadian Immigration Website appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Adam Crapser, 41, who was born in South Korea but adopted by an American couple at age three, has brought a lot of attention to the issue of international adoptees who lack American citizenship. Adam Crapser’s adoptive parents never filled out the necessary paperwork and now he faces deportation to a country he hasn’t seen since he was three, where he has no family or friends, and knows neither the language nor the culture. According to a Korean-American advocacy group, about 35,000 adoptees in the country lack U.S. citizenship, many times because the parents don’t know they need to fill out certain paperwork.

They grew up as American citizens, then learned that they weren’t @PriscillaStoneS @adam_crapser @NYAdoptEquality https://t.co/o8A9E1u7Fb

— Frank Ligtvoet (@frank_ligtvoet) September 3, 2016

Adam Crapser, who until recently lived in Vancouver, Washington, with his two daughters and pregnant wife, was adopted with his sister and taken to the U.S. His only belongings when he arrived were a Korean bible, a pair of rubber shoes, and a stuffed dog. But seven years later the parents, who had been abusive the whole time and punished the siblings by locking them in a dark basement, changed their minds and abandoned the kids. At age ten, Adam Crapser was separated from his sister and passed through several different foster homes.

By the time he was 12, Thomas and Dolly Crapser adopted him, but that didn’t make life easier. The couple also had two other adopted kids and several foster children, and all of them were abused. The parents allegedly taped the children’s mouths shut with duct tape, slammed their heads into door frames, and hit them. According to the AP, the couple was arrested on charges of physical and sexual abuse and rape in 1991, but Thomas only got 90 days in jail and Dolly three years of probation.

.@repzoelofgren what can be done to help #adamcrapser? https://t.co/3w4Hcx4MLr Appalling abuse by ICE after a lifetime of abuse.

— Peter Delevett (@peterdelevett) October 27, 2016

Before the Crapsers were criminally charged, they had kicked Adam Crapser out of their home before he had any chance to collect his belongings. In an attempt to retrieve his Korean bible and rubber shoes from when he was little, he broke into their house, which led to charges of burglary. Later in life he got in trouble with the law for unlawful possession of a firearm, assault after a fight with his roommate, and for calling a son he had with an ex-girlfriend despite a protection order.

“I made a lot of mistakes in my life, and I’m not proud of it,” Adam Crapser told the New York Times magazine. “I’ve learned a lot of lessons the hard way.”

As a sister and mother of international adoptees, this story breaks my heart and infuriates me in all kinds of ways. https://t.co/GgVYKIzr4D

— Jeanne Ryan (@Jeanne_Ryan) October 28, 2016

In 2000, Congress passed a law that gives automatic citizenship to adoptees, but only future adoptees or children under 18. Adam Crapser wasn’t covered but had to apply by himself. At the beginning of the year he came onto the immigration authorities’ radar when he applied for a green card and his previous convictions showed up. Another law, that was made stricter after 9/11, made him deportable because of his previous crimes. Even though he is now a responsible father of three, soon to be four, he was taken away from his family and put in an immigration detention center for nine months. During a hearing on Monday, he waived an appeal since he desperately wants to get out of there and be with his family.

“He will be deported as soon as Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes the necessary arrangements,” his attorney Lori Walls said to the AP. “Adam, his family, and advocates are heartbroken at the outcome.”

That someone who was taken from his home country at such a young age will now be sent off to a place completely alien to him and forced to split up from his wife and children, simply because of neglectful adoptive parents, has caused an uproar on social media. Many are pleading for the White House to step in.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Korean-American Man Who Was Adopted When He Was Three to Be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI–check out Law Street’s best of the week. Our top stories include Texas A&M’s use of technology in legal education, President Obama’s historic sexual assault bill, and the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration mistake.

1. 7 Ways Texas A&M is Using the Digital Era to Change Legal Education

Chocolate and sea salt, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, legal education and technology…these are all pairings that at first glance don’t seem like they mix together too well, but truly are the perfect combinations. And while legal education has traditionally been a field that hasn’t necessarily embraced the latest offerings in technology, one school in particular has broken away from the pack, and has begun offering innovative programs to students that embrace the power of technology. Texas A&M University School of Law has designed four programs–an LL.M. in Risk Management, an M.Jur in Risk Management, an LL.M in Wealth Management, and an M.Jur in Wealth Management–that use technology to bring innovative legal education to both lawyers and non-lawyers looking to expand their educations and skill sets. Read the full article here.

2. President Obama Signs Historic Sexual Assault Bill into Law

On Friday October 7 President Obama signed the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights; the most comprehensive sexual assault legislation to date. The new bill is a combination of existing laws from different states and will help make sure that rape survivors always know where their evidence is located, whether it has been tested, and the results. Previously, the legislation around rape and the handling of rape kits–the kit with materials and instructions for gathering evidence following a rape–has been unclear and repeatedly criticized. Read the full article here.

3. How Did the DHS Mistakenly Grant Citizenship to 858 Immigrants?

An Associated Press report released in September revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had “erroneously” granted at least 858 immigrants American citizenship. Typically, in any presidential election season, political parties would seize on a report like this, and would try to spin it to win the election. An issue concerning immigration is a political match to be lit, and the reactions could be explosive. Considering immigration reform has been one of the top priorities for legislators, the report may be especially relevant. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Is controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s time in office almost up? On Tuesday, news broke that the federal government will file criminal contempt-of-court charges against Arpaio for ignoring orders from a judge. Arpaio was ordered to stop his anti-immigration policies in Arizona, but didn’t comply.

Two days later, activists from a movement called Bazta Arpaio stood outside of the Phoenix sheriff’s office holding a balloon modeled to look like Arpaio in handcuffs. Their organizer Del Palacio said: “The community is excited. They know that this is the best chance we have to get him out of office. Momentum is on our side.”

Today Joe Arpaio goes to court for violating a judges order. Who the criminal now, Joe? #bAZtaArpaio #NoMoreHate @CASEActionAZ pic.twitter.com/mDpT6Tiln2

— Hugo Soto (@HugoSotoLA) October 11, 2016

The group is urging Hispanic people to vote against Arpaio, both to kick him out of office and also with the hopes that it will increase voter participation. The sheriff is seeking a seventh term, and has also been campaigning for Donald Trump, so the new criminal charges came at a pretty bad time for him.

Members of the Bazta Arpaio group said that he has abused their community for a long time and it is time to get him out of office. They will focus on door knocking and campaigning in Latino neighborhoods and will also drive around a red bus spreading their message.

Berta, an organizer w #baztaarpaio and one of Arpaio’s victims, encourages voters to kick him out of office nov. 8 pic.twitter.com/VFzKX14nxN

— Tania A. Unzueta (@_LaTania) October 13, 2016

The court process has been going on since 2008, when some civil rights groups filed a lawsuit regarding racial profiling in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. This led to findings of a pattern of racial bias and in 2013 Arpaio was told to stop his immigration-enforcement operations. These included racial profiling of Hispanic people at traffic stops, patrols in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, and detaining people solely based on their perceived immigration status.

In May of this year the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, found Arpaio was guilty of civil contempt of court for ignoring his orders. The official charges were announced on Tuesday. Arpaio has said he didn’t defy the orders on purpose. But if found guilty, the 84-year-old self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” could face six months in jail.

In his statement on the case, Arpaio blamed Obama for being corrupt and the DOJ of charging him for political reasons.

Here is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s two-part statement about the corrupt DOJ charging him for enforcing our immigration laws. It’s a MUST read. pic.twitter.com/7LhZQXectZ

— Jeremy Nolt (@RealJeremyNolt) October 11, 2016

According to experts, this is more of a symbolic move from the judge. “He’s really taking a stance that ‘Sheriff Joe’ is not above the law. That anyone can be held accountable for their behavior–even if you’re a very popular sheriff,” said criminal justice professor Cara Rabe-Hemp.

Arpaio is an outspoken Trump supporter who joined the fight to find out the “truth” about Obama’s birth certificate. He has also become known for forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outside. No matter how the election in November goes, Del Palacio and other activists have their minds set on not letting him get re-elected as sheriff. “Regardless of what happens in the trial, we’re going to remain focused to ensure that his tenure ends on November 8” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Arizona Voters Come Together to Remove “America’s Toughest Sheriff”? appeared first on Law Street.

An Associated Press report released in September revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had “erroneously” granted at least 858 immigrants American citizenship. Typically, in any presidential election season, political parties would seize on a report like this, and would try to spin it to win the election. An issue concerning immigration is a political match to be lit, and the reactions could be explosive. Considering immigration reform has been one of the top priorities for legislators, the report may be especially relevant.

Pundits are asking questions about whether this report showed the Obama administration attempting to streamline citizenship applications to get more Democratic voters. Republican officials are seizing on an email asking Homeland Security employees to work overtime in order to process more applications. Then again, this may be a case of an honest mistake, one where overworked bureaucrats may have overlooked a key step in admitting immigrants into our country.

In large bureaucracies like the U.S. federal government, administrative errors do occur, but the scope of this issue has raised concerns about who was granted citizenship, where we went wrong, and asking what can we do to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

The Inspector General Report

The Associated Press highlights an Inspector General’s report, titled “Potentially Ineligible Individuals Have Been Granted U.S. Citizenship Because of Incomplete Fingerprint Records,” regarding a review on whether the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services successfully uses its fingerprint record database to access any applicant’s information. The 24-page report showed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is still grappling with digitizing its old records, and this lag in information can spread to other agencies in the attempt to legitimately do background checks on immigrant applicants.

When considering an immigrant from a “special interest country,” places that pose a risk to U.S. national security or have high rates of immigration fraud, applies for citizenship, it becomes very important to conduct a background check. The check makes sure that the immigration applicant does not misrepresent who they are for the sake of admission into the country. Additionally, a background check is a reliable tool for apprehending criminals who are trying to enter the contract for intentionally unlawful purposes. The fingerprint database can be accessed either before or after an interview with an ICE officer. The check into the database allows a verification into the identity of the applicant, and any lapse in consistent ‘digital bookkeeping’ can undermine that responsibility.

This lapse is what allowed the more than 800 immigrant applicants to be granted citizenship (and avoid deportation) because the Department of Homeland Security did not have reliable digital archiving, rendering the appearance that these applicants had clean backgrounds.

While the 858 immigrants that were granted citizenship do not appear to be an imminent threat to the United States, most come from “special interest countries.” Although the report does not define which countries fall under the “special interest” category, countries that are currently in conflicts or have high rates of immigration fraud such as Syria, Iran, or Yemen can be considered to be some of those in question. Applicants may use different names and birthdays, and without cross-checking fingerprint information, it becomes hard to weed out those who are illegally attempting to enter the country.

Once anyone receives their citizenship, they receive the corresponding American rights and privileges. The report shows that three applicants had gone on to receive jobs handling classified information. One received a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, allowing access onto secure naval bases or ships. The other two received Aviation Worker credentials, granting access to secure areas in airports. Another immigrant went into law enforcement. Ever since the Inspector General’s report, all credentials have been revoked.

Apart from the staggering number of immigrants that were admitted wrongfully, the report sheds light on America’s information gap between its federal agencies. Fingerprint records were not consistently acquired in the same way. One agency may have fingerprint files that are not digitized at all, while another may have an entire online archive. This makes it difficult for agencies that need to coordinate with each other in order to successfully perform their operations.

The Agency Info-Gap

In order to talk about what information is needed to successfully complete an immigration application into the United States, it is necessary to point out the steps people need to take to get past the review process in general.

The video below outlines initial actions an applicant needs to take before an interview with an ICE official:

The sample video from ICE below shows how an interview usually happens, including what questions are asked and how to answer them:

Throughout the citizenship process, ICE has to conduct background checks, which includes searching fingerprint information. If you are from a “special interest country,” there are some additional steps necessary to complete the process, such as cross-referencing your information with the FBI fingerprint database.

The problem is that agencies have inconsistent information acquisition, which means that everyone has a different way of receiving and storing their information. The Department of Homeland Security only started to consistently digitally archive its fingerprint bank in 2010. The act of digitally uploading and archiving fingerprints is a tedious process, which may not catch up with the stream of citizenship applications. According to an email that urges DHS employees to speed up their application review process, the end of the year is a time when applications are at an especially high volume. When the priority is to successfully process applications, certain security protocols can slow the down the process, especially if agency cross-referencing is necessary.

The Inspector General’s report points out that 148,000 immigrants who have final deportation orders or who are criminals or fugitives do not have their fingerprints digitized. If these immigrants have any criminal record, it becomes difficult to proceed with a case against them if there is no way to confirm their identity. The FBI can only do so much if there is no digitized record of an individual in its system.

In a statement regarding his report, DHS Inspector General John Roth said:

This situation created opportunities for individuals to gain the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship through fraud. To prevent fraud and ensure thorough review of naturalization applications, USCIS needs access to these fingerprint records. DHS agreed with our recommendations. ICE has plans to digitize and upload all available fingerprint records, and the Department has told us it plans to review the eligibility of each naturalized citizen whose fingerprint records reveal a deportation order under a different identity. We will continue to monitor DHS’ progress.

Why This Is So Important

Immigration is consistently ranked as one of the top concerns for American voters every election year. After the failed Gang of Eight immigration reform bill, the attempt at reaching consensus on immigration has fizzled. Both sides of the debate have become more partisan in nature, making it very difficult to strike a deal and get a bill passed through Congress. Donald Trump started off his presidential race with a pitch accusing Mexican immigrants of bringing drugs into the country, whereas Democrats are pointing out that illegal immigration amounts to millions of individuals just overstaying their visas.

No matter the root cause of a broken immigration system, one thing that can always streamline the process of admitting new immigrants is by having a uniform background check system that is archived online for easy access. Currently, ICE checks fingerprints through two systems: the FBI’s Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). Although an agency may have different reasons for checking a fingerprint file, the archive has to be universal so as to make a search as efficient as possible.

Immigrants make up 13 percent of the total U.S. population as of 2014, according to the Migration Policy Institute, and that percentage only continues to grow. Critics point out that if the issue with immigration is that there are too many people who are here illegally, and that is due to overstayed visas, it may be an administrative issue on the federal government’s end that needs to be resolved. One example is a gap in digitized information that the government needs to archive so that it is easier to catch immigrants that may be of higher concern for the country.

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Did the DHS Mistakenly Grant Citizenship to 858 Immigrants? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court kicked off a new term on Monday by rejecting hundreds of appeals that built up over the summer recess. Because of the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah, which commemorates the Jewish New Year, the justices did not hear any arguments on Monday. Three of the eight justices are Jewish. Arguments are scheduled to begin on Tuesday. Here are five cases that will not be heard by the high court this coming term.

Death Row Appeal

From 2009 to 2013, death row inmates in North Carolina were allowed to review sentencing statistics to prove their sentencing was tainted by racial bias under the Racial Justice Act. Four inmates–three African-Americans and one Native American–had their death sentences reduced to life in prison with no parole because of the newly enacted law. But North Carolina’s Supreme Court vacated the reduced sentences last December, after the Racial Justice Act was annulled in 2013, meaning the inmates’ death sentences could be reinstated.

The inmates sought to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected their appeal on Monday. Their cases will be retried at the state level. North Carolina has not performed an execution in 10 years.

Obama Immigration Appeal

In late 2014, President Obama announced a proposal to shield illegal immigrants who met certain residency requirements and stopped children who were U.S. citizens from being deported. Twenty-six states sued, claiming Obama was overstepping his authority, and the Supreme Court, operating as an eight person bench due to Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February, ruled in a 4-4 decision against the administration.

On Monday, the high court weighed an appeal from the Obama administration to reconsider his proposal when a ninth member joins the bench. They rejected the appeal.

Taser Gun Appeal

In 2011, police officers in North Carolina shot a man five times with a taser gun. The man, Ronald Armstrong, was mentally ill and refused to be taken to a mental hospital. He later died from the taser wounds.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the police used excessive force, and established new restrictions on police officers’ ability to use a taser gun on people resisting arrest. The U.S. Supreme will not rehear the case this term, they said on Monday, leaving in place the taser guidelines established by the lower court.

John Deere Appeal

Prior to 2013, New Hampshire’s Automobile Dealer Bill of Rights law barred automobile manufacturers from ending dealer contracts without just cause. Then, in 2013, New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan expanded the law to include farm equipment manufacturers. Led by John Deere, the newly expanded law was challenged in the state’s Supreme Court, which upheld the law.

The farm equipment firms appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which let the state court ruling stand by rejecting the appeal.

“Whitey” Bulger Appeal

James “Whitey” Bulger, the infamous Boston gangster, was arrested in 2011 after 17 years on the lam. Two years later, he was convicted of racketeering crimes, and of playing a role in at least 11 murders. Bulger, 87, appealed his 2013 conviction, arguing that a now-dead federal prosecutor promised him immunity.

His appeal to the Supreme Court was officially shut down on Monday, and he is now essentially guaranteed to spend the remainder of his life behind bars.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Kicks Off New Term with Hundreds of Rejected Appeals appeared first on Law Street.

Politicians threatening to build extravagant walls as a means to prevent refugees from entering the country are not exclusive to the likes of Donald Trump in the United States. Last week British Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill announced that the United Kingdom and France plan to erect an “anti intrusion” barrier in the northern French city of Calais. Projected to span half a mile, stand more than 13 feet tall, and cost over $2.6 million, the purported “Great Wall of Calais” will be funded by the British government to hinder would-be immigrants from illegally crossing the English Channel. The development signifies only a fraction of a $22.7 million collaborative Anglo-Franco project designed to heighten security measures between the two nations.

With construction supposedly beginning later this month, read on to learn about the complicated humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in one of Europe’s largest refugee settlements.

Welcome to the Jungle

On the outskirts of Calais lays a conglomeration of makeshift homes tokened as “The Jungle” due to the dense and oftentimes unpredictable living arrangements. While the French government proclaims the population of this community hovers around 7,000, local activists say the actual number exceeds well over 9,000 and growing daily –with roughly 70 newcomers arriving every day.

Image Courtesy of [malachybrowne via Flickr]

Migrants began to move into the area in 1999 with the formation of the original Sangatte refugee camp. Over the years the spot has emerged as a controversial haven for citizens fleeing Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Despite its closure in 2001 and 2002 by former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, migrants intending to someday relocate to England have resiliently (and perhaps strategically) stayed put. Largely attributed to Calais’ short distance from Dover, England (less than 30 miles away), the settlement predominantly attracts prospective asylum seekers adamant about making the United Kingdom their new home.

Together these men, women, and children live in highly challenging living conditions with minimal resources, not to mention face the constant threat of expulsion and ridicule from the local populace. Ironically enough, the decision to create a buffer between England and France comes after the British government was approached to accept 400 parentless refugee children. Specifically, some children living within the tent city were previously separated from their families, some of whom now reside in England.

In an attempt to solicit a stronger humanitarian response from the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury has proven to be one of the most vocal advocates for reuniting these family units, urging Parliament to expedite the process more efficiently. Today the encampment is experiencing dire food shortages and children prone to malnutrition. Currently the Refugee Community Kitchen says that there isn’t enough donated food remaining to feed all of the residents, meaning some people are being turned away.

How Could England Justify a Wall?

Many migrants in Calais are hesitant to formally register as refugees in France due to their intentions to someday relocate to England–leaving them in “legal limbo” according to a Washington Post article. Since the growing settlement is situated directly across from a major highway, historically it has been plausible for refugees to easily reach the point of crossing over to England. Because of The Jungle’s close proximity to the industrial road leading directly to the channel, some refugees clandestinely hide on trucks and ferries to reach their desired destination.

Regardless of the safety hazards presented, this past July it was estimated that up to 2,000 migrants try to illegally cross the English Channel every night. More specific numbers show that prospective migrants try to sneak into the United Kingdom every six seconds with more than 84,000 border arrests made last year–the majority hailing from Calais. In 2015 the migrant crisis made headlines when approximately 235 illegal migrants bombarded a ferry en route to England.

“People are still getting through,” said Goodwill, who spearheaded the verdict. “We have done the fences. Now we are doing the wall.” 

Logistically speaking, giant slabs of concrete will replace the trajectory of barbed wire already placed along the highway leading to the ferry terminal and underground tunnel to completely cut access. Goodwill rationalized his decision to assemble a wall by claiming it would amplify security in order to dissuade refugees from illegally traveling on England-bound lorries. 

The French Perspective

Certain French officials would put an end to the sprawling camp in a heartbeat. Back in February the French government vowed to dismantle a portion of the encampment that serves as a home for more than 1,000 people. Such animosity intensified recently after 100 migrants broke down a fence to reach the Eurotunnel terminal.

Based on a New York Times report, the prefect for Calais’ administrative department, Fabienne Buccio, is trying to incentivize migrants to abandon such squalor and move into state-run shelters or other immigration centers situated across France.

“I think that it is time to tell the migrants in Calais, who are still living in conditions that are not dignified and that are not desirable: ‘We really have a solution for you, there are no more reasons for you to stay in these conditions,’ ” said Buccio.

Earlier this summer French truck drivers and residents of Calais protested outside the outpost. A fleet of approximately 40 trucks and a number of farming vehicles marched on the highway leading to the waterway. According to the demonstrators, migrants are resorting to hazardous tactics in their pursuit to cross the English Channel. An Al Jazeera video report featured below also discusses how some migrants slashed truck tires to enter large vehicles and hide within the cargo. The CEO of the Calais port, Jean-Marc Puissesseau, expanded upon this trend saying that refugees place tree trucks, branches, and gas cylinders along the road to halt traffic and sneak into vehicles.

“This wall is going to prevent migrants from invading the highway every night,” said Puissesseau. “We can no longer continue to put up with these repeated assaults.”

Protesters also demanded that the French government compensate local businesses for the gradual loss of tourism revenue throughout the region. Locals say that the presence of refugees tarnished the city’s reputation.

Opposition to the Decree

Numerous civil society groups in both England and France have condemned their countries for their unwillingness to provide aid to these individuals forced to flee their homes out of fear of death or persecution. One grassroots organization in England called Worldwide Tribe, for example, aims to fight prejudice against refugees in Calais with compassion.

“We’re not politicians, we don’t pretend to have all the answers, and we’re not charity workers,” said Jasmine O’Hara, a member of the Worldwide Tribe in Calais, in 2015 to The Guardian “We’re just normal people from Kent who want to help our fellow human beings with their basic needs.”

The current circumstances are also soliciting a strong response from certain members of the French Green Party, such as Jean Lambert.

“The decision to build a wall in Calais is the latest wrong move in what is the ongoing scandal of the handling of the plight of refugees in northern France,” said Lambert, who serves as a migration spokeswoman for the British Green Party. “The UK government must get its act together.”

Surprisingly enough, the mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, is dubious of the upcoming project as well. From her perspective, constructing a wall would be frivolous when the city government is determined to shut down the campsite as soon as possible and supposedly assist refugees in finding alternative housing solutions. Even British truck drivers within the UK’s Road Haulage Association disapprove of the recent announcement, calling it a “poor use of taxpayer money.” Some say that funneling funds into better security precautions along the roads (specifically) would be a better investment.

Conclusion

Doctors Without Borders declared that 35 migrants from The Jungle have died while attempting to cross the English Channel. According to the non-profit organization, this proclaimed wall is likely to increase the death toll in the coming months as refugees will try to find alternative methods in reaching England–endangering their lives more so in the process.

“Further investment from the UK in security measures in the area around Calais, prioritizing deterrence over a safe and humane management of the situation, will only further the suffering of those people who remain in deplorable conditions in squalid camps,” said Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders for the British branch, Vickie Hawkins. “So far deterrence measures have not proven that they fulfill their objective, rather they have created a policy-made humanitarian crisis in northern France.”

Resources

The Local: Everything You Need to Know About the Calais Wall

Al Jazeera: UK Slate Over Planned Anti-Refugee Wall in Calais

CNN: UK to Build ‘Big New Wall’ in Calais to Stop Migrants

Redice.TV: Massive Concrete Wall Planned for Calais to Keep Migrants Out of Britain

The Washington Post: Britain and France to Construct ‘Great Wall of Calais’ to Keep Migrants From Port

The New York Times: France to Dismantle Part of Migrant Camp Near Calais

Sputnik News: Building Wall at French Calais Could Cause Humanitarian Crisis in Refugee Camp

The Huffington Post: ‘Great Wall of Calais’ Refugee Migrant Barrier to be Build in France, Robert Goodwill Confirms

BBC News: Why is There a Crisis in Calais?

Reuters: Food Shortages Hit Calais ‘Jungle’ Camp as UK urged to Accept 400 Children

The Independent: Britain to Build 13ft High Wall in Calais to Block Refugees From Entering the UK

Editor’s Note: The post has been edited to reflect that the French government has vowed to dismantle only a portion of the Calais encampment, rather than all of it.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

Late last week, one of Trump’s surrogates, Marco Gutierrez, made a bizarre comment about how “taco trucks will be on every corner” if we don’t do something to fix immigration issues in the United States. But tacos are excellent, so most people didn’t have a problem with this concept.

Here’s the clip:

Note the host of the MSNBC program, Joy Reid, was shocked by the comment, and most of the internet has followed suit to mock it.  The Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote an article exploring the potential economic impact of this over abundance of taco trucks. A taco truck parked outside a Trump event in Detroit had a fantastic sales day. And taco trucks have suddenly become a political concept.

But a lot of people also had some really fun responses to these bizarre comments. Check out some of the best tweets below:

See you November 8!#TacoTrucksOnEveryCorner #ImWithHer pic.twitter.com/dWCi0CGiSt

— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) September 4, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best ‘Taco Trucks on Every Corner’ Responses appeared first on Law Street.

Angela Corey Is Out of Office

Today people all over the web are talking about Angela Corey, mostly in celebration of her recent defeat in a re-election bid during last night’s primary. If her name doesn’t sound familiar and you aren’t sure why people are celebrating, here’s what you should know:

1. Angela Corey was the Florida prosecutor who handled George Zimmerman’s case in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. She also prosecuted Marissa Alexander, the woman who fired a warning shot at her husband in self-defense, and was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison.
2. According to Huffington Post, “Corey personally boasted one of the highest rates of death sentences in the U.S. and has sentenced more people to death than any other prosecutor in Florida.”

Totally getting wicked witch of the West vibes.

via GIPHY

Now that the attorney is officially out of office, public defenders and academics are rejoicing. Even singer John Legend had a few comments about Corey, as part of his FreeAmerica initiative:

 …Today the voters in Jacksonville and throughout Florida’s 4th Judicial Circuit have decided that Angela Corey failed in that responsibility by aggressively seeking the death penalty and egregiously charging juveniles, particularly those of color, as adults.  Her tactics have been rejected by her community, and we applaud the voters for rejecting them. This is a sign of positive things to come in our fight for a #FREEAMERICA.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Jill Stein is the nominee of the Green Party, a left-wing party focusing on environmentalism, grassroots democracy, and social justice. Stein, from Chicago, attended Harvard Medical School and practiced internal medicine in Massachusetts for 25 years. She has run for Governor of Massachusetts, the House of Representatives, other local Massachusetts offices, and was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2012. She has served as a Town of Lexington Town Meeting Representative, but has lost her other bids for public office.

Where does Jill Stein stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Jill Stein calls for an economic solution that alleviates economic inequality while simultaneously working toward a greener economy. She calls for such initiatives as a $15 minimum wage, job creation by urging the clean energy industry forward, and democratizing banks, the federal reserve, and public utilities.

Gun Rights and Control:

Stein advocates improving community mental health resources, ending the culture of drug violence, and legalizing marijuana as mechanisms to reduce gun violence. She is in favor of increased local regulation and background checks.

Healthcare:

Jill Stein hopes to replace the Affordable Care Act by extending Medicare to everybody with a single payer public health program. In Stein’s platform, she also advocates lowering the cost of prescription drugs, expanding access to contraceptives and abortion, and enhancing community health resources.

Immigration:

Stein hopes to establish a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, supports the DREAM act and deferred action for immigrants, and condemns the deportation of law-abiding undocumented immigrants.

Privacy and National Security:

In her platform, Stein expresses dedication to personal security and privacy. She supports the deauthorization of Guantanamo Bay, termination of the executive power to indefinitely imprison citizens, and other top-heavy gestures of national security. Stein also supports the repeal of the Patriot Act.

What are Jill Stein’s priorities?

Jill Stein places high priority on addressing climate change, an unfair economy that caters to corporations and the rich, and social injustice. Her platform consists of 12 points; transitioning to a green economy, establishing jobs, education, and health care as rights, ending poverty, creating a just economy, fostering racial justice, protecting mother earth, freedom and equality, justice, peace and human rights, and empowering the people.

How is Jill Stein polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Jill Stein is currently polling at 2 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Jill Stein? appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Gary Johnson is the nominee of the Libertarian Party, a party that places heavy emphasis on fiscal conservatism, limited government, and civil liberties. After studying political science at the University of New Mexico, Johnson founded Big J Enterprises. The construction contracting business became a lucrative success before he sold it in 1999. Johnson ran for Governor of New Mexico in 1994, won, and held that office from 1995-2003. During his tenure, Johnson drastically cut the size of the state government, lowered taxes, favored privatization of services like prisons and Medicaid, and was known for frequently exercising veto power. Johnson was also the Libertarian Party nominee in 2012.

Where does he stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Many of Gary Johnson’s high-priority proposals have to do with Libertarian revisions to the economy. Johnson wants to end the corporate income tax to draw companies and jobs to the U.S., introduce a single consumption tax, and cut government spending by at least 20 percent.   

Immigration:

According to Johnson’s platform, he believes that making it easier for immigrants to legally obtain work visas and enter the U.S. will create a safer national environment. Johnson opposes an increase in border security and building a border wall.

Gun Rights and Control:

Johnson strongly defends gun ownership and wants to seek provisions to make it more difficult for individuals suspected of terrorism and mentally ill individuals to obtain guns.

Health Care:

Gary Johnson favors the repeal of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for privatized healthcare based on free market principles. Johnson has expressed intentions to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid. He also supports the right for a woman to have an abortion.

Privacy and National Security:

In line with Libertarian Party ideology, Johnson is in fierce defense of personal privacy. He has expressed intention to dismantle the National Security Agency (NSA) if elected. In his book, “Seven Principles of Good Government,” Johnson also expressed that the Patriot Act should be repealed. His platform expresses fierce opposition to foreign military intervention.

What are Gary Johnson’s priorities?

Gary Johnson places strong emphasis on civil liberties, government downsizing, and the private, laissez-faire economic strategy. His platform consists of 13 points: wasteful spending, taxes, job creation, civil liberties, internet freedom, abortion, immigration, the war on drugs, criminal justice reform, education, foreign policy and national defense, creation of term limits and the environment.

Who is Gary Johnson’s vice president pick?

William “Bill” Weld, like Gary Johnson is a former Libertarian-Republican governor. Weld has served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and as Governor of Massachusetts from (1991-1997). He was also nominated as Ambassador to Mexico, ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1996, and was a candidate for Governor of New York in 2005. While Governor of Massachusetts, Weld had a similar track record to Johnson. He cut taxes, pursued the elimination of state employees and privatization of human services, and drastically reduced state spending.

How is Gary Johnson polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Gary Johnson is currently polling at 6 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Gary Johnson? appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump’s recent nude photo scandal has raised a lot of questions about her immigration to the U.S., causing people to wonder if the wife of the “Build The Wall” presidential nominee was once an illegal immigrant herself.

The speculation began after the New York Post posted photos of Melania from a nude photoshoot that took place in New York in 1995. According to Politico, this conflicts with Melania’s statements that she first came to the U.S. in 1996 and traveled every few months back to her home country of Slovenia to stamp the visa.

“I came here for my career,” Melania told Harper’s Bazaar in January, “It never crossed my mind to stay here without papers. That is just the person you are. You follow the rules. You follow the law. Every few months you need to fly back to Europe and stamp your visa. After a few visas, I applied for a green card and got it in 2001. After the green card, I applied for citizenship. And it was a long process.”

This seemingly small timeline discrepancy was enough for Politico reporters Ben Schreckinger and Gabriel Debendetti to begin poking holes into the former Slovenian’s model’s story, revealing crucial gaps. Politico writes,

Trump’s tale of returning to Europe for periodic visa renewals is inconsistent with her holding an H-1B visa at all times she was living in New York — even if it was the lesser-known H-1B visa specifically designed for models — said multiple immigration attorneys and experts. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years — sometimes longer — and would not require renewals in Europe every few months. If, as she has said, Trump came to New York in 1996 and obtained a green card in 2001, she likely would not have had to return to Europe even once to renew an H-1B.

They concluded that Melania’s story was actually more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa. If Melania was in fact using a B-1 or B-2 Visa while working in the United States, instead of an H-1B Visa, that would mean that she was working illegally in the country–making her, for all intents and purposes, an illegal immigrant.

Melania responded to the rumors on Twitter, denying the allegations with the following tweet.

pic.twitter.com/U3VTY05mzc

— MELANIA TRUMP (@MELANIATRUMP) August 4, 2016

Melania’s former agent Paolo Zampolli has since corroborated her story, telling the AP that he did, in fact, secure her an H-1B visa for models. However, many still aren’t convinced that she followed the letter of the law when immigrating to the U.S. If these allegations are correct it could potentially be troubling for her husband’s campaign, which relies heavily on opposition to illegal immigration.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was Melania Trump an Illegal Immigrant? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

France Has a Burkini Problem

Speedwater Park in Marseille, France is being booked for a burkini-only event. It is a women-only gathering and only guests wearing a full body swimming garment will be allowed in. Of course, this has caused crazy outrage all over secular France, including from its top political officials. Stephane Ravier, a mayor of two other Marseille districts with the far-right Front National party, said this:

This Islamist day demonstrates that, outside of the comforting words of Muslim authorities, a certain number of Muslims are deciding among themselves to break away from our Republican model and put themselves outside our society.

The event organizers noted that the event was open to all women, including non-Muslims, who agreed to wear bathing suits that covered their bodies from chest to knees. Seems easy enough!

BBCWorld : ‘Burkini-only day’ at waterpark in France criticised https://t.co/XFttjrSIzl (via Twitter … pic.twitter.com/dxLdt6yZ7o

— jahir (@jahirvai2) August 4, 2016

France has been known to be particularly harsh against Islamic traditions, and some may say that its possibly racist. But it’s only fair that the small community of  citizens be allowed to enjoy this summer pastime with their non-Muslim neighbors. This is not France “slipping under the submission of Islam,” this is France’s motto: Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 5, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Top Schools for Immigration Law Programs 2016Infographic

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Julia Bryant, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly.

Click here to see the all of Law Street’s 2016 Law School Specialty Rankings

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Schools for Immigration Law Programs 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Several major Supreme Court rulings came out on Thursday, including what amounts to a rejection of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration as well as an opinion upholding the affirmative action admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin. This post will be updated as more rulings come out, check back on Monday for the next wave of decisions.

Here is Law Street’s editorial team with what you need to know:

Update–June 26 rulings:

Corruption: McDonnell v. United States

The decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn corruption convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife. However, there is still a possibility that they can be retried under the court’s new interpretation of the law.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of political bribery.

Abortion Restrictions: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

The decision: In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s restrictive regulations on abortion clinics. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy joined Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to provide the majority necessary to overturn Texas’s House Bill 2. The ruling concluded that the restrictions placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for similar abortion restrictions in other states.

Gun Control: Voisine v. United States

The decision: The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for gun control.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for immigrants in the United States.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of affirmative action.

The Fourth Amendment: Utah v. Strieff

The decision: In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court narrowed its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and it protections against illegal searches, allowing evidence that may have been obtained illegally to be used in court.

Click here to read a full analysis of the opinion and how it may lead to more illegal searches in the future.

—

Check back here for additional coverage of new Supreme Court rulings. The final round of decisions is expected to be released on Monday, June 27.

Correction: a previous version of this article incorrectly stated the date when the next round of decisions are expected. It is Monday, June 27 not Monday, July 1.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything You Need to Know About the Recent Supreme Court Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

“If _____ gets elected, I’m moving to Canada!” Sound familiar? This “threat” casually seems to get thrown around every election cycle in the U.S., but has seemingly become more common in this year’s tense political climate. Even corporations have gotten in on the joke: Esurance’s April Fools Day ad jokingly offers “election insurance” to anyone who feels the need to escape for the next four years. A tourism campaign for Cape Breton Island in Canada offers refuge to people who fear an America under Donald Trump.

With the possibility of a Trump presidency becoming realer and scarier by the day, a move to Canada is seeming less like a bad joke and more like a genuine option for many Americans. After Trump won a string of Super Tuesday victories this past March, Google reportedly received a 350 percent surge in searches related to moving to Canada. According to NPR, thousands of Americans already move to Canada for political reasons, and there’s no telling how that number could rise if Trump is victorious in November.

While the land that brought the world Drake and Tim Horton’s looks much more appealing with the potential of an impending Trump regime, don’t pack your bags yet: it’s a lot easier said than done. The Canadians may be known for their hospitality, but they’re not just going to let anyone waltz through their doors.

If you really are seriously considering an escape to the Great White North, you probably should start planning now, because immigrating to Canada will take a considerable investment of time and will require you to make some serious life decisions. Here’s some options to earn your ticket in:

Find a job or start a business in Canada

Get your employment locked down now, because competition may become fierce once the influx of Trump-related immigration hits its peak. For skilled workers, Canada’s Express Entry program allows an expedited path to permanent residence for select candidates, and you can also use the Government of Canada’s Job Bank to help line something up.

The Canadian government is also very supportive of entrepreneurship: the country offers a start-up Visa to anyone who has a business idea that could benefit the country. Certain Canadian provinces also have their own respective business immigration programs called Provincial Nominee Programs.

If you’re a wealthy individual with some money lying around, you can also invest it in Canada’s economy to earn your permanent residence.

Marry a Canadian

Not exactly a straightforward solution, but if you can find yourself an eligible Canadian bachelor/bachelorette, they will be able to sponsor you for immigration.

How can you find this special person? There’s an app for that: Maple Match is an app specifically designed for “Americans to find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.”

One of the (many) downsides to this option is that it will take a long time, so you will probably be stuck in the U.S. potentially living under Trump’s presidency while your spouse is working to bring you over. Do not recommend this option.

Become a student in a Canadian school

Many Canadian universities are highly ranked globally, making this a good solution for anyone looking to go to school. However, this will only work so long as you are still enrolled in school. Once you graduate, you will need to find another way to stay (see above options).

You will also need to go through the admissions process to earn your place in one of these universities, so this also a time-consuming and tedious option.

Alternatively, don’t go

Don’t just run away from the burning house, help put the fire out! While the thought of a Trump America  may be terrifying, having a large number of people flee the country is not going to help solve any of our problems. And moving to Canada, as shown here, is probably not going to be a quick and easy solution. (It’s also highly unlikely you will be able to claim political asylum, sorry).

In the case that Trump wins in November, don’t let fear force you out of your home. If you still decide you want to make the leap and become a Canadian, you should probably start your immigration applications and your Maple Match profile now.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post How to Actually Move to Canada if Trump Gets Elected appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

So what are DACA/DAPA?

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is an initiative launched in 2012 as an act of prosecutorial discretion by president Obama. The order allows undocumented immigrants who move to the United States before the age of 16 to seek temporary relief from deportation given they meet criteria for age, arrival time, criminal record, and schooling.

The expansion of DACA (or DACA+) was authorized by President Obama in 2014 that eliminates certain arrival timeline requirements, the age ceiling, and extends relief period from two years to three years.

DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) is also an initiative launched in 2014 that would allow parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to seek temporary relief from deportation and apply for work permits.

These executive actions were intended to allow deportation officials to focus on illegal immigrants who engage in criminal behavior and thus threaten public safety, while allowing other immigrants who do not have legal status but have vested interests in the United States (for example, if they spent their childhood here or  have a child who is a citizen) to stay for a temporary period.

How did the lawsuit begin?

The lawsuit came to fruition when 26 states sued the federal government claiming that DAPA/DACA+ violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not allowing a notice-and-comment period during rulemaking.

When the states took the case to district court in February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting further action on DAPA/DACA+ indefinitely. In November 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order to grant a preliminary injunction. The federal government filed a petition for certiorari later that month and the Supreme Court decided to take up the case in January. The Supreme Court also decided to consider whether DAPA/DACA+ violated the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution.

Check out this article to read more about the case’s background.

What does today’s tie mean?

The deadlocked ruling in United States v. Texas affirms Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to block the president’s executive actions. Today’s ruling amounted to just one sentence: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” As a result, as many as five million undocumented immigrants will no longer be protected from deportation

Because the court did not actually decide on the case but rather affirmed the affirmation of an indefinite suspension of a program, the future of DAPA/DACA+ is obviously ambiguous. Immigration advocates find it unfair that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit would be able to determine immigration policy for the whole country. Some also speculate that another group of states will sue in favor of the actions, which could create a split between appellate courts while the Supreme Court remains deadlocked in a tie.

If the decision remains through the 2016 election, the future of DAPA/DACA+ and immigration policy will be decided by the next president or it may require a ninth Supreme Court justice to break the tie.

You can read the (very brief) opinion here.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Split Blocks Obama’s Immigration Actions appeared first on Law Street.

Refugees fleeing gang violence, blackmail, torture, and murder in Central America hope to end up on U.S. soil after weeks of walking, but of those who make it across the border, many end up in family detention centers for months. Countries such as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have among the highest homicide rates in the world, according to the UN, and women and children are the most vulnerable. In 2014, over 66,000 children traveling with their mothers fled from Northern Central America to the United States.

What is a family detention center?

At “Beyond the Wall: Women and Children Refugees: A Central American Crisis,” an event hosted by the New York City Bar Association last Tuesday, human rights advocates and health researchers got together to start a dialogue about the complex Central American refugee situation. The discussion focused on a UNHCR study, “Women On the Run,” which was released  last October detailing the crisis and its current challenges.

One family detention center in particular, the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, has gotten a lot of attention from advocates. The Dilley facility is the first family detention center in the United States since the Japanese family centers during World War II. It opened in December 2014 and is the largest in the world–though the term family center may be a bit misleading because men get separated from their families and sent to all-male centers that can be located thousands of miles away. Human rights advocates have reported numerous instances of verbal and physical abuse as well as insufficient food and water for the detainees.

Read More: Mother’s Day Appeal Outside the White House Aims to Abolish Family Detention Centers

"I was just trying to save my son's life" ~ Ada fled violence in #CentralAmerica https://t.co/UUqup2A23o #refugees pic.twitter.com/rtqmKcXxch

— UNHCR Washington (@UNHCRdc) May 20, 2016

Fleeing Violence

The UNHCR’s study, “Women on the Run” details the dangerous situations that women and children in many Central American countries face, forcing many to flee to the United States for safety. These women have been through serious domestic abuse, extortion, death threats, and rape. One of them tells of how she was two months pregnant when her cousin grabbed her and raped her on the street in front of his gang. Many others say that they see dead bodies on the streets daily. It can be the choice between certain death, and risking everything to have a chance of a normal life if granted asylum in the United States.

But even if they make it across the U.S. border, these refugees are not necessarily safe. Many end up in the family detention centers, where the women and children can stay for months without any information about their cases or even when they can talk to lawyera.

Imprisoned for over a year

Ana has spent the longest time in an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) family detention–almost 13 months–according to Aseem Mehta, a fellow at Immigration Justice Corps. Her last name is kept secret for legal reasons; her case is still pending. Back in El Salvador she was blackmailed by a gang that thought her family made a lot of money, and if she didn’t regularly pay them off they said they would kill her. Ana’s husband had already been granted asylum, but she and her daughter were sent back home.

But in 2014, Ana and her 13-year-old daughter decided to make the long journey across the border–a 2000-mile path through the desert, hot during the day and very cold at night. When they reached Texas three weeks later, they were held at the Dilley family detention center–a 50-acre trailer park in the middle of the 100-degree desert, hours away from the closest city. At Dilley, the mothers’ average age is 26, the children’s is 7, according to Mehta.

The horrors beyond the wall

Mehta told the story of how he met Ana in July 2015. He came to Dilley as part of a pro-bono effort with one purpose: get the detainees out of there. After hard work and some difficult months, he managed to get Ana and her daughter out of the family center in September 2015. A victory for Ana, but her freedom is still confined, her case still pending, and she still doesn’t know how it will end. For now, she is reunited with her husband and mother-in-law in New York.

The conditions in which the families live inside the center are worse than most people are aware of. According to Ana,

We got food once or twice daily, sometimes they forgot, so maybe only crackers. When I asked for more food for my daughter the officials said it’s not their responsibility to feed my kid, and it was my own fault she was hungry.

Dr. Allen Keller, director of the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, conducted a study at Dilley last summer. At the NYC Bar event, he called it “a disgrace” and spoke about the “icebox.” When refugees first arrive–many wet from passing through rivers–the women and children are stripped of their sweaters and placed in a 50-degree room on a cold cement floor. This is where many kids catch pneumonia.

“This is a population that is horribly traumatized, with PTSD, depression, and hopelessness,” Keller said.

And he said that as a result, many kids start to bed wet and become vegetative: dull, passive, and unresponsive. Injured women and children are denied medical help. One woman had a seizure but the guards wanted to put her on a plane anyway–risking her life–until Keller stepped in. People with chicken pox sleeps on the floor next to pregnant women, who if they catch the disease could pass it on to their fetuses, risking severe brain damage.

A collection of affidavits recovered by Fusion gives other examples of abuse–a child complaining of a dislocated shoulder was told to just drink more water. Hundreds of kids were given the adult dose of a hepatitis vaccine, after which a woman said her child got a severe earache, but she was scared to bring her back to the doctors again.

On June 1, human rights advocates cheered a Texas court decision to delay the issuing of a child care license to the Dilley facility due to low standards.

major victory against one of the nation’s largest immigration detention center, Austin, TX https://t.co/ql9plIFaMg

— ACIJ (@ALimmigrant) June 2, 2016

During Dr. Keller’s study at the Dilley center, he was part of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. He witnessed how guards arbitrarily filled out questionnaires during asylum interviews without asking refugees all the questions–even when they were sitting there in the room. The list of abuses of power goes on and on.

According to Mehta, the family detention centers are really just prisons–where women are required to wear an ankle GPS at all times–and serve the purpose of discouraging more refugees to come to the United States. It’s also a way of keeping children locked up without actually putting them in prison.

What can we do?

It’s easy to feel hopelessness when hearing about the fates of the families in Dilley, but Mehta urges Americans and their politicians to start talking about it and to change the dialogue, and to stop seeing refugees as a threat to our national security.

These people don’t flee their homes to exploit the U.S. government and get things for free; they flee because they don’t have a choice–it’s a humanitarian crisis. Trump may be the one talking about building a wall, but as Dr. Keller points out, this has happened under a liberal government. We all need to keep pressuring politicians to make a change. We all need to help more women like Ana.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Family Detention Centers: Women and Children Locked up After Fleeing Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Last week on Law Street we shared findings from a new study that concluded immigrants take more in welfare than U.S. born, the trending hashtag #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou, and an in-depth look at drug courts. ICYMI– Check out these top stories below.

1. New CIS Study Shows Immigrants Take in More Welfare Than U.S. Born

A study published yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies, or CIS, claims immigrant households collect $1,803 more in welfare benefits than native households–families headed by a U.S. born person–based on data collected in 2012. Read the full article here.

2. #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou: Hashtag Sheds Light on Non-Physical Abuse

Domestic abuse isn’t always physical, it doesn’t always leave bruises, and it’s not always visible to the naked eye. Abuse can be mental, emotional, and verbal–and Zahira Kelly wanted to call attention to that fact when she started the hashtag #MaybeHeDoesntHitYou. Read the full article here.

3. Are Drug Courts the Answer For Addicts Who Commit Crimes?

As of 2015, there were 2,800 drug courts in the United States and they were working with 120,000 defendants per year. The idea behind these courts is to use the criminal justice system to compel addicts to rehabilitate themselves. The ultimate goal is to reduce recidivism for drug use and the other crimes that often accompany drug addiction. In order to do this, drug courts use both a carrot and a stick approach with addicts. Courts promise to reduce or eliminate jail time in exchange for the successful completion of a drug treatment program–hopefully saving money for taxpayers along the way. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A study published yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies, or CIS, claims immigrant households collect $1,803 more in welfare benefits than native households–families headed by a U.S. born person–based on data collected in 2012.

Based on a sample size of 22,077 native households and 2,980 immigrant households, the study found that a large portion of the discrepancy in welfare benefits stems from Medicaid dollars, though immigrant households benefited from welfare by slim margins in nearly every other category–cash ($686 to $517) and food ($1,083 to $689). Native households received one dollar more in housing benefits, ($395 to $394.)

Conducted by the conservative, independent public policy analyst Jason Richwine, the study explains the findings as being attributable to the average education level of immigrant families, which is lower than those born in the U.S.

“It is easy to understand why people with fewer skills are more likely to participate in welfare programs, since eligibility for those programs requires a low income,” writes Richwine, whose 2013 study with the Heritage Foundation on IQ differences between immigrants and natives caused quite a stir.

Richwine concluded the study by saying, “the American welfare system has become increasingly focused on buttressing low-wage workers rather than supporting non-workers. Put more simply, welfare and low-wage work go together.”

While this study seems to provide evidence for those who want the U.S. to scale back immigration, claiming that immigration hurts the economy, a separate study by the American Immigration Council highlights the positive effects immigration has on the economy.

Among the findings:

• Based on 2013 figures, immigration increases GDP (by $31.4 billion) and tax revenue (“The average immigrant contributes nearly $120,000 more in taxes than he or she consumes in public benefits”).
• Immigrants are nearly twice as likely to start a business than natives–at a rate of 0.52 immigrant entrepreneurs and 0.27 for natives.
• Between 1996 and 2011, immigrants contributed $62 more per person than natives to Medicare.

As Congress and the next president will surely take a close look at U.S. immigration policy, possibly overhauling it completely or banning those of a certain faith, these studies will surely be used as fodder for both sides in the conversations to come.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New CIS Study Shows Immigrants Take in More Welfare Than U.S. Born appeared first on Law Street.

On a dusty former oil-mining field in Dilley, Texas, enclosed by barbed wire fences and watched by guards day and night, hundreds of mothers and their children who are seeking asylum in America wait. They wait for a chance to plead their case to a judge. They wait for days, weeks, sometimes months. They wait for a future.

The South Texas Detention Complex is one of three such holding facilities–officially dubbed “family detention centers”–that hold undocumented immigrant families (mothers and children who are without a husband and father) while their asylum request is processed. Many come from Central America’s Northern Triangle: Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Some are fleeing gang violence, among the most lethal in the world. Others are escaping domestic abuse and oppressive governments.

But former detainees and advocacy groups are fighting to shut down these three family detention centers that continue to operate in the U.S. due to unlivable conditions and held an event to further their cause outside the White House this week. The other two facilities besides the one in Dilley are in Karnes City, Texas and Leesport, Pennsylvania. Advocates of closing the centers saw a boost last summer when a federal judge in Texas ruled the facilities as operating against the law.

Last week, however, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services issued a temporary child care license for the Karnes County Residential Center, which can house 580 migrants at a time and is privately operated. This would allow Karnes to continue operating under the law by operating under the title of “child care facility.” A small victory for advocates against the license came yesterday when a judge in Texas ruled on behalf of Grassroots Leadership, an organization focused on ending for-profit incarceration, issuing a week-long restraining order on the child care license.

Though the number of illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. from Central America has dipped after a surge that peaked in the summer of 2014, 98 percent of Dilley’s 2,400 beds are filled with women and children from that region, according to Lindsay Harris, Legal Fellow at the American Immigration Council, or AIC.

“They are here because they’ve expressed a fear of returning back to their home country,” Harris said during an interview on Wednesday. There are six AIC members on the ground at the dirt plains of the Dilley complex, assisting asylum seekers through the legal process.

According to Harris, the legal process of seeking asylum is as follows:

Between 80 to 150 families each day are put through an informal interview with a member of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), who rotate every two weeks between the three centers. The one to three hour interview is informal, and the families are allowed a legal representative (such as Harris), though many do not have one because of the deluge of daily interviews.

Those whose “credible fear” (the metric by which a migrant’s asylum request is judged: whether their situation back home is horrifying enough for them to stay in the U.S.) is rejected are subject to review by a judge. They are usually represented pro bono by a lawyer from an organization such as AIC.

Harris noted that most families do pass that stage and can further pursue their asylum claim, but are required to wear bulky ankle monitors and have weekly or monthly check-ins with immigration officers. She said rulings that don’t go the asylum seekers’ way aren’t always fair.

“These are survivors of trauma and torture, rape, incest, domestic violence,” she said. “Some of them have a very hard time articulating to a male asylum officer what they’ve been through.”

Recently released mothers are monitored via these bulky ankle bracelets, which require frequent charging and can’t be removed. [Image courtesy of Jeff Pearcy via UUSC]

Ten of the women who were previously detained and able to convincingly articulate their need to stay in the U.S. came to the front step of the White House yesterday, many with their children, on a mother-to-mother mission to shut these facilities down.

The “Let Hope Bloom” event, held under a chilly gray sky at Lafayette Square just feet from the White House’s north gate, saw the mothers–all from Central America–handed certificates and a bouquet of lilies, daisies, and azaleas from the event’s sponsors, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC) and other religious and secular non-profit groups.

“The greatest gift we pray to give would be the ending of family detention,” Reverend Sharon Stanley-Rea of the religious group Disciples of Christ said at the event.

Giant Mother’s Day cards were signed by the mothers, their children and supporters, which were then delivered to two White House officials at the west gate. The cards were addressed to four mothers at the White House: First Lady Michelle Obama, Second Lady Dr. Jill Biden, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, and Obama Assistant Cecilia Munoz.

A mother signs a direct appeal to the most powerful mother in the White House: Michelle Obama. [Image courtesy of Alec Siegel via Law Street Media]

One of the formerly detained mothers traveled from Alexandria, Virginia with her daughter to the White House.

“I’m happy [in America], it’s much better than being locked up,” she said in an interview with Law Street Media (through a translator), preferring her name be left out for privacy concerns. “When I was in detention I didn’t suffer physically but mentally it was really tough.”

She left her home in La Ceiba, Honduras to escape threats of extortion and was housed at the Karnes County Residential Center in Karnes City, Texas for 15 days before being released to pursue her claim of asylum and joining family members in Alexandria.

“I think my mom is very strong for the things that she’s gone through for me,” said her daughter, 15, also through a translator and requesting her name not be used for privacy concerns. “Coming to this country is not easy and I know that she did it for me.”

This mother fled Honduras after threats of extortion with her daughter, now a 9th grade student in Alexandria, Virginia. [Image courtesy of Alec Siegel via Law Street Media]

Hannah Hafter, Senior Program Leader for Activism at UUSC, one of the sponsors at yesterday’s event, recently spent two weeks at the facility in Karnes and saw conditions unsuitable for children to spend any amount of time living in.

“There is no humane way in allowing children to grow up in detention,” she said in a phone interview with Law Street Media. She said babies are not allowed to crawl on the floors and that basic movement is restricted. She sees the centers as inherently flawed. “They can’t have enough toys, they can’t have enough classes to make [the centers] acceptable.”

An alternative method to family detention centers, according to Harris, would be to allow the asylum seekers to independently integrate into communities, with periodic check-ins with law enforcement, while they wait for their asylum request to be processed.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opened a controversial family detention center in 2014 to accommodate the influx of families coming from Central America. The center, in Artesia, New Mexico, was closed in late 2014. The migrants who were being housed at the time were transferred to Dilley or Karnes.

Officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the DHS branch that handles the family detention centers, did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publishing, and neither did representatives from Dilley or Karnes.

Last summer, Jeh Johnson, Secretary of DHS, released a statement supporting reforms to the detention centers, citing the increase in the facilities’ capacity as a response to an increase in illegal immigrants from Central America.

Harris, the legal fellow with AIC who spoke at the “Let It Bloom” event yesterday, noted that these facilities are a waste for every party involved: government resources, time, and taxpayer dollars. (She said it costs one thousand dollars to house a family of three).

“These are not criminals,” she said “They’re seeking protection and they should be given information and access to council, not put in detention.”

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on 5/6 to clarify the asylum process.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mother’s Day Appeal Outside the White House Aims to Abolish Family Detention Centers appeared first on Law Street.

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp’s Australian puppy-smuggling saga is finally over.

Heard plead guilty Monday to knowingly producing a false and misleading document, and received a one-month $1,000 good behavior bond. Luckily for the actress, prosecutors dropped the more serious illegal importation charges, which carried a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of 102,000 Australian dollars (that’s $75,000.)

Australian officials’ #WarOnTerrier began back in late April 2015, when Heard flew the couples tiny terriers “Pistol and Boo” into Australia without a permit to visit Depp, who was in the country filming of the next installment of “Pirates of the Caribbean.” The dogs’ secret arrival, however, was in direct violation of the country’s strict Quarantine Act, which is designed to prevent infectious diseases, such as rabies, from spreading.

At the time, Australia’s Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce famously threatened to put the dogs down if they weren’t sent back to the U.S. within a 72-hour window. The combination of Depp and Heard’s celebrity status and the intensity behind the minister’s comments helped propel the unusual illegal immigration story into the national spotlight, as well as offered up plenty of material for online parodies.

But the jokes didn’t stop there.

During the trial, Heard and Depp recorded a video apology that was heard by the court and later released by the Australian government. In the video the couple stated that they were “truly sorry that Pistol and Boo were not declared.” However, the couple’s unusual biosecurity-focused script and overall awkward demeanor didn’t help people take them seriously.

Here’s the full transcript:

Heard: “Australia is a wonderful island with a treasure trove of unique plants, animals and people.”

Depp: “It has to be protected.”

Heard: “Australia is free of many pests and diseases that are commonplace around the world. That is why Australia has to have such strong biosecurity laws.”

Depp: “Australians are just as unique; both warm and direct. When you disrespect Australian law, they will tell your firmly.”

Heard: “I am truly sorry that Pistol and Boo were not declared. Protecting Australia is important.”

Depp: “Declare everything when you enter Australia…thanks.”

Watch the full video below

It didn’t take long before social media began mocking the couples’ sincerity and joking that the pair looked like they were being held hostage. Here are some of the best tweets below.

The Johnny Depp apology feels like a hostage video.

— Ricky Gervais (@rickygervais) April 18, 2016

That Johnny Depp apology video… pic.twitter.com/8dPUZor4QU

— Jason Tin (@jasonthetin) April 18, 2016

I think my favourite bit is right at the start when Depp goes to read Heard’s line but then realises he is a second tier character

— Helen Davidson (@heldavidson) April 18, 2016

Ranking of Johnny Depp’s worst acting performances:

4. The Tourist
3. Pirates 3
2. Apology to Australia video
1. Mordecai

— Mark Di Stefano (@MarkDiStef) April 18, 2016

When Johnny Depp apologises for Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, we’ll know he’s serious about making it up to Australians #waronterrier

— The Shovel (@The_Shovel_) April 18, 2016

The weirdest thing about Johnny Depp’s Australia apology video was that it didn’t also star Helena Bonham Carter.

— Periwinkle Jones (@peachesanscream) April 18, 2016

Ultimately it doesn’t really matter whether the couple’s apology was sincere or not since Heard already succeeded in getting off with barely a slap on the wrist. That being said, the couple’s definitely learned their lesson when it comes to what not to do when flying their pampered pooches by private jet.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amber Heard & Johnny Depp Issue Strange Apology For Pet Smuggling appeared first on Law Street.

Every winter, the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland plays host to the business world’s most eminent economic, journalistic and entrepreneurial minds at the World Economic Forum. The three-day long summit at Davos has repeatedly been lampooned as an obnoxious demonstration of power and privilege that does very little to create significant change in the world economy. However, looking past the elaborate meals and chartered helicopters, Davos can grant insight into what the top tier of the economic sector has planned for the future. Read on for a breakdown of the most important moments at Davos this month and what they mean for 2016.

What is Davos?

The World Economic Forum–a Swiss nonprofit based in Geneva–holds its annual meeting in the ski resort town of Davos, in the Eastern Alps. The meeting is usually comprised of approximately 2,500 business leaders, policy makers, and journalists–referred to as “influencers.” The three-day conference serves as an opportunity to discuss the world’s most pressing economic and social challenges and often serves as a crucial meeting place for building the groundwork for both corporate and political collaboration in the coming year. Davos’ mission is to facilitate public-private sector relations, and while it has done an admirable job of meeting that goal, it is often criticized for being too exclusive or elitist. The Davos invitee list is often limited to only the most profitable economic corporations, mainstream news networks, and representatives from developed nations.

The Issues

Spotlight on Migration

The refugee crisis took center stage at this year’s conference, with political leaders discussing both the nature of open travel across Europe and the impact of the swell of immigrants on the continent’s economy. Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte claimed that Europe has only “six to eight weeks” to save the Schengen system of travel–which allows for unrestricted travel for those who hold visas for any of the twenty-six countries that make up the Schengen zone.  Several countries have suspended their Schengen policy and Davos provided opportunities for several ministers and politicians to discuss future plans for border control. Rutte argues that as spring approaches, the number of refugees entering Europe will only swell, potentially leading to a complete shutdown of the Schengen zone’s open border policy. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls also spoke on border policies, claiming that the European Union was not originally built to withstand the challenges of the refugee crisis.

In an interview given in the days before the conference began, billionaire George Soros added to the panic surrounding a European Union breakup by stating that

The EU is on the verge of collapse…the Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another… The EU now is confronted with not one but five or six crises at the same time.

Outside of the formal roundtable discussions, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven spoke out regarding the spike in sexual attacks in Cologne, Germany and other European cities this month, saying that all refugees are not to blame for these crimes and that sexual harassment was problematic in Sweden and other nations long before the refugees arrived.

The Possibility of a “Brexit”

Davos’s discussions focused on the potential of Britain leaving the European Union in 2016 or 2017. Multiple European leaders made fervent pleas to the British representation and citizenry at large to stay within the union, referring to British secession as a “tragedy.” There is no scheduled vote on England leaving but with tensions over the refugee crisis stretching European governments thin, rumors of a potential British exit sent shock waves through Davos. However, Britain would most likely not benefit from exiting the EU in 2016. In a recent interview, Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia group, said that

If you’re asking if it is in Britain’s narrow interest to stay in Europe, I would say it is less in their interest than it was a year ago – but I would still make the point that if the Brits leave the EU, the likelihood that Scotland leaves Britain goes up very significantly, and I do believe that’s bad for the UK… Furthermore, leaving the single market, irrespective of the fact that Britain is not in the euro, would damage Britain’s role in finance globally; Britain would take a hit because of that. Also the logistics of the unwinding process, playing out over a couple of years, would be immensely distracting and damaging to both sides. Investment decisions are going to be changed both in the UK and the EU, and both would suffer

The potential “Brexit” dominated politician’s rhetoric at the summit but ultimately appeared to be a red herring as Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he is “not in a hurry” to schedule a vote on a British exit from the EU.

Debt Relief for Greece

During the forum, the IMF’s managing director, Christine Lagarde, and the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, met briefly to discuss the future of the Greek economy.  The IMF has agreed to extend new loans to Greece but it has also publicly stated that it is only prepared to support Greece on a “strings-attached basis.” Greece will need to enact significant economic changes and receive backing from Eurozone partners if it wants to take on IMF funds. Representatives from both the IMF and the Greek delegation referred to the talks as cordial and productive. Tsipras made a statement during Davos promising to reform the Greek economy–while simultaneously criticizing European insistence on lowering budget deficits.

It should be noted that Lagarde, who is responsible for the IMF’s prediction of world economic growth, recently downgraded the statistic to 3.4 percent from 3.6 percent for 2017. This contributed to worries for all countries represented at Davos but should be especially troubling for Greece as it takes on its new package of loans. Tsipras made a series of optimistic statements regarding a rebound for Greece but with limited prospects for growth and the influx of migrants that have swept into Greece, his speeches hardly seem to be realistic.

Discussions on Gender Inequality

Davos featured multiple events on closing the gender gap this year. Historically, Davos has been male dominated and as only 11 percent of company board directors from across the globe are women, the invite list was still mainly masculine this year. However, the organizers of Davos did dedicate specific time and spaces to gender inequality brainstorming sessions and panels. The United Nations brought its HeforShe campaign to the summit. Both Sheryl Sandberg and Justin Trudeau spoke at a panel on gender inequality, advocating for business and political leaders to embrace feminism. The Girls’ Lounge, a space reserved for the 18 percent of Davos attendees who are female, hosted a roundtable discussion on gender inequality during this year’s conference. The discussion focused on making workplaces more equitable and changing the culture of the corporate world. However, German journalist Manuela Kasper-Claridge noted that a great deal of the events on gender inequality were led by men, seriously undercutting the participation of the female attendees. While the soundbites produced at the forum were mainly positive, relatively few attendees committed publicly to promoting gender equality in their corporations or parliaments.

Conclusion

Davos is not a perfect yardstick for upcoming political and economic changes as it only includes a small percentage of the thousands of decision makers involved in the global economy, but it does create a platform for valuable discussion. The refugee crisis continues to dominate the political and economic discussions of European parliaments, and the pressure from the potential withdrawal of Great Britain from the EU has only complicated the debate. Davos is struggling to create gender parity in its annual conference but its efforts this year may open up more discussions in the coming years and prove valuable in the effort to promote feminism in workplaces across the world. Ultimately, Davos is a forum held for ideas not action–there are no votes or referendums that come as a direct result, the stock market does not rise or fall based on its speeches, and many of the attendees are only repeating their position on issues they have discussed time and time again. However, Davos serves as an unparalleled signpost for where European leaders hope to focus their time, energy, and resources in 2016.

Resources

The Guardian: Let’s Make Attending Davos as Shameful as Running a Sweatshop

The Atlantic Sentinal: Weeks Left to Save Schengen, Dutch Premier Warns

The Express: EU could go UNDER in 6 WEEKS, Dutch PM Claims as France Admits ‘We Weren’t Built for This’

The Daily Mail: Davos elites fear weakened European Union

The Irish Times: Number of Migrants Entering Europe ‘Needs to be Reduced’, Davos Hears

CNBC: Migrants Not to Blame for Sex Attacks: Swedish PM

Foreign Policy: Davos Diary: Europe Fears ‘Brexit’ But Not At ‘Any Price

The Telegraph: Davos Leaders Fear ‘Brexit’ May be Deathknell for EU

International Business Times: Davos 2016: Greece Promised New IMF Loans At Meeting With Lagarde And Tsipras

The Market Mogul: Worries in Davos 2016

The Guardian: IMF Demands EU Debt Relief for Greece Before New Bailout

Quartz: #Davosproblems: The Financial Crisis isn‘t Over, and the Inequality Crisis is Just Beginning

The Guardian: Embrace Feminism to Improve Decision-Making, says Justin Trudeau

Deutsche Welle: Davos, we Have a Gender Problem

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What are the Major Takeaways from the 2016 World Economic Forum? appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama is set to face the gauntlet as the Supreme Court gears up to hear a case that challenges the President’s use of executive power, has the potential to wreck havoc on the 2016 Presidential election, and may go beyond judicial power by granting states more rights and control than the national government on a notoriously federally controlled area of law and politics–immigration. Twenty-six states are challenging the President’s executive actions relating to immigration implementations made in 2014 as an abuse of power and an attempt to circumvent Capitol Hill on policy making.

To date, the case is scheduled to be resolved by the court in June 2016 as the Supreme Court issued that it would review the case, thereby granting the President the authority to execute the programs prior to leaving office, should he be victorious. Read on to learn more about the executive actions in question, the procedural posture and legal history of the case, and what it all could mean for U.S. citizens and aliens in the future.

DAPA and DACA: The Troublesome Two

On November 20, 2014, an executive order was issued expanding the rights of individuals within the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and introduced the creation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

DACA, a program created in 2012, allows undocumented young people who came to the U.S. as children relief from deportation so long as specific criteria are met. These criteria include: 1) must be under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012; 2) must have entered the U.S. under the age of 16; 3) must show continuous residence in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 until the present; 4) entered the U.S. without inspection (EWI) or fell out of a lawful visa status before June 15, 2012; 5) were physically present in the U.S. when applying for consideration of deferred action; 6) are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces; 7) have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors; and 8) do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Initially, DACA was available for a period of two years at a time–meaning that individuals were only granted temporary relief for two years before they had to re-apply and be approved by the government again. DACA also included a work authorization for those approved, but the executive action of 2014 made it and the work authorization renewable in three-year increments. Additionally, the requirement that the individual be under 31 years old as of June 15, 2012 or now no longer applies. The new DACA provisions do not discriminate against those currently over 31 years old. Further, the eligibility cut-off date was moved from June 15, 2007 to January 1, 2010. Anyone applying must show physical presence in the U.S. prior to January 1, 2010 and during the time of application.

DAPA, unlike DACA, did not have a predecessor. Under DAPA, individuals that have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) may obtain relief from removal should they meet the following criteria: 1) as of November 20, 2014, have a son or daughter who is a citizen or LPR; 2) have continuously resided in the U.S. since or before January 1, 2010; 3) are physically present in the U.S. as of November 20, 2014 and during their application for consideration; 4) have no lawful status as of November 20, 2014; 5) are not an enforcement priority; and 5) present no additional factors that would deem the granting of their application inappropriate.

Deferred action is an administrative mechanism used by the U.S. government to de-prioritize individual cases for removal for “humanitarian reasons, administrative convenience, or in the interest of the Department’s overall enforcement mission.” It is a way for the government to categorize the urgency with which individuals be removed from the country. Generally speaking, deferred action carries great discretion. It can be terminated at any point should the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deem termination appropriate and necessary. Furthermore, receiving DACA or DAPA does not provide legal status, a pathway to citizenship, or a pathway to obtain a green card, but rather permits for an individual to be legally present within the U.S. for a specified period of time. In order to be a valid permission, deferred action applications must be considered on a case-by-case basis and do not apply as all-inclusive or sweeping legal policies. An application process is required and permission must be granted for an individual to continue to stay within the U.S.

Substantive rights, immigration status, and pathways to citizenship are under the control of Congress. Only Congress can confer such rights and policies upon individuals within the confines of the U.S. However, the Executive Branch has the authority to set forth policies under prosecutorial discretion and deferred action so long as they fall within the framework of existing law.

The 26 states named in the lawsuit are greatly dissatisfied by the way that President Obama has taken to resolving the many pitfalls of current immigration policy and justice. A major point of contention for the states is that the President allegedly worked to circumvent Congressional authority and undermined the importance of the notice-and-comment process pursuant to administrative law. Notice-and-comment is an informal rule-making process, codified in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) under § 553. It requires the agency proposing the rule to publish its proposal in the Federal Register and grant opponents or supporters of the proposed rule to comment, amend, present data and evidence for or against, and generally speaking, participate in the development of a newly proposed rule.

Additionally, while immigration is an issue controlled by federal law, the states fear that the changes made to federal immigration laws will place a great burden on the states to change their laws and be forced to provide services they are unable or unwilling to provide to individuals lacking legal status. Specifically, some states worry that the quasi-legal status and work authorizations will require the states to provide “state-subsidized driver’s licenses and unemployment insurance.”

Image Courtesy Of [Nevele Otseog via Flickr]

History of Legal Action: The Procedural Posture

Shortly after President Obama’s executive action on November 20, 2014, the highly publicized Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, challenged the action on behalf of Arizona in a case called Arpaio v. Obama. Arpaio’s lawsuit was dismissed by the Washington, D.C. federal court and upheld unanimously by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on August 14, 2015. That decision has not been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Following in Sheriff Arpaio’s footsteps, 17 states filed a lawsuit, with 9 states joining thereafter, challenging President Obama in Texas v. United States. The President held the support of 15 states and D.C., who filed “friend of the court” briefs on his behalf. Ultimately, the Texas federal court blocked President Obama’s initiatives on a procedural basis on February 16, 2015. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen found that Texas had standing, or legal capacity and authority, to sue and that the President did not comply with the requirements of the APA, particularly the requisite need for notice-and-comment. It rationalized that the changes enacted by President Obama were substantive rules rather than simple alterations to existing and general policy, which required a specific procedural process.

The Department of Justice subsequently appealed the lower court’s decision and argued the case in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10, 2015. In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling, 2-1. The majority decision, authored by Judge Jerry E. Smith, found that Texas did, in fact, have standing to sue and that the changes to policy would greatly increase state costs and burden the states with additional processes and services as required by the national law. While it recognized that judicial review was unavailable under the APA in matters pertaining to agency discretion, it noted that the changes made to DACA and DAPA required notice-and-comment rule-making, and therefore, were non-discretionary. Further, the court ruled on an issue unaddressed by the district court and found that the President’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was misguided and inaccurate because it vested great authority to the Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This indirectly re-classified the specified classifications of immigrants codified in the INA and those petitioning to enter, all in violation of the Act itself.

Judge Carolyn King of the Fifth Circuit delivered a blunt dissent, ultimately stating, “I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Further, Judge King argued that the case should have been dismissed as it follows prosecutorial discretion and therefore, not subject to review by federal courts. In criticism of her colleagues, she penned that allowing states to dictate national policy, particularly in areas solely within federal control, would be a great intrusion to the long-standing separations between government and state. Judge King added that the President’s executive actions were matters of general policy not subject to notice-and-comment procedure and that the interpretation of law under the INA actually sought to further the Department of Homeland Security’s mission in “[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.”

Critics of the decision, including Judge King herself, highlighted the fact that the expedited appeal was anything but, as the Fifth Circuit took a very long time to render an opinion, likely in an effort to place the case under review by the Supreme Court after the conclusion of President Obama’s term in office.

The Petition Filed by the Department of Justice

In a writ of certiorari petition filed on November 20, 2015, exactly one year from the President’s executive actions, the Department of Justice sought review of U.S. v. Texas by the Supreme Court. While the Court has yet to make a decision as to whether it will review the case or not, the petition outlined key elements of President Obama’s argument demanding for review of this extremely crucial issue.

The DOJ Claims Valid Authority for Action Over States

The Department of Justice highlighted that the authority to make any and all immigration laws and policies is vested in the federal government, particularly under the control of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who hold authority to establish regulations pertaining to removal and admissibility rules. The Department has broad discretion over enforcement of immigration laws and the ability to prioritize which offenses or conduct deems immediate removal and which groups are not the top priority of government funds allocated for removal and enforcement. While 11 million removable aliens are estimated to live in the United States, the Department can only remove approximately 4 percent of those individuals within a given year. Congress has granted the Department $1.6 billion to remove those convicted of deportable crimes, thereby committing to the Secretary’s discretion in handling these cases in the most efficient manner possible. Therefore, prioritizing is of utmost importance to best allocate funding.

Additionally, the Department emphasized that continued presence through deferred action does not violate any criminal laws, as removal and inadmissibility under immigration laws is civil in nature. Deferred action has been an “exercise in administrative discretion,” that can be revoked at any point in time. It does not offer any legal status to those that fall within its classification. What is offered under deferred action, however, is work authorization protecting such individuals from exploitation under U.S. labor laws, subjecting them to taxation, Social Security, and welfare payments, and providing them with a way to make ends meet so they do not become a burden on U.S. citizens and society. Only “qualified” aliens are entitled to public benefits provided by the state in which they reside, and individuals lawfully allowed to stay within the U.S. under deferred action status are not deemed “qualified,” therefore, they are not entitled to public benefits unless their state specifically provides those under its own laws.

The Sticking Points: Substantive Arguments Against the States

Deferred action has been utilized in a variety of ways to grant individuals lawful presence in the U.S. Examples include individuals who petitioned under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and individuals whose lawful family members were killed on September 11, 2001 or in combat were granted temporary relief from deportation under deferred action. Decisions made based on deferred action have legally and historically been barred from judicial review.

Key elements of the petition included the Secretary’s discretion in enforcing immigration laws under resource constraints, the historical utilization of deferred action and its revocability, the security and economic interests in paying fees and applying for work authorization, and the effect that the divided Court of Appeals decision could have on the States’ ability to “frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws.”

The petition discussed the lack of standing or authority by the states to bring the lawsuit, stating that private parties lack any “judicially cognizable interest” in the enforcement of immigration laws that are not threatened by prosecution, nor do collateral consequences of federal immigration policy grant a state standing to bring suit. Further, the Department of Justice noted that even if the states were able to show standing to sue, they would have to identify injury resulting from the specified policy that affects it in an “individual way.” Such an expansive reading of state standing would open a door for many more federal-state disputes in the long run and give states far-reaching and independent authority to challenge federal laws with more regularity.

The government further argued that the states lack a valid claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, as the Act does not allow suit by every individual “suffering an injury in fact,” and strictly limits the scope of judicial review to those who are “adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” Additionally, the government noted that the agency’s discretion in deferred action is not reviewable by the courts as there is “no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”

An entire section of the petition offered examples of the Secretary’s authority to implement deferred action without challenge due to the long-standing history and nation of this power. Ultimately, the Department of Justice pointed to the authority vested in the Secretary to implement the executive actions as lawful within the scope of his power. Finally, the petition outlines the reasoning for why the deferred action is not subject to notice-and-comment rule-making as required by the APA because the actions were “general statements of policy” exempt from such procedural requirements.

What Could It All Mean?

Should the Supreme Court uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision, great authority would be vested onto the states over a historically federal issue, making it inexplicably difficult to pass any immigration laws on a national level. It would force millions of people, subject to removal but not removal priorities, to continue living in the U.S., working off the books or not working at all, potentially creating a burden on society in the long run. Further, it could ultimately punish the individuals that gained temporary lawful relief under the 2012 DACA provisions that have never been challenged by any of the 26 states in question. The decisions spanning over the last year could potentially invalidate the 2012 DACA actions as well.

While the importance of review is undoubtedly clear, from an administrative law aspect, a constitutional law aspect, as well as a separation of powers aspect, it is unclear exactly what the fruit of review will be. If history were any indication, President Obama would be victorious in his challenge. However, the lower courts have addressed key issues that fall squarely within the context of interpretation and interestingly added some of their own issues, which remain undecided by the district court. How the Supreme Court reads and interprets the statutes in question, as well as its analysis of the interworkings of several federal laws will be determinative for its decision. This may ultimately be a case about procedure and the process of implementation rather than power and constitutionality of law.

Resources

Primary

United States of America v. Texas: Writ of Certiorari

 U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and With Respect to Certain Individuals Who are Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents

Additional

Politico: Obama Administration Takes Immigration Battle to Supreme Court

Politico: SCOTUS Keeps Obama Immigration Case on Track For Ruling by Summer

Cornell University Law School – Legal Information Institute: 5 U.S. Code § 553 – Rule Making

Immigration Equality: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

 The Atlantic: A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration

 The New York Times: Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans

American Immigration Council: Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action

 National Public Radio (NPR): Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Obama’s Immigration Actions

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Federal Government’s Immigration Showdown: SCOTUS Will Decide appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican field is about to have its fifth (but feels like 275th) debate of the 2016 primary season, hosted by CNN. Given that the field is still depressingly crowded, the last debate of 2015 promises to be a contentious one. Here’s a rundown of what you need to know before tomorrow night’s debate:

Participants:

It’s no secret that the Republican field has been so crowded this time around that we’ve needed two debate stages to hold them all. CNN is following the format of the first four debates, with a “JV” table consisting of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham ,and former New York Gov. George Pataki.

The main debate will feature nine presidential hopefuls–according to CNN:

Businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, will again be center stage flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson on his right and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on his left, CNN announced Sunday. The six remaining participants in the prime-time contest will be Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The moderator will be Wolf Blitzer, with CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash joining Salem Radio Network talk show host Hugh Hewitt as questioners.

Seating Arrangements

The podium arrangement, which places higher-polling candidates front and center, will look like this:

.@CNNPolitics releases lineup, podium arrangement for final GOP debate of 2015 https://t.co/flm7OnriN0pic.twitter.com/ke1uPuRo2s

— Allison Wisk (@allisonwisk) December 13, 2015

Where’s the debate?

It’s going to be held in Las Vegas, at the Venetian hotel. It’s hosted by CNN, so if you want to stream it from the comfort of your own living room while playing a drinking game (no judgment) check out CNN.com’s live stream.

Will there be any feuds?

Given that we’re getting closer and closer to primary votes–the Iowa caucuses will be held in February–candidates are starting to get a bit nastier with each other. For example, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz–two of the frontrunners, are almost certain to attack each other, most likely on foreign affairs issues. Cruz is painting Rubio as a centrist who can’t be trusted, while Rubio’s gripe with Cruz is that he’s weak on security-adjacent concepts like surveillance.

We may also see some squabbles between Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump has gone after Cruz hard in recent days. On “Fox News Sunday” Trump called Cruz a “little bit of a maniac” when discussing his career in the Senate. Cruz’s response was surprisingly even-tempered, as he tweeted a reference to “Flashdance” at Donald Trump:

In honor of my friend @realDonaldTrump and good-hearted #Maniacs everywhere: https://t.co/KOPIi4XTVt

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 13, 2015

Whether or not Cruz will take the bait on the stage remains to be seen. 

What will they talk about?

Unlike the last few debates, tomorrow’s doesn’t have a specified theme. So, what the candidates will talk about could encompass a wide range of issues, but there are a few topics that it’s very safe to bet will be discussed. For starters, national security will be a hot topic. A lot has happened since the last debate on November 10, most visibly the horrific terrorist attack in Paris, France, that sparked conversations about the fight against ISIS, Syrian refugees, terrorism, and the status of Muslims in the United States. Additionally, the shooting in San Bernardino, California set many Americans even more on edge, leading to calls from Trump to stop allowing Muslims into the United States. Questions about gun control may also come up, as well as the economy and Planned Parenthood. 

Law Street readers: are there any topics you want to see discussed? Let us know the in the poll below:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Do You Want to Hear About in the Next Republican Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

Here we are, in the aftermath of a global tragedy, letting fear divide us. This statement could apply to any number of historical events in the history of the United States, going back as far as World War II and the internment of thousands of Japanese-American people.

It is not the mid-1900s, but yet again we find ourselves the victims of fear. Rather than fighting the source of our terror, we are fighting each other. Rather than helping the helpless, we are scapegoating them, judging them based on their appearance, their homeland, and their religion. For that reason, ISIS has already succeeded in a country it has yet to directly attack.

It is entirely hypocritical of the United States to deny assistance to a group of people who are fleeing not only an organization we have vowed to take down, but also an area that we as a country have helped to unhinge. Some of the unrest in the Middle East is directly related to American involvement in that region over the past decade, and to say otherwise is fallacy. We are fighting a “war on terror” and in fact, records show that residents of Middle Eastern countries, and more specifically Muslims, are the group most affected by terrorism.

But what do we do when the terrorists are claiming the same religion as their victims? That is simple: ISIS and all its associated monikers are not true representations of Islam, and we should not judge the millions of people who practice Islam by ISIS’ actions. It calls itself the “Islamic State,” but the only word that should be associated with its members is “terrorists.” Arguments that Islam as a religion actually promotes such terrorism are not based in fact, but rather false stereotypes that have circulated for years. Just watch Professor Reza Aslan skillfully defend Islam in this interview with CNN last year, which has resurfaced since the Paris attacks:

Blatant facts are usually not enough to curb the rising panic of American Islamophobia, though, especially when a Syrian passport was allegedly found near one of the Paris suicide bombers. The facts and origins of this passport are hazy, and it calls into question not only the motives behind the suicide bomber carrying such a passport, but also the security of European countries, not America.

Why would a jihadist who expressly rejects all notions of modern citizenship take his passport on a suicide mission? So it gets found.

— Charlie Winter (@charliewinter) November 15, 2015

ISIS has blatantly stated that its goals are to fan Islamophobia throughout the West, proving to itself and to Muslim people that the West is a land of corruption and ISIS holds the key to eternal happiness. On his website, Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow Aaron Zelin has collected ISIS videos explaining its motivations. Their latest video is entitled “Would You Exchange What Is Better for What Is Less?” and warns Muslims against fleeing to Christian lands where they will be persecuted. Zelin explains along with the video:

The reality is, The Islamic State (IS) loathes that individuals are fleeing Syria for Europe. It undermines IS’ message that its self-styled Caliphate is a refuge, because if it was, individuals would actually go there in droves since it’s so close instead of 100,000s of people risking their lives through arduous journeys that could lead to death en route to Europe.

And we are falling right into ISIS’ trap.

Since the Obama administration has announced that the United States still plans on accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees, something we have been planning to do for months, several governors have written statements that they will not allow refugees access to their state. However, according to the Refugee Act of 1980, they don’t have the power to do so. The federal government will still resettle hundreds of refugees in each state, regardless of what these governors say. The federal government cannot, however, dictate the welcome these refugees will receive, and since so many Americans are giving into the fear of ISIS-incited Islamophobia, that welcome–or lack-thereof–could be terrifying in itself.

And it isn’t just American citizens who are letting fear dictate their actions. Politicians are joining in the frenzy as well. Sen. Rand Paul even went so far as to introduce a bill that would immediately halt refugee visas.

Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on Monday:

Making policy based on this fear mongering is wrong for two reasons. It is factually wrong for blaming refugees for the very terror they are fleeing, and it is legally wrong because it violates our laws and the values on which our country was founded.

Those values are written plainly on the Statue of Liberty. We say “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.” But as John F. Kennedy sardonically wrote in his 1958 book “A Nation of Immigrants,” America has taken to adding: “as long as they come from Northern Europe, are not too tired or too poor or slightly ill, never stole a loaf of bread, never joined any questionable organization, and can document their activities for the past two years.”

We should be outraged that those words are as true today as they were in 1958. Yet our outrage is currently misdirected at refugees, rather than at the terror they are seeking refuge from. What adds to the irony is the argument coming from conservatives and conservative leadership that we should take care of the homeless, especially the homeless veterans, on U.S. soil before offering to help foreigners. The reality is that the past seven bills introduced in Congress that would have assisted those homeless vets were blocked by Republicans.

Which brings me back to this: American people and politicians are fighting each other rather than facing the problem as one unified force. We are giving into the fear that has historically produced some of the ugliest eras in our country’s history. In this pivotal moment, we must prove ISIS wrong. We must not persecute or blame the refugees, but lead the charge against the enemy we share.

We must remember that united we stand, and divided we fall.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post By Reacting to Fear, We Let ISIS Win appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, the lower house of the Italian parliament approved a bill that will let children born in Italy to immigrant parents receive citizenship if their parents have been residents in the country for at least five years.  If this bill passes in the Italian Senate, it will undo the principle of jus sanguinis (under which citizenship is only granted to those who have Italian ancestors) that has historically prevented children of immigrants from receiving full citizenship.

As the law stands today, children of immigrants, including those born in Italy, are given the permesso di soggiorno–a temporary residency card (the same one that study abroad students and short-term contractors receive) instead of an EU passport. Children cannot even apply for Italian citizenship until they come of age at 18. The application process takes years–waiting in line, submitting the same forms over and over, and living in fear of being arrested for not having the proper documentation. While they wait for their citizenship applications, these members of the “second generation” are not allowed to travel outside of the country. If the child of an immigrant is stopped by the police and they are not carrying the correct documents, they may be deported to their “country of origin”–even if they were born in Italy. Jus sanguinis is creating a generation of disenfranchised, second-class citizens. Filippo Miraglia, vice-president of ARCI, an organization that promotes social integration, explains that:

People born in Italy to foreign parents must now wait until they are 18 years old to request citizenship and they must have lived in Italy throughout their youth, and at least one of the parents must have a long-term permit to stay in Italy, must have a job, must own their home, and have no outstanding legal issues. And even then they can be turned down for subjective reasons based on the person processing the request.

Even in the rare case that these people obtain their documents, they still face widespread discrimination that is rarely addressed in the political sphere. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the Italian government has failed to take any effective action against racist and xenophobic violence over the past several years. There are relatively few political champions working to expand immigration rights for the second generation. Both the Northern League and Forza Italia have been adamant that immigration is negatively impacting Italy and have referred to the influx of immigrants over the past several decades as an “invasion.” Silvio Berlusconi made a series of racist comments during his time in power that reveal how little much of the Italian political elite care about creating a racially integrated society.

The new bill that has passed through the House is promising but without sufficient support in the Senate, it will lose momentum and fade into oblivion without making the slightest impact. Organizations like Rete G2  and ARCI  advocate for the rights of the second generation, but they have no representatives within Parliament to argue their case. Immigrants make up about 7 percent of the Italian population, yet they are largely excluded from political participation, the only arena in which they can fight for their own citizenship and security.

Before we dismiss Italian immigration policy as draconian and outdated, consider that over two dozen other countries use jus sanguinis (sometimes referred to as leges sanguinis) to determine citizenship. American citizens take for granted that nearly all of us receive birthright citizenship, but in an age where approximately 13 percent of the American population is comprised of immigrants, we too have to pause to assess the path to citizenship. This week, after a federal court overturned President Obama’s efforts to protect five million undocumented immigrants from deportation, the President has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case during its current term. The process of getting a green card and a work permit is arduous and requires patient navigation of a complex bureaucracy, but at least our legislative branch has moved to expedite the process and incorporate more immigrants into the legal citizenry. Our citizenship application, though complex and by no means perfect, is a dream compared to the Italian process.

Donald Trump’s threat to build a wall along the Mexican border earlier this year struck many of us as ridiculous, yet the Italian government has already built just such a wall to protect their borders–they have merely done so using an inefficient bureaucracy and institutionalized racism instead of bricks and mortar.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Dangers of Jus Sanguinis: Outdated and Restrictive Immigration Policy in Italy appeared first on Law Street.

Hundreds of thousands of migrants are fleeing war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan, making a perilous journey to Europe. For those who arrive in Europe, the reality may not be much better as the European Union, already struggling to stay together amidst financial issues, is now faced with one of the greatest migration crises in history. Meanwhile, in the United States, known for its history of immigration, the question of what can be done to help is gaining attention. Read on to learn about immigration history in the United States, what it has done so far, and what it can do in the future to assist Europe and the migrants risking their lives to make it there.

History of Immigration in the United States

The United States takes pride in being a nation of immigrants, from its initial colonization through several waves of immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. The first big wave of immigrants came to the United States in the mid-19th century, consisting largely of Irish and German migrants fleeing famine and blight in their own nations. The arrival of new people to the United States was not universally welcomed. Because many of the immigrants who came during this period were Catholic, anti-immigration sentiment emerged among many American Protestants who feared the rise of Catholicism in the United States. Another wave of immigrants came during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This group was comprised of Southern and Eastern Europeans such as Italians and Russians. Opposition to the changing U.S. population proved lasting, affecting several different policy decisions in Congress.

Laws Limiting Migration

As large waves of immigrants came to the United States, Congress enacted several new laws to manage, and most notably, limit, the flow of people. The first was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which outlined who was allowed to become an American citizen. While the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed free white people to become citizens, the Naturalization Act of 1870 expanded to include people of African descent, but still prohibited people from other places of origin. Many early U.S. immigration policies attempted to restrict the flow of immigrants from Asia. For example, there was the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882, which was later repealed in 1943.

The most notable change to the U.S. immigration policy came in the 1920s when Congress passed the Johson-Reed Act. The act, passed in 1924, established a quota system that limited the number of immigrants of each nationality to the levels present in the 1890 census. This effectively restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, and stopped immigration from Asia–seeking to prevent changes to the racial composition of the population. Finally, in 1965, Congress passed another immigration law, which established the visa system that the United States has today, doing away with the formal quota system. This law sought to focus on reuniting families and allowing skilled immigrants to live and work in the United States. The law also allowed for a notable increase in immigrants from countries in Asia.

How to Enter the United States

Despite the various changes to U.S. immigration policy in the 1900s, becoming a citizen or even coming to the United States remains an arduous process. Currently, there are several ways one can become a citizen or live in the United States temporarily. The first is family-based; a person can come to the United States if they are a child, direct relative, or spouse of someone who is already a citizen.

Second is the visa system, which can be broken down into temporary and permanent categories. Foreign nationals can receive temporary visas for tourism, business, or education. For long-term visitors, the U.S. government can issue a green card giving them permanent resident status if certain conditions are met. There is also a diversity program that encourages immigration from countries with low levels in the United States, in an effort to attract the best and brightest from around the world.

Refugees

Refugees are also a large part of the yearly immigration total in the United States. Following WWII and the passage of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, approximately 650,00 people were admitted from war-torn Europe. In subsequent years, additional waves of refugees settled in the United States, often escaping oppression from their home governments. The Cold War led to a notable rise in refugees to the United States, particularly after the Vietnam War.

Congress passed the Refuge Act of 1980, which standardized the definition of who is a refugee and how he or she can be resettled within the country. Every year, the president and Congress decide how many refugees the country will accept and from where they will come. Since 1975, roughly three million refugees have been permitted to settle in the United States. The number of refugees accepted annually has ranged from 207,116 in 1980 to 27,100 in 2002.

The Migrant Crisis

What’s Going on in Europe

Before we get to the United States’ role in the current crisis, let’s first go over what is going on in Europe and the Middle East. The immigration crisis affecting Europe is unlike anything the region has ever seen. So far, 350,000 people have migrated to the continent, dwarfing last year’s record high of 219,000 people. Many of the migrants come from Syria where a civil war has caused over four million people to flee the country. More than 2,800 have died while attempting to cross the Mediterranean this year alone.

The massive influx of migrants has created a significant problem for the European Union, which so far leaders have failed to properly address. For more information about the crisis in Europe check out Law Street’s explainer as well as the video below.

Refugees in the United States

According to the U.S. Department of State, a refugee is, “someone who has fled from his or her home country and cannot return because he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” For any refugee, the first step is to apply for refugee status with the United Nations in the country where he or she is seeking asylum. Even if a person is granted protected status, there is no guarantee that he or she will be accepted in the United States (there are as many as 15 million worldwide). The idea behind admitting refugees is often to provide a temporary home until they can return to their own countries. While few refugees are admitted, even fewer are allowed to stay somewhere permanently.

Current U.S. Efforts

So far, the United States’ primary contribution has come financially–America has given Europe $4 billion in aid to combat the crisis. However, when it comes to accepting migrants, the United States has come up short. Many of those fleeing to Europe are Syrians, trying to escape a civil war in their homeland. Nonetheless, the quota allotted to Syrian refugees was just 1,500 until recently. On September 10, the Obama Administration called for the United States to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian immigrants in the next fiscal year, which starts October 1.

Some non-profits have called for a much higher number. The United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants believes the United States should accept as many as 100,000 migrants from Syria in addition to 70,000 to 100,000 immigrants from other countries. This has stirred debate in Congress, where some Republican members are worried that allowing more Syrian refugees could increase the threat of terrorism. The following video outlines the U.S. government’s actions so far in this crisis:

Illegal Immigration in the US

Another consideration for the United States is the number migrants already inside the country. As of right now there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants–of those, around 50 percent are from Mexico. Illegal immigration remains a hot-button issue for the U.S. government, making its willingness to help Europe even more complicated. When you factor in the population already here, the likelihood of the United States accepting a large number of Syrian refugees is not very high.

 Conclusion

The current migration crisis in Europe threatens to overwhelm the European Union, which is struggling to handle so many people. Europe’s inability to control the influx has led to a wide range of criticism. Many are now looking for the United States to step up its involvement in the crisis. So far the United States has given a significant amount of money to help alleviate some of Europe’s problems, but it has done relatively little in terms of accepting refugees. The recent announcement to accept 10,000 Syrians will certainly help, but given the number of refugees fleeing Syria and other conflict-torn countries, both the United States and Europe will need to do more.

People attempting to migrate to the United States, even refugees, face an array of requirements that make the process difficult. Couple that with fears of terrorism and the existing immigration problem facing the United States, and it seems unlikely that it will fill its historic role as the home of last resort. Whatever the United States decides to do, it and the European Union must move quickly, as pressure continues to mount.

Resources

Primary

Pew Research Center: 5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the US

UN Refugee Agency: Syria Regional Refugee Response

Additional 

HSTRY: A History of Immigration in the USA

CNN: European Migrant Crisis

France 24: Hungary to Return Economic Migrants to Where They Came From

American Immigration Council: How the United States Immigration System Works

Refugee Council USA: History of the US Refugee Resettlement Program

US Department of State: Refugee Admissions

The Economist: Migration from Europe

New York Times: As European Crisis Grows, US Considers Taking in more Syrians

Voice of America: US Pledges to Accept More Migrants

INQUISITR: 29 countries accepting refugees from Syria and the Middle East

Center for Immigration Studies: US Immigration Population Record 41.3 million in 2013

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Role in Solving the Migrant Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

The debate over illegal immigration often focuses on enforcement–how we are going to secure our border and protect Americans–but the consequences of stronger enforcement often generally get less attention from policymakers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained 441,000 immigrants in 2013. A BuzzFeed News analysis of data from the Department of Justice found that Mexican immigrants are disproportionately detained pending deportation. This is true not only in terms of raw numbers, but also relative to detention rates from other countries–even when accounting for gender, legal representation, and those facing criminal charges.

According to BuzzFeed News,

Three-quarters of all Mexicans facing deportation on noncriminal grounds were placed in detention centers. For Guatemalans, the next most frequently detained group, the rate was 61%. For China and Cuba, longtime adversaries of the United States, the rates were 19% and 16%.

These findings are particularly striking because of how the website’s methodology looked only at people who were detained without facing criminal charges. BuzzFeed News’ article implicitly argues that the current focus on illegal immigration typically relates to immigrants coming from Mexico, and the detention disparity likely reflects an attempt to specifically deter Mexican immigration. The article also cites a Supreme Court decision, which ruled that civil detention cannot be used for deterrence or retribution–revealing a potential issue with ICE’s detention practices.

However, one thing that the analysis is unable to take into consideration is whether those who are detained have been previously deported or have criminal histories. To its credit, BuzzFeed News does acknowledge this and argues, that factors that are unaccounted for “…could explain at least part of the disparity — but probably not all of it, according to the experts consulted by BuzzFeed News.”

The article also highlights potential issues with detention when a detainee does not face criminal charges. A 2009 analysis by the Associated Press found that at one point in time more than half of those in ICE detention did not face criminal charges and had no criminal record.

In recent years, ICE has adjusted its detention policies to focus on high priority immigrants, who include criminals and repeat offenders. Jeh Jonson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), issued new guidelines for the apprehension, detention, and removal of illegal immigrants to initiate a change from previous policies. DHS has also moved away from what have been called “bed quotas,” which was essentially an implicit requirement to fill every available bed in the department’s detention budget. The department’s budget required it to maintain “a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds,” which in practice became a requirement to fill nearly all of the budgeted beds in detention centers (see chart below). In an appropriations hearing this year, Secretary Johnson argued that this was no longer the department’s policy. Recent statistics also suggest that the actual number of detainees is around 78 percent of the required capacity for the first five months of the 2015 fiscal year.

Image courtesy of Congressional Research Service

Also important is the fact that convictions for immigration offenses caused a significant portion of the growth in the federal prison population. A Pew Research Center analysis of sentencing data found that between 1992 and 2012 the number of federal inmates (including citizens and non-citizens) more than doubled–going from 36,564 to 75,867. That growth is widely acknowledged and is a cornerstone of the criminal justice reform movement currently gaining momentum in the United States. But what is less known is the fact that 48 percent of the growth in federal prisoners is due to sentences for one specific offense: unlawful reentry, which in addition to other immigration offenses made up 30 percent of the federal convictions in 2012. As a result, non-citizen Hispanics make up the single largest portion of the federal prison population at 37 percent.

Tough on immigration policies are often discussed by politicians, but their effects–most notably the detention and imprisonment of immigrants–receive much less attention. Discussion of immigration should not be divorced from its costs and consequences, which despite recent progress in targeting higher priority immigrants remain significant. While supporting stronger border protections is a valid position, and may even be politically expedient, proponents should acknowledge how such a policy will affect prison populations.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Consequences of Stronger Immigration Enforcement Can Be Seen in Our Prisons appeared first on Law Street.

How do Millennials help America build a better future? With over 1,200 business-casual-clad young activists and leaders packed into a chilly ballroom washed with blue stage lights, Generation Progress rallied Millennials in Washington, D.C. at its national summit on Thursday in an attempt to find out.

Now in its tenth year, Generation Progress’s “Make Progress” National Summit offers young people a day packed with well known speakers, inspiring dialogues, and stimulating buzzwords. With keynote speakers on the main stage and breakout sessions on topics ranging from diversity in public office to sexual assault prevention and student debt, attendees throughout the day were empowered through education on critical issues. Through communal support and prodigious encouragement from American leaders, the mood was alive with the goal of the day: creating progress.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren opened up the summit with an invigorating speech that earned dozens of standing ovations. Reverberating energy, Senator Warren spoke about college affordability, diversity, and social change inspired by activism. During one pause, an audience member yelled out “Run for president!” to which the Senator responded with a big grin and a chuckle, while everyone else jumped to their feet and erupted in approving cheers and applause. Her most applauded statement was that the progressive Supreme Court decisions over the past weeks were the direct result of young activists who dedicate their lives to fighting for social justice, stating, “We get what we fight for. Are you ready to get out there and fight?”

This morning I told young people at #MakeProgress: You get what you fight for. pic.twitter.com/JhwTtTzGBa

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 16, 2015

Michele Jawando, Vice President for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, later took the stage for a sobering panel on reforming the criminal justice system. She expressed her belief that young people putting pressure on their elected officials and demanding change is critical, and commended the Millennial generation for its high level of engagement with issues of importance, simultaneously striking down the notion that our generation is unengaged or uninformed.

After asking the audience to “stand up if you have participated in a march, a protest, or an online day of action in the past six months,” more than half of the room was standing. Jawando stated, “the only time Congress pays attention is when there is enough action that forces them to pay attention.” She praised those who partake in activist movements, particularly the sit-ins that forced members of Congress to face the consequences of adverse decisions, and encouraged all to become involved. The discussion then led to a breakdown of the 1994 crime bill that increased mandatory minimums for those sentenced to prison, created the “tough on crime” rhetoric that is only recently beginning to be critically questioned, and created a definition of criminals as young people of color. Jawando said that many current members of Congress were members in 1994 when this draconian bill was passed and that “some of those members don’t really want to concede, they don’t want to admit they were wrong.” She then expressed that while discussing reform is important, action needs to be immediate. “Yeah we are tweeting about it, we’re writing about it, we’re marching in the streets…But we still have to pass a bill y’all.”

Jawando made a few key remarks that resonated deeply with the young, social justice-minded audience; first, that there is a strong connection between the people who are elected and the changes we see in society. Second, that humanizing issues and telling personal stories of injustice is the most powerful way to inspire change. And third, that there is a dangerous misconception that people who are in prison always deserve to be there; Jawando stated that this mindset of “otherization,” or the “us versus them” mentality, will continue to act as a barrier to change until these divisions are broken.

.@MicheleJawando shares her personal experience on discrimination & the criminal justice system #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/43TsktDXrl

— LCLAA (@LCLAA) July 16, 2015

My favorite breakout panel occurred in the afternoon: “It’s On US: Advocates Creating Cultural Change” featuring keynote speaker Tina Tchen. Tchen, Assistant to President Obama, Chief of Staff to Michelle Obama, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, gave an inspiring and informative speech on Generation Progress’s national campaign to prevent sexual assault. One in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted or experience some form of sexual violence by the time they graduate college. “We know, and you know, that this is a crisis on campuses,” Tchen said. The It’s On US movement on college campuses aims to fundamentally change the environment of rape culture and shift the conversation to be empowering for survivors and encouraging for those who have the ability to intervene in situations that could end in assault. “We are fundamentally on our way to a society that recognizes and supports survivors,” Tchen said over snaps and applause. Panelists encouraged students to join or start It’s On US on their respective college campuses, and to take the pledge to end sexual assault.

"It's not just about stopping sexual assault on campus. That is just the start."-Tina Tchen at #MakeProgress @ItsOnUs pic.twitter.com/apyLvEcAlR

— Chante Harris (@chante__harris) July 16, 2015

The final speaker of the day, and the most anticipated, was Vice President Joe Biden. All smartphones were whipped out to welcome the Vice President and most summit-goers found themselves on tiptoe in their chairs to catch a better glimpse of the esteemed guest. Mr. Biden gave a powerful, insightful, but occasionally lighthearted speech, that felt much more like sitting down for an after-dinner conversation with an affectionate grandfather than an address by the Vice President. The VP touched on a range of topics, from the need to create affordable education, to climate change, to closing the expanding wage gap in the country. He even called on politicians to resist donations from millionaires and billionaires to fund their primary election campaigns, potentially an allusion to Senator Bernie Sanders who also cares deeply and advocates against the privatization of political donations.

"If you could do only 1 thing to increase equality what would it be?" @VP asks the #MakeProgress crowd. "Get private money out of politics"

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) July 16, 2015

The Vice President expressed his sincere appreciation and confidence in the Millennial generation, stating “There’s more reason today than ever before to be idealistic, optimistic, tenacious, passionate, and principled.” The most prominent message Mr. Biden delivered during his time on stage was that passion, just like the passion in the room before him, is what generates social change and makes progress.

"I applaud your passion. Never apologize for it. Never explain it away." @JoeBiden at @genprogress #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/T5cowdiCLT

— Emily Dalgo (@DalgoEmily) July 16, 2015

Generation Progress’s Make Progress National Summit concluded with a slew of selfies with Joe Biden and a ballroom full of young activists stepping back into the D.C. sun with newfound inspiration and admiration for the causes they believe in. The summit, though only one day long, has the power and the potential to ignite young minds for years to come. Make Progress is proof that Millennials do care about the issues. They are engaged, they’re active, and they’re ready to fight. Outside, the only audible sound was of heels clicking and dress shoes clacking on the sidewalks as the attendees trickled out of the summit. But one sound still echoed in everyone minds: applause and cheers for change, for action, and for progress.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Generation Progress Encourages Millennials to “Make Progress” appeared first on Law Street.

Hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants and Dominicans of Haitian descent currently face the risk of deportation from the Dominican Republic. Even though this process is meant to weed out only illegal immigrants, the practice has come under particular scrutiny. The Dominican Republic government has generated a lot of controversy in regards to this sudden deportation effort because many feel it is unjust.

For example, on Monday, Yayine Mesilus was snatched off the streets of her small village in the Dominican Republic and taken back to Haiti. She had migrated there eight years ago with her little brother, Clever, to look for work. She stated:

I was thrown back here because I was not carrying my document to prove I was already trying to register. They didn’t even give me the chance to explain what was happening,

Migrant workers were supposed to be given until the night of Wednesday, June 17, to register with Dominican authorities before being deported. If they had not completed the process, but began registration, they were supposed to be given a 45-day grace period. The government promised to open a path to naturalization for those who registered, after claiming to want to get a grip on its migrant work force.

The forthcoming deportation stems from a law passed last year that requires all foreign-born workers to register with the government within a year or face deportation. But this law followed a 2013 court ruling to strip the citizenship of children born in the Dominican Republic to foreign parents. For human rights advocates, this court ruling was viewed as discrimination against Dominicans with darker skin and Haitian migrant workers.

An international outcry resulted in the government later softening its stance. It promised citizenship to children whose births were in the nation’s civil registry, and a chance to nationalize those not formally registered. But with anything less then full citizenship, these people are left stateless, belonging to neither their birthplace nor their family’s homeland.

Nearly 240,000 migrant workers born outside of the Dominican Republic have started the registration process. But there are an estimated 524,000 foreign-born migrant workers in the country, about ninety percent of whom are Haitian. This leaves a huge population of migrant workers at risk for deportation.

Dominican Republic officials claim that providing illegal immigrants a path to naturalization is more generous than the policies of other countries, including the United States. But their mass deportations involve purging a racial group with which there has been a long history of tension.

Haitian workers have been crossing the border for generations to cut sugar cane, clean homes, and care for children. However, there has been racial tension since the massacre of tens of thousands of Haitian laborers ordered by Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo in 1937. More recently, the Dominican Republic claims to be tired of bearing the brunt of Haiti’s economic troubles, both before and after the 2010 earthquake that sent Haitians fleeing across the border. The 2013 court ruling on citizenship further solidified the tense situation.

The Dominican Republic economy will most likely experience a large change when the migrants are deported. For generations, Haitians have assumed the jobs that many Dominicans do not want, filling a vital part of the labor market often below market rates. If a large portion of their labor force is removed, production costs could rise.

Moreover, this deportation policy illustrates the lack of empathy the Dominican Republic has for its Haitian born people and migrant workers. The government claims to be doing them a favor by providing them with options that have guidelines, but these options are not necessarily adequate. If the Dominican Republic wants to provide Haitians with a clear path to naturalization, it should do so–the current deportation situation illustrates that this simply isn’t the case.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dominican Republic’s Deportation Policy: Is it Broken? appeared first on Law Street.

On October 12, 2012, 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez lay dead on the Mexican side of an international street with almost a dozen bullet holes marring his body. His tragic death has sparked a legal battle that continues to this day.

The shooter, a United States Border Patrol (USBP) Agent named Lonnie Swartz, said he’d fired his .40-caliber pistol through the fence after witnessing a group of people, including Elena Rodriguez, throwing rocks at agents across the border and endangering their lives. The issue is that his description of events may not have been accurate. Two witnesses on the Mexican side of the fence swore that Elena Rodriguez was actually walking down the street when the other youths ran past just before the shooting started.

If there even was a crime, the punishment surely didn’t seem to fit it. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) agreed, calling the boy’s death yet another example of excessive force used by USBP agents and demanded action.

Two-year anniversary of the death of then 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez in Nogales, SON. pic.twitter.com/2d9jdBDoaO

— Yoohyun Jung (@yoohyun_jung) October 11, 2014

Fast forward three and a half years later and Elena Rodriguez’s case still remains suspended in limbo. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in Tucson against agent Lonnie Swartz on behalf of Araceli Rodriguez, the boy’s mother, but a federal judge is considering throwing it out. Why? According to the Associated Press, it’s on the grounds that since the boy was shot across the U.S.-Mexico border and not in the U.S. at the time, he therefore wasn’t under the protection of the U.S. Constitution.

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, argued in support for Elena Rodriguez’s family telling the AZCentral,

A Border Patrol agent can put his gun up to the fence and shoot a teenager, and the Constitution has nothing to say about that? Everything that took place, except the bullet that killed him, happened in the U.S.

However, Sean Chapman, the private attorney representing Swartz, argued Tuesday before U.S. District Judge Raner Collins that Swartz did not violate Elena Rodriguez’s constitutional rights because the Constitution does not extend to a Mexican citizen in Mexico. There’s a chance Judge Collins could agree with him.

According to the AP, there’s currently case law from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that unanimously decided that Border Patrol agents shooting on U.S. soil cannot be sued if they kill someone across the border in Mexico. While Collins isn’t bound to this ruling, since Elena Rodriguez’s case is in the 9th circuit and the 5th circuit doesn’t take precedent there, it’s something to consider.

Another alarming factor is the glaring similarities between this case and the death of Trayvon Martin. Both teenage boys were around the same age, 16 and 17 respectively, and were portrayed as thugs despite evidence to the contrary. They were also both made symbols for their communities and mourned by thousands, and so far neither one has received any justice for their deaths. Americans are beginning to care when young black boys are killed for no reason (i.e. Baltimore and Ferguson), but apparently our level of awareness hasn’t yet extended to our southern neighbors.

It’s unclear what the judge will decide in Elena Rodriguez’s case, but one thing is clear: our nation is desperate need of more accountability when it comes to these agents and our police forces, even if they are the ones responsible for protecting us.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does a Mexican Teen Killed by Border Patrol Have Constitutional Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

The millions of undocumented people living in the United States waiting for the “green light” to apply for the deportation protection program presented by President Obama may never get their chance, thanks to a Federal Appeals court decision Tuesday.

The appeals court for the Fifth Circuit opted to deny the Obama Administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration. This court’s decision is a Republican victory for Texas and the 25 other states who collectively filed the lawsuit to prevent the president’s proposed path to citizenship from reaching fruition.

In November, President Obama first announced the executive orders to implement the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Personal Residents (DAPA). The program was designed to be a kind of “legal reprieve” by granting citizenship to undocumented parents of children born in the U.S. and illegal immigrants who have lived in the country permanently for at least five years.

The president also announced expansion plans for the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that permits teenagers and young adults who were born outside of the United States, but raised in the country, to apply for protection from deportation and for employment authorizations. However, both orders were immediately met with Republican resistance questioning the legality of such an action.

In a statement issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and quoted by CNN, Paxton praised the ruling calling it a “victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America.” Paxton said,

Telling illegal aliens that they are now lawfully present in this country, and awarding them valuable government benefits, is a drastic change in immigration policy. The President’s attempt to do this by himself, without a law passed by Congress and without any input from the states, is a remarkable violation of the U.S Constitution and laws.

The White House issued its own response to these allegations via spokesperson Brandi Hoffine who called the decision a “misrepresentation of the facts and the law.” Hoffine as quoted by USA Today said,

As the powerful dissent from Judge [Stephen] Higginson recognizes, President Obama’s immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law. The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe.

…

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, business leaders, local law enforcement and elected officials, educators, faith leaders, legal scholars, and others have all asked the courts to allow these actions to move forward, given the important economic and public safety benefits.

With bids for the 2016 presidential election already well under way, these programs were meant to be a lasting part of Obama’s presidential legacy, but it’s unclear where their fate may now lay. The White House and Justice Department lawyers are reportedly evaluating the court’s ruling while considering possible next steps. Regardless of which side of the immigration aisle you lean, it’s obvious that this decision does little to fix the nation’s broken system.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Immigration Plan: Does it Have Any Hope of Moving Forward? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the markers of the current political climate is the animosity between President Obama and Congress. One of the manifestations of this climate can be seen in the fact that Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General has continued to languish in the halls of the Senate. If his remarks at a recent press conference are any indication, President Obama has had enough.

Loretta Lynch was nominated for the position of Attorney General nearly six months ago on November 8, 2014, but her nomination has been held up in the Senate since that point. There aren’t really any substantive reasons though, as no one seems to have any objections to Lynch’s qualifications for the job. While there are some concerns over her opinions on President Obama’s immigration reform, it seems like she’ll eventually be confirmed. It’s just a matter of when at this point.

The when is difficult though, as her nomination is being held up until a bill on human trafficking is settled, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats, however, object to the bill because it contains a provision that prevents any money from the crime victims’ compensation fund from being spent on abortion services. Not only do many Senate Democrats object to the provision on moral grounds, they also claim that the Republicans surprised them by adding that provision to the bill without consulting them. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated,

I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it. But the fact is, the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it that we were told would not be included.

However, until this matter is solved, McConnell has said that they won’t vote on Lynch’s nomination. He’s framed it as a matter of priority–it’s important to finish a bill that will help trafficking victims before moving on to Lynch’s nomination. But it’s become a game of political chicken, and her nomination is caught right in the middle.

A sense of frustration and exasperation is exactly what the President expressed in a press conference Froday when speaking about the hold ups to the Lynch nomination. He emphatically stated,

Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed, let her do her job. This is embarrassing. There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.

Regardless of Obama’s impassioned statements, it’s highly doubtful that his remarks will have any effect on the GOP Senators’ actions. Especially after the fights over the Iran deal and Obama’s immigration reform, there’s no real lost love between the executive and legislative branches. Lynch’s nomination will probably remain in limbo, at least for now.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Lashes Out at Senate Over Loretta Lynch Confirmation Hold Up appeared first on Law Street.

“Natural” and “organic” labels on food have become a tremendously popular–and tremendously profitable–means of discussing, buying, and selling food.

But what do we really know about what it means when those $4.99 cherry tomatoes are labeled as “organic,” or when that chicken is marketed as “all natural”? And who are we really concerned about when we talk about food labels–only consumers, or the people who produce our food, as well?

 What’s so natural about “natural”?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t seem to have a clear answer to this question. In regards to the definition of “natural” food, the FDA’s website states that it:

Has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

Without any legally binding regulations to mark which foods can be sold as “natural” and which cannot, the meaning of the label is ambiguous at best. Since “natural” foods are defined inconsistently–perhaps in whatever way sells best–the label is often criticized as being both misleading and meaningless.

The definition of “natural” is, however, regulated for meat and poultry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Safety Inspection Service requires that, in the case of meat and poultry labeling, “natural” must mean:

A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as ‘no artificial ingredients; minimally processed’).

This emphasis on fundamentally altering the product means that the natural label is determined not by the process of raising the animals involved, but in their preparation for being sent to grocery stores after death. This means that what is fed to animals before their death is not regulated by a “natural” label. As a Take Action petition for banning “natural” labels that confuse customers reminds us, this means that:

Meat labeled as ‘natural’ can come from animals that were raised with daily doses of antibiotics and other drugs, given artificial growth hormones, fed genetically engineered soy and corn feed and other artificial ingredients and continually confined indoors.

 How organic is “organic”?

The definitions of “organic” are more legally binding than those of “natural.” According to the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA), there are standards of “organic farming” that determine whether or not a food item can be labeled and sold as organic. This emphasis on organic as a farming process means that organic definitions are less about ingredients and more about the process of growing and considering the treatment of the plants that were harvested for food.

However, this also means that–especially due to the many kinds of organic labels–foods marketed as “organic” can still be full of chemicals. An informal investigation of Whole Foods organic products by Duke University senior Emma Loewe revealed many additives that are permissible under organic labeling. She writes,

Over the course of my search, I came across organic trail mix that featured Silicon Dioxide, Cirtric Acids and Maltodextrin. Try saying that five times fast. The canned goods aisle brought me to organic soup made up of sodium citrate and a dash of ‘cheese flavor’ for good measure. The organic cereal I picked up was made with vegetable glycerin—a common additive in cosmetics and soaps because of its cooling effect on the skin.

These additives are permitted under “organic” labels largely because there are different kinds of organic. According to the National Science Foundation, the different means of organic phrasing–100 percent organic, organic, made with organic ingredients, and others–are held to a diversity of legal standards. In order to use the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Seal, foods claiming to be 100 percent organic must be made with 100 percent organic ingredients, excluding water and salt. Foods using the label “organic” must have 95-99 percent organic ingredients. Foods can still call themselves organic by saying they are “made with organic ingredients” if between 70 and 84 percent of the ingredients are organic.

This brings us back to the question: what does it mean to be an “organic ingredient”? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service, the regulations for crops and animals are as follows:

Organic crops. The USDA organic seal verifies that irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms were not used.

Organic livestock. The USDA organic seal verifies that producers met animal health and welfare standards, did not use antibiotics or growth hormones, used 100% organic feed, and provided animals with access to the outdoors.

Vague statements like “access to the outdoors” and “prohibited pesticides” raise a great number of questions and criticisms regarding loopholes in the standards of organic labeling.

 From the Farm: Labor and Labels

Discussions about food labels so often focus exclusively on the health of people consuming the food. However, these conversations generally erase a bigger conversation about health, that is, the health of the farm workers who are the human backbone of agriculture in this country.

Advocates hope that efforts like these and others, such as emphases on broader immigration reform and health care, can bring a more total picture of health into the conversation about the health issues surrounding “organic” farming and “natural” foods.

So Are “Natural” and “Organic” Foods Actually Healthier?

It is important to determine whose health we are asking about when we discuss the healthiness of “organic” and “natural” foods. Those who consider the health of farm workers that produce foods labeled “organic” and “natural,” worry that the production of these foods can generate horrible health consequences for the humans involved in the process.

As to the question of “is it healthier to consume these foods?”, the answer is perhaps not. It’s important to remember that many large corporations, such as Coca-Cola, own organic brands, which links organic brands to larger environmental devastation and labor exploitation that negatively impact global health.

Given the legal impotence and inconsistency of the label “natural” advocates against the labels argue that foods with this label have anything in common other than their respective corporations’ attempt to tap into a market that wants to eat “natural” foods. Regarding the consumption of “organic” foods, the Mayo Clinic states that while the jury is technically still out, studies conducted over the past fifty years do not make a convincing argument that there are any significant differences in nutritional content between “organic” and non-organic foods. So, next time you go to your grocery store, you may want to keep a close eye on more than just the labels on your food.

Resources

Primary

Food and Drug Administration: What is the Meaning of ‘Natural’ on the Label of Food?

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms

U.S. Department of Agriculture: National Organic Program

Environmental Protection Agency: Organic Farming

Additional

Farmworker Justice: Home

Agricultural Justice Project: Home

Grist: Workers on Organic Farms are Treated as Poorly as Their Conventional Counterparts

TakeAction: Stop Confusing Consumers: Ban the ‘Natural’ Label

EcoWatch: Organic Labeling: What You Need to Know

NaturallySavvy: The USDA Organic Program Faces Criticism

EarthJustice: Pesticides: The Workplace Hazard the EPA is Ignoring

Salon: California’s Rampant Farm-Labor Abuse

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Natural or Organic: Not Just the Labels on Our Food appeared first on Law Street.

Much ado has been made about the potential impacts of gay marriage on immigrants, and the potential impacts of comprehensive immigration reform on LGBTQ people. But what does all that mean? How do laws aimed at immigrants and laws aimed at LGBTQ people impact those who are both immigrants and LGBTQ? Read on to learn about the different difficulties of LGBTQ immigration, what progress is being made, and what problems still exist.

“Don’t Separate my Family”: Marriage and Immigration

When people hear about immigration and gay rights together in mainstream media sources, chances are that the conversation is about the impacts of gay marriage on immigration policy and individual couples in which one partner is an immigrant and the other is a citizen.

In the build up to the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, which provided full federal recognition of legally married same-sex couples by striking down a critical component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many couples in which one partner was not a citizen were featured in efforts of advocacy for gay marriage. A perfect example is the couple featured in the YouTube clip above. In the aftermath of federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a good deal of media coverage focused on long-term lesbian and gay relationships in which one of the partners was granted legal immigration status through marriage to a citizen partner. This New York Daily News article, for example, frames the triumph of gay marriage advocates in New York through the lens of immigration, discussing same-sex marriage as a win for a binational couple’s ability to obtain a green card for one of the partners.

Legal recognition for same-sex marriage has somewhat been a boon for proponents of more accessible immigration. LGBTQ couples no longer need to live in fear that they will not be able to live together in the U.S. because their marriage isn’t recognized: after the DOMA decision, same-sex couples have the right–as straight couples do–to have an immigrant partner obtain a green card through their marriage to a citizen spouse. Prior to the DOMA decision, no federal rights of marriage, including federal taxes and federal benefits, were afforded to same-sex couples, even if they were married in a state where it was legal. There was a lack of ability to obtain a green card for an immigrant partner in a binational couple; these rights are now assured. Transgender immigrants in a binational marriage, rest assured–whether you’re in a straight or  gay/lesbian relationship, the DOMA decision ensures that you or your partner can qualify for a green card.

New Concerns After the DOMA Decision

After the DOMA decision, however, concerns remain for LGBTQ immigrant couples. For example, investigative reporter Seth Freed Wessler writes for Colorlines.com that,

The parts of the marriage-based visa process that include investigation by federal immigration officers into the validity of a marriage… [can pose a problem for] LGBT couples who may not be out to their families, communities, neighbors or bosses, the prospect of a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer showing up at their apartment building or calling their mother to ask about the relationship poses a pretty serious risk.

This is indeed something to be concerned about, and it may well bar access to green cards for many LGBTQ immigrants. Yet it is precisely this articulation of the U.S. as a liberal bastion and safe-haven for LGBTQ people–juxtaposed against “homophobic” countries–that causes many LGBTQ people to critique the entire framing of same-sex marriage as a vehicle for positive immigration policy.

Many LGBTQ people argue that fighting for marriage takes away attention, energy, and resources (millions and millions of dollars worth) from addressing the underlying issues of structural racism, state oppression and heteronormativity that shape anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ attitudes to begin with. Queercents writer Yasmin argues that marriage “being presented as THE immigration cause for LGBT people” detracts crucial attention away from comprehensive immigration reform, which she and many others assert should be the focal point of immigration efforts. Responding to American Apparel’s same-sex marriage-inspired “Legalize Gay” shirts Yasmin writes that:

Do people wearing this t-shirt have a clue what it really means to be illegal? To be, for instance, an ‘illegal alien’ who gets swept up in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid and be deported soon thereafter? To not be able to travel freely because they lack the proper documentation? To pay for their school tuition and rent in cash because they lack social security numbers? [And i]t’s not just the undocumented whose lives are effectively erased by this t-shirt, but the millions who are being funneled into the prison industrial complex in order to increase its profits.

Even if an undocumented immigrant who is LGBTQ is familiar with the fears and oppressions discussed here, they may not have marriage available to them–or may not desire marriage–if they want a green card.

Executive Action and Legal Challenges

President Obama’s executive action in November 2014 that attempted to grant relief from deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants is being legally challenged by 26 states. These legal challenges have left millions of people in limbo, without knowing their status or rights, because the parents of U.S. citizens and families who were protected from deportation under his executive orders now must wait to learn what courts will decide about the legal challenges.

The impacts of Obama’s exercise of executive power (and, then, the impacts of the legal challenges to this power) for LGBTQ people have been much debated in LGBTQ communities. Staff correspondents Rachel Roubein and Lauren Fox argue in the National Journal that Obama’s actions on immigration were a tremendous help to LGBTQ people. They cite, among other things, the life-saving potential of prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases, which can prevent many LGBTQ people from being deported.

Other critics are less optimistic about the potential of Obama’s executive action to serve as the immigration overhaul that many desire, even if the cases against it are unsuccessful. Colorlines.com reporter Julianne Hung reminds her readers that:

The terms [of the action] are stringent: It will apply only to those who have been in the U.S. for five years or more; those who came to the country as young teens; and parents of U.S. citizen children and green-card holders. People with various criminal violations on their records will be barred from relief.

While these familial provisions were portrayed as being meant to keep families together, they do not grant access to many of the 267,000 undocumented LGBTQ adults who will not qualify for relief under Obama’s action because they lack these kinds of familial connections. These stringent terms may be particularly prohibitive for many of the 20,000-50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants in the country, for whom accessing potential relief will likely be particularly difficult due to virulent institutional transphobia that trans immigrants face.

“Mass Incarceration of Immigrants”

Currently, there’s a “mass incarceration of immigrants” in which the state and prison corporations generate many billions of dollars of profit from privately run and revenue-generating facilities that lock up people who are immigrants. In light of that, many LGBTQ immigrants are concerned about prisons generally, and the ways transgender people are targeted for especially horrific treatment in prisons and immigration detention centers. When the Department of Homeland Security came out with new immigration detention policies in 2014 that were aimed at preventing sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities, many lauded the changes as a victory. LGBTQ immigrants in these centers often experience much higher rates of abuse than their non-LGBTQ peers, so the changes were often welcomed by LGBTQ immigration advocates.

However, transgender immigrants did not receive adequate protections under the new guidelines. National Center for Transgender Equality director of policy Harper Jean Tobin referred to the new policies in the following way:

A tremendous missed opportunity which adds urgency to ending our multibillion-dollar mass incarceration of immigrants… The lack of adequate protections for transgender immigrants in particular makes it clear that these vulnerable individuals are not safe in detention facilities and should no longer be detained.

Many transgender asylum seekers are detained in the wrong facilities, particularly women being placed in all-male facilities, making those women targets of extreme sexual violence in immigration detention facilities.

This kind of abuse is experienced at higher rates by transgender immigrants, but LGB immigrants also are sexually abused at 15 percent higher rates than their non-LGB peers in detention facilities.

Organizations like the National Center for Transgender Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and the Sylvia Rivera Project’s Immigrant Rights Project work at the intersections between immigration and LGBTQ justice. They operate in ways that attempt to make detention safer for LGBTQ immigrants specifically while also working to make detention and deportation non-existent for all immigrants.

Conclusion

For immigrants who are LGBTQ, obstacles to obtaining a green card and safety from deportation can be much greater than for immigrants who are not LGBTQ, though the obstacles and the stakes are quite high for all immigrants. Same-sex marriage may chip away at these obstacles for some LGBTQ immigrants in binational, married relationships, but more overarching reform of the system of detention and deportation of immigrants may be a more holistic way forward for LGBTQ immigrants.

Resources

Primary

Oyez: United States v. Windsor

Additional

National Immigrant Justice Center: Stop Abuse of Detained LGBT Immigrants

Sylvia Rivera Law Project: Immigrant Rights Project

National Center for Transgender Equality: Our Moment For Reform

ABC News: DOMA Ruling Could Mean Green Cards for Gay Immigrants

Colorlines: LGBT Immigrants Could Face Hard Road Applying for Green Cards

Washington Post: Gay Marriage Fight Will Cost Tens of Millions

MakeZine: Is Gay Marriage Racist?

Queercents: Legalize Gay: Or, So You Think You’re Illegal?

Queercents: Uniting American Families Act: Fact, Fiction, Money, and Emotions

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to the Immigration Accountability Executive Action

AlJazeera: 26 States Sue Obama Over Immigration Plan

National Journal: In Immigration Action, the LGBT Community Once Again Feels Left Behind

Feministing: Is Mass Incarceration and Detention of Women Becoming the New Normal?

Center for American Progress: Dignity Denied: LGBT Immigrants in U.S. Immigration Detention

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBTQ Immigration: Not Just About Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

A history of inadequate immigration policies paired with the notion of the “American Dream” creates an interesting paradox for the role of immigrants in American society. Growing pressure from immigrants’ rights advocates and the overall changes in immigration policies initiated by the Obama Administration have prompted a debate on how to deal with growing numbers of undocumented immigrants. Are current deportation policies a part of the solution or are they the problem themselves? Read on to learn more about deportation practices in the United States.

What is deportation?

Deportation can be broadly defined as an order to leave a country. Deportation in the United States is carried out in two ways: removals and returns.

A removal is an official judicial or administrative order to leave the country, and is a formal legal process. If a person is removed from the country, he is barred from legally entering the country for a certain or indefinite period of time. Appearance in front of an immigration judge or an officer is often a part of the removal procedure. An order of removal becomes a part of the individual’s permanent record. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the agency responsible for removal proceedings.

On the contrary, return is a more informal mechanism of deportation. It’s essentially a turn around at the border without any paperwork or formal procedure. In this way, being “returned” doesn’t result in any legal consequences and these individuals are not necessarily barred from re-entering the country in the future. U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehends people at the border, and can carry out either removal or return proceedings.

While removals can be carried out anywhere in the country or at the border, returns are only applicable to individuals trying to cross the border or people who were caught in close proximity to it.

What laws govern deportation practices in the U.S.?

Even though the United States emerged as an immigrant country, regulating immigration has been a long-standing policy of the U.S. government. Race and ethnicity have long played a crucial role in policy decisions concerning immigration. Virtually all ethnic groups have suffered the consequences of racially motivated policies of exclusion. For example, Chinese immigrants were marginalized and constantly targeted for deportation throughout the early history of the United States.

More recent policies and practices pertaining to deportation focus on so-called “smart enforcement,” which emphasizes deportations of those with criminal convictions or ties to terrorist organizations. This strategy is rooted in close cooperation between immigration and border patrol forces, the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies.

In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Not only did it expand penalties for unauthorized re-entry after deportation, but for myriads of other immigration-related crimes.

In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) was signed into law. It authorized mandatory deportations for undocumented immigrants who had criminal convictions, even non-violent ones. The definition of “aggravated felony” in immigration law was expanded to include tax evasion, failure to appear in court, and even receipt of stolen property. In addition, this law created special procedures for those accused of terrorist charges, including limiting their habeas corpus protections.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 further limited the rights of undocumented immigrants by expanding avenues for deportations without judicial review. According to both 1996 reforms, all undocumented immigrants with aggravated felony convictions were due for deportation, even if offense was committed years before the laws were enacted. In addition, the laws could be applied to all non-citizens, including legal permanent residents and undocumented immigrants alike.

Section 287 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was also enacted back in 1996. It allowed law-enforcement agencies to perform the functions of federal immigration agents by deputizing local police officers. In recent years, the implementation of the 287 (g) initiative was widely criticized for its lack of federal oversight, racial profiling practices, and draining of valuable resources that could have been used instead to investigate crimes.

After 2001, criminal enforcement and national security practices were further tied to immigration policies. In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was created to oversee both counterterrorism and immigration enforcement. All in all, the post-9/11 era can be somewhat characterized by the large number of initiatives and programs that pertain to immigration and deportation enforcement. Some major deportation-related programs include the following:

• The National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) was initiated in 2002 and required those who were from “suspect” nations, to register and interview with immigration authorities and to be fingerprinted. The program was criticized for its inherent religious and ethnic profiling as well as its broad overreach. More than 13,000 Muslims and Middle Eastern immigrants were deported, devastating families and communities. The program was suspended in 2011 due to extensive lobbying by Muslim Americans.
• The Consequence Delivery System took off in 2005, targeting those who were trying to enter the country unlawfully, especially through the U.S.-Mexico border. The focuses of the initiative were on formal removals and criminal charges. The Consequence Delivery System not only discourages voluntary returns, but encourages formal removals that are closely entangled with criminal proceedings.
• Operation Streamline was introduced during the same year in order to speed up immigration proceedings by providing courts with the freedom to initiate so-called “group trials,” which provide few legal rights to immigrants. From 2009 to 2012, 208,939 undocumented immigrants went through such court proceedings and were expelled from the country.
• The Criminal Alien Program (CAP) was created in 2006 and encompasses different components to identify and remove undocumented immigrants and sometimes permanent residents within local, state, and federal correction facilities. Identified individuals can be removed even if they were not convicted of a crime and still have pending charges. As of 2009, 57 percent of those deported through CAP were not convicted of any crime.
• Secure Communities Program (SCP) is an ongoing information-sharing program that was created in 2008. The main goal of the initiative is to identify undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions through the screening of biometrical data when people are booked into jails. As of now, Secure Communities has helped to remove 283,000 of such undocumented immigrants, 93 percent of whom were Latino. Critiques of this program include concerns about it is racial profiling in communities of color and that the program has collateral damages, as many undocumented immigrants identified and removed through the SCP are non-violent offenders or traffic violators.

During the past several administrations, deportation policies have shifted toward a focus on border security and apprehension of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes. In this way, immigration policies have become more closely associated with criminal enforcement.

How many people are being deported?

Overall, the number of undocumented immigrants who are deported has grown over time. There were only 70,000 people deported in 1995-96, the next year this number rose to 114,000. By 2012 deportations reached 419,384 and climbed to 438,421 in 2013. However, in 2014 the numbers dropped to 315,943, with two-thirds of people who were deported being apprehended at the border or within 100 miles of it.

By some estimations, since President Obama took office more than two million people were deported, prompting discontent from immigrant advocate groups. However, even though deportation numbers went up during Obama’s presidency, most of the increase in official figures stems from shifting policies.

How do we count deportations?

During the second term of George W. Bush’s administration, more people were formally removed than simply turned around at the border through the previously discussed Consequence Delivery System. When Obama became  president, he continued to follow the already-in-place practices of treating many returns as removals, resulting in the overall increased numbers of deportees. Before, immigrants who were caught at the border were simply sent back to where they came from, without legal consequences. Now, they are more likely to be apprehended, prosecuted, and issued a deportation order. As a result, deportations that would previously be classified as returns are now officially counted as removals.

Return recordkeeping tended to be more informal. In most instances, people who were simply turned around at the border would not be counted in the official statistics. As a result, the total number of those deported seems higher now, but in the reality it’s hard to say how many people were returned and not counted in the official statistics before Bush started this trend. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of returns and removals were roughly the same, 1.6 million each; however, in 2013, 64 percent of removals were carried out at the border, signifying a 28 percent increase from 2008. Simultaneously, the number of people apprehended in the interior of the country dropped to 36 percent in 2013.

It’s clear that arrests at the border constitute a significant proportion of the overall deportations, while undocumented immigrants who have already been living in the United States are given less priority.

How are deportations are carried out?

Formal deportations are usually carried out only after a person appears before an immigration judge. However, during the last couple of years judicial proceedings were outpaced by expedited removals and other similar practices. In 2013, 83 percent of deportations were executed without judicial review. Moreover, 44 percent were fast-track removals and 40 percent were reinstatements of orders that were not previously carried out. During the same year, only 17 percent of deportations were carried out through judicial order, compared with 36 percent in 2011.

The video below looks at the life of one undocumented immigrant who was deported through reinstatement of previous order of removal after living in the United States for more than 20 years. He left behind a wife and five American children.

Who is being deported?

Criminals

The Obama Administration reiterated that it would target immigrants who committed crimes for deportation. Consequently, from 2009 to 2013 the numbers of deported immigrants with criminal convictions went up 54.6 percent. In 2013, 85 percent of deportees had been previously convicted of felonies or at least three misdemeanors.

However, in 2013, 60 percent of those who had a criminal record and were removed from the country, had only minor non-violent convictions, punishable by less than a year in prison. Since President Obama took office, only 20 percent of all deportees were convicted of serious crimes, including drug-related offenses. In 2012, less then one percent of those deported were charged and convicted with homicide.

Parents of U.S.-Born Children

Many of those who are deported have American-born children. It is estimated that in 2013, 72,000 parents with U.S.-born children were deported. In total, there are around 3.5 million undocumented immigrants who have a U.S. citizen child.

As a consequence, many U.S.-born children whose parents are being detained or deported enter the foster care system. Watch the video below to learn more about the growing share of such children in foster care.

Ethnic Composition

In 2013, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were the top countries of origin for deportees. During the same year, 72 percent of all deportees were from Mexico, with many apprehended at the border.

Meanwhile, immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia are more often expelled from the country after being suspected of having ties with terrorist groups outside the United States. From 2003 to 2012, 60,000 from Muslim countries in the above regions were deported from the United States.

What are the issues with current deportation policies?

First and foremost, deportations of undocumented immigrants affect families and communities. There are many undocumented immigrants who have been living in the United States for years. One quarter of deported immigrants are separated from U.S.-born children, and even more are separated from other family members.

Undocumented immigrants also face a lack of legal assistance, and are not provided with the same rights as American citizens, including due process. Deportees are not provided with an attorney, and most of them don’t have a court hearing before they are expelled from the country.

The costs of immigration enforcement and deportation proceedings are enormous. In 2010, $600 million was allocated to add border patrol agents and new surveillance technology. In 1993 the annual budget of Customs and Border Protections (CBP) was only $363 million, while in 2013 it reached $11.9 billion. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) costs taxpayers $5.9 billion as of 2013, while Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) expenses amounted to $2.9 billion in 2012.

In addition, treating returns as removals is not only costly but results in serious legal consequences for undocumented immigrants. Those immigrants may never again have the chance to re-enter the country, even if it’s years later.

 What is being done about deportation?

The current administration passed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which allowed undocumented immigrants who entered the country before they turned 16 years old and before June 2007 to apply for a renewable two-year work permit and avoid deportation. Since 2012, 580,946 undocumented immigrants have benefited from DACA.

In 2013, the  Obama Administration pushed for another law, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). Among other things, the bill would allow undocumented immigrants–if they meet eligibility requirements–to apply for registered provisional immigration programs (RPI). RPIs are six-year programs that allow all those eligible to avoid deportation and receive work permits. In ten years, immigrants with RPI status would be able to apply for permanent residency. Eventually they could become citizens of the United States. While this bill did not pass, it’s another example of the changes that some are hoping to see to America’s immigration policies.

But not everybody is happy with the “path to citizenship” approach to undocumented immigrants. Many GOP members believe that all undocumented immigrants should simply be deported. Watch the video below to learn more about pro-deportation point of view.

Conclusion

By the lowest estimations, there are around ten million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Deportations cannot be the only meaningful solution as the numbers are too high and the issue is too complex for such a simple approach as mass removals. The current administration has already taken the first steps to reduce deportations and provide permanent solutions for millions of undocumented immigrants. However, the criminal justice approach to immigration should be re-evaluated as it has been long proven that there is no relationship between immigration and crime. What will be done to fix the problem of the many undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is yet to be seen.

  Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

U.S. Congress: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Secure Communities

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: FY 2014 ICE Immigration Removals

Department of Justice: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: Immigration Enforcement in Prisons and Jails

Immigration Policy Center: The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Immigration Policy Center: The Growth of the U.S.Deportation Machine

LA Times: High Deportation Figures Are Misleading

LA Times: Number of Immigrants Deported From U.S. Dropped Sharply in Last Year

New Republic: Who’s the Real Deporter-In-Chief: Bush or Obama?

Pew Research Center: U.S. Deportations of Immigrants Reach Record High in 2013

Tampa Bay Times: Lou Dobbs: Obama Administration ‘Manipulated Deportation Data’

Nation: Why Has President Obama Deported More Immigrants Than Any President in U.S. History?

The New York Times: Deportation Up in 2013; Border Sites Were Focus

The New York Times: More Deportations Follow Minor Crimes, Records Show

Washington Post: Your Complete Guide to Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

Washington Post: Is President Obama’s Claim To Have Increased Criminal Deportations Accurate?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Deportation Policy: Successes and Failures appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a night of fanfare, excitement, and glamour. It’s also a night to celebrate the best of the best in the filmmaking industry. But it’s not that simple, either. Without further ado, let’s open up the envelope and check out the top political moments of last night’s Oscars.

Patricia Arquette’s Call for Pay Equality

Patricia Arquette took home a big yet predictable win as Best Supporting Actress for her role in the film “Boyhood.” But in her acceptance speech she did something equally big–she used her platform to speak out for pay equality. Arquette said:

To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation we have fought for everybody’s equal rights. It is our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.

This speech, in addition to being awesome and dead-on, gave rise to quite possibly one of my favorite .gifs of all time–Meryl Streep and J-Lo cheering Arquette on.

If you say something that causes Meryl Streep and J-Lo to react like their team just won the Super Bowl, you know you’re doing something right.

Arquette’s call to action on pay equality came just a few months after the revelation that in some cases, women in blockbusters weren’t being paid as much as their male counterparts. This realization came out of of the much-publicized hack of Sony Entertainment emails. And speaking of Sony…

President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Speaks Out Against Sony Hack

Cheryl Boone Isaacs, the President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences made a short speech last night, and much of her focus was on the importance of avoiding censorship, a clear reference to the Sony Hack and ensuing concerns about airing “The Interview.” Boone Isaacs exclaimed that as a film industry, everyone has “a responsibility to ensure that different opinions can be shared without fear of personal or professional attack. A responsibility to protect freedom of expression.”

“CitizenFour” Wins the Best Documentary Award

Although this wasn’t an obviously political moment, it definitely said something. “CitizenFour” chronicled the story of Edward Snowden and the leaks that he disclosed in 2013 before fleeing the country. Say what you want about Snowden, whether good or bad, it’s clear that his actions certainly changed the quality of American discourse about privacy and surveillance.

Director Laura Poitras accepted the award, lauding Snowden for his actions. She stated:

The disclosures that Edward Snowden reveals don’t only expose a threat to our privacy but to our democracy itself. When the most important decisions being made, affecting all of us, are made in secret, we lose our ability to check the powers that control. Thank you to Edward Snowden, for his courage, and for the many other whistleblowers. I share this with Glenn Greenwald and other journalists who are exposing truth.

Regardless of whether the “CitizenFour” choice was a political move, Poitras’ speech almost certainly was.

Sean Penn’s Greencard Comment

Of course, not all speeches and moments at the 2015 Oscars were political in a good way. Take Sean Penn’s asshole remark, for example. Penn was announcing the Oscar for Best Picture, which went to “Birdman” by Director Alejandro González Iñárritu, who is originally from Mexico. Sean Penn opened the envelope, looked at it, then said “Who gave this sonofabitch a Greencard” before announcing “Birdman” as the winner.

Now, Iñárritu has said he wasn’t offended by Penn’s joke; the two men have worked together in the past and are friends. That being said, the Oscars got a lot of flak this year for the vast majority of its nominees being very, very white. Penn’s joke made that whiteness even more noticeable, by pointing out that in many ways, Iñárritu is an “outsider” in comparison to the norm of the nominees this year. While Iñárritu may have found it funny, it was not the time or place to make such an off-color joke.

Graham Moore’s Beautiful Speech

Graham Moore wrote the adapted screenplay for “The Imitation Game,” and when he came up to accept his award gave an amazing acceptance speech. If you missed it, I’d highly recommend taking a look:

Mental health issues, particularly depression and suicide, are something that are often talked about in hushed whispers or not at all. For Moore, a now-Oscar winning writer, to get up and talk about his own struggles with mental health sends a powerful message to anyone who may be struggling.

Common and John Legend’s “Glory” Acceptance Speech

Recording artists Common and John Legend won the Oscar for their song “Glory” from the movie “Selma.” Given their moving acceptance speech at the Golden Globes, everyone was expecting the same at the Oscars, and they did not disappoint.

While receiving their Oscar, Legend pointed out two of the most maligned issues in America today: restrictions in voting rights and the high level of black men who are incarcerated.  Legend stated:

We live in the most incarcerated country in the world. There are more black men under correctional control today than there were under slavery in 1850.

The Oscars had many failings this year–the Academy’s approach to race being first and foremost. That being said, there were also a lot of great moments when those who work in the industry took matters into their own hands during acceptance speeches. Pay equality, mental health awareness, freedom of speech, and institutionalized racism are all pressing issues in this nation. The Oscar speeches won’t solve any of them, but I applaud all those who took a stand for being very public voices for truly noble reasons.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Political Moments at the 2015 Oscars appeared first on Law Street.

In 2008, the film “Taken” shocked America and launched a blockbuster trilogy success. The movie wasn’t just gratuitous action scenes, however–it offered a lens into the world of human trafficking. It included a common stereotype that human trafficking doesn’t occur in the United States, and that it’s the rest of the world’s problem. This is not true–trafficking does happen here in the U.S. and it’s a big issue. Here’s a breakdown of everything you should know about human trafficking in the U.S.

What is human trafficking?

According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, “victims of human trafficking are subjected to force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of commercial sex or forced labor.” It exists in rural, suburban, and urban locations. Human trafficking is sometimes known as modern day slavery. It usually occurs in the U.S. when people from other nations are brought in illegally to serve as free labor.

Read more about ending modern day slavery.

Human trafficking commonly brings to mind confinement, blindfolds, and drugs. Sometimes that can happen, but human traffickers also practice more subtle approaches. They influence their victims with various means, including:

• Debt Bondage: Captors will claim their victims owe a debt. The debt is paid in exchange for forced sex or labor.
• Public Isolation: Keeping victims from family, friends, work associates, and religious groups can cause victims to feel helpless and weaken their resolve to fight back.
• Confiscations of identification/traveling documents (Passports, visas, identification cards, etc.): Foreigners smuggled into the country need proper documentation to leave the country. The applications for documentation can be tedious and cause embarrassment, especially if they don’t have the identification required.
• Shaming: Human traffickers will threaten exposure to victims’ families, particularly if the victim has been forced to engage in sex work.
• Threat of Deportation/Imprisonment: Victims are threatened to be exposed to immigration authorities for violating immigration laws.
• Financial Control: Traffickers will withhold their victims’ money for “safekeeping,” making it impossible for the victims to set out on their own.

Each of these strategies is designed to make victims feel helpless and alone.  A demoralized victim is a weaker victim. Empowered victims are more likely to run away, alert authorities, and/or take a stand.

What happens to the victims of human trafficking?

There are long-term damages to victims of human trafficking. Tragically, a large percentage of these victims are children. Physically, victims of human trafficking can suffer from disease, stunted growth, and malnutrition. Psychologically, many victims will bypass key social, moral, and/or spiritual development. They can feel ostracized from the outside world. They are also at higher risk to fall victim to similar crimes again.

Statistics

It is important to note that due to the invisibility and nature of these crimes, statistics vary widely. While the following statistics are based on estimates, they’re still very disturbing.

Globally

There are quite a few estimations, but there are approximately 27 million slaves around the world, although only six percent are considered “identified.” There 800,000 people  trafficked across international borders every year, and one million children fall to the commercial sex trade. Of all the world’s trafficking victims, 80 percent are women and children. There are currently 161 countries affected by human trafficking, which is a $32 billion industry.

United States

In the United States, the average entry to prostitution is 12-14 years old. Previously sexualized victims and runaways are high-risk victims. Domestically, between 14,500 and 17,500 victims are trafficked into the United States annually. California has the highest volume of sex trafficking areas. The top 20 highest volume cities include Houston, El Paso, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Chicago, Charlotte, Miami, Las Vegas, New York, Long Island, New Orleans, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Phoenix, Richmond, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis, Seattle, and Tampa.

Case Study: Inside the FBI Weekly Podcast

A 2009 podcast, “Inside the FBI,” details the account of a prominent U.S. human trafficking case. In it, Neal Schiff interviews FBI Special Agent Tricia Whitehill. She was involved in a case where multiple members of the Vasquez-Valenzuela family were indicted for “conspiracy, sex trafficking, and various immigration offenses.”

The investigation all started in 2006 when the family’s taxi driver called in a tip to CAST, the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. He remained a source throughout the investigation. The family had brought in girls in their teens and early twenties from Guatemala to the U.S. The family targeted poor and uneducated girls, some of whom did not even know their own birthdays. The Vasquez-Valenzuela family lured the girls back to the U.S. by promising them jobs in the jewelry and restaurant industries.

Once the girls were successfully smuggled, they were told they owed a debt that had to be paid in prostitution. If the girls didn’t initially comply, they were threatened with violence, witchcraft, and the death of their families. After the arrests of eight out of the nine offenders, one family member was left unaccounted for and went on the run. She was finally weeded out of hiding through the help of publicity and the general public. Public awareness can make all the difference. The leader of the family received the toughest sentence of 40 years in prison.

While this was a case in which the traffickers were successfully apprehended, in many more instances that’s not the case, even in the U.S.

What legislation does the U.S. use to fight trafficking?

Side by side with public awareness, strong legislation is key to the battle against human trafficking. Here are some of the most important laws addressing human trafficking here at home.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000

Long overdue in 2000, this act officially made human trafficking a federal offense. A federal crime is prosecuted under federal criminal law. It also includes provisions for the victims, including federal and state assistance, asylum in the U.S., and shelter and counseling.

Intelligence Reform and Prevention Act of 2004

This law established a Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center to “serve as a focal point for interagency efforts to address terrorist travel.” It promotes cooperation between state, federal, and intelligence agencies in this effort. It also requires an annual assessment delivered to Congress “regarding vulnerabilities in the United States and foreign travel system that may be exploited by international terrorists, human smugglers and traffickers, and their facilitators.”

Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Of 2000

A large percentage of human trafficking occurs in the labor industry, for example in restaurants. This legislation creates investigations into properties suspected of human trafficking and alerts property owners. This prevents the ability of owners to claim ignorance of criminal activity on their property.

Activism to Fight Trafficking

In order to end human trafficking, legislation won’t be enough. Here are some of the steps that others have taken to attempt to combat human trafficking.

Polaris, CAST, and CCO

In September 2014 in a valiant effort to raise awareness against human trafficking in the greater Los Angeles area, Polaris, a non-profit organization fighting against human slavery, CAST, and Clear Channel Outdoor (CCO) announced their collaboration. CCO donated 25 digital billboards, 20 conventional billboards, and 20 transit shelter posters. The campaign ran in Spanish and English.

The campaign focused on two aspects. First, it promoted the National Human Trafficking Resource Center, a 24-hour, multi-lingual hotline designed for victims and members of the community. The campaign also encouraged victims to come out of the shadows and seek the help they deserve. The campaign tried to induce a sense of community for victims feeling alone.

The promotion also brought on board regionally elected officials and spokesmen like former NFL player and actor Terry Crews. He championed the cause saying:

Modern slavery is the husband coerced through violence to harvest crops, it’s the mother forced to work excessive hours as a domestic servant with little pay, and it’s the daughter sold online for sex against her will. Modern slavery is the 20.9 million people worldwide estimated to be victims of sex and labor trafficking, and we must do what’s in our power to restore their freedom. The more we raise awareness about the help available for victims of human trafficking in America, the more we can empower them to become survivors.

The more people who receive this message, the stronger the fight. The campaign hopes to target more cities across the U.S. in the future.

Presidential Involvement

In a step to bring further awareness to the general public, President Obama designated January to be National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. In a press release, he wrote:

Even today, the darkness and inhumanity of enslavement exists. Millions of people worldwide are held in compelled service, as well as thousands within the United States. During National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month, we acknowledge that forms of slavery still exist in the modern era, and we recommit ourselves to stopping the human traffickers who ply this horrific trade.

In September 2012, continuing his commitment, President Obama spoke to the Clinton Initiative in New York. Partnered with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the President laid out a three-part plan to combat human trafficking. First, to “spot it and stop it.” That part of the plan calls for extensive reports to further government understanding, more effective training for all interagency task force members involved, collaboration with transportation services, and aid educators to spot potential trafficked victims among their students. Second, the plan hopes to use the internet as a weapon against human trafficking. The internet has been a great tool for the human-trafficking industry and the President wants to “turn the tables.” The plan aims to recruit tech companies and college students to the fight. Third, the plan aims for further dedicate resources for recovery. For example, to simplify the application for T-visas, designed to protect victims of human trafficking.

Other Groups Involved in the Fight Against Trafficking

There are many other groups involved in the fight against trafficking that attack different parts of the problem. They include:

• Not for Sale: A non-profit, international organization dedicated to raising awareness for sexual slavery.
• Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition (California): Based in San Diego, the BSCC is comprised of more than 40 government and nongovernment agencies in the U.S. and Mexico to battle human trafficking.
• You Are Never Alone (Maryland): YANA provides a safe haven to women and children involved in prostitution who are seeking a better life.
• New York City Community Response to Trafficking (New York): The CRT is a team of community-based organizations and criminal justice agencies dedicated to responding to and raising awareness of human trafficking.
• Center for Multicultural Human Services (DC): CMHS received a joint federal grant with the Break the Chain Campaign from the Office for Refugee Resettlement to administer pre-certification and post-certification services to victims of trafficking in the Washington D.C. metro area.

Conclusion

With all of these laws in place, and so many activists working to fight it, why is trafficking still happening at such an alarming rate? It is hard to stop an industry so high in demand across the globe, regardless of its vile nature. In recent years, the internet is largely to blame. It allows for anonymity and easy communication internationally between buyer and seller. The deep web, not accessible through standard web searches, is a large black market tool. Another answer is that sex trafficking is almost impossible to obliterate when most of the victims are unidentified. Both rape and sexual slavery victims rarely come forward due to the highly personal sensitivity of the crime. However, we’re taking steps in the right direction with more laws and movements of activism. Hopefully, someday, the travesty that is human trafficking will become a thing of the past.

Resources

Primary

Office of Refugee Resettlement: What is Human Trafficking

Homeland Security: Human Trafficking Laws and Regulations

U.S. Department of State: U.S. Trafficking Report

White House: Presidential Proclamation

Additional 

Case Act: What is Human Trafficking

FBI Podcasts and Radio: International Human Trafficking

Polaris: Polaris, Cast, and Clear Channel Outdoor Law Anti-Human Trafficking Awareness Campaign

Judges’ Journal: President Obama’s Speech on Human Trafficking

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Human Trafficking: Alive in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I’ve talked about immigration a lot in the past, it’s a pretty big issue here in Texas. On Monday, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville prohibited the Obama Administration from carrying out immigration programs announced in November 2014. These programs would allow protection from deportation and give work permits to nearly five million undocumented immigrants. One of those many programs was supposed to start today, but that’s not happening now.

Hanen found that the state of Texas, as well as the 25 other states that had filed against this initiative, had satisfied the minimum legal requirement to bring the lawsuit, stating that the Obama Administration failed to comply with the basic procedures required in order to put the program into effect.

Of course, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stated that the administration was “within the bounds of the law” and implied that it would be appealing the decision. Any appeal in this case filed by President Obama would be handled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott stated that “Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks.”

All of the states that oppose this measure argue that President Obama has very clearly violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the scope of presidential power. Only time will tell what will happen next, though one thing’s for sure: it will be a long, drawn-out process but it’ll be fun to see how things turn out.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Federal Judge Halts Obama’s Immigration Plans appeared first on Law Street.

The violence in Paris several weeks ago united Europe as little else has in recent years. Plagued by economic decline, some of the more prosperous nations have voiced discontent with the state of the European Union. Partly leading this surge is a wave of far-right political movements. These nationalist movements are gaining traction from Berlin to Paris to London as people tire of stagnant economic growth and demands for bail outs.

Additionally in many of these countries, a dramatic demographic change is occurring in which traditional peoples and cultures are finding themselves increasingly co-habitating with people who have different beliefs and practices. Read on to learn about the political shift and rise of right-wing groups in Europe after years of economic concerns and changing demographics in the region.

History of the European Union

The European Union, unsurprisingly, traces its roots to the aftermath of WWII. With the continent in ruins, several representatives from leading nations attempted to finally find some way to unify the region and put an end to the seemingly endless fighting that had just led to the most destructive war the world has ever known.

The process started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which had six founding members: West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. These six nations agreed to unite their coal and steel production. The foundation was built up further with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1967 the European Parliament was created and in 1979 it had its first direct elections.

The European Union itself was codified in 1993 through the Treaty of Maastricht. In 2002, the Euro replaced the currency of 12 of the 15 members of the organization. The Euro reached its highest value against the dollar in 2008; however, like much of the rest of the developed world, the EU was then rocked by the global economic crisis. Since this time, the EU has been attempting to fight off recession and recover, with the only real bright spot being the addition of its twenty-eighth member country Croatia in 2013. The video below gives a succinct explanation of the EU.

Economic Turmoil

In 2008 the global financial crisis hit the European Union and the results have been devastating both economically and with regard to the unity of the region.

The Rich

The economic crisis has hit both rich and poor countries within the Eurozone alike. While many of the rich countries were not in need of bail outs, they still suffered from high debt. First, they had to bail out those troubled fellow EU members that were unable to pay off their high debts after the crisis hit. They also lost markets to sell goods as the cash-strapped nations to the south could not afford to buy as much of their products.

Furthermore, while some indicators of a healthy economy appear to show rich countries in the EU doing well, these can be misleading. In the case of Germany for example, unemployment sits at a very respectable five percent; however, economic growth is virtually flat. In the third quarter of 2014 the economy only grew 0.1 percent, which followed on the heels of a second quarter in which Germany’s economy actually shrunk by 0.1 percent.

Germany is far from the only and certainly not the worst-off wealthy nation in the Eurozone either. France, the second largest economy in the EU, has an unemployment rate of over ten percent and grew only 0.3 percent during the third quarter of 2013. This miniscule growth, similar to that of Germany, also followed a second quarter contraction. Other cases include Spain, the number four economy, and Italy, the number three economy in the Eurozone, with unemployment rates of about 24 percent and 13 percent respectfully.

The Struggling

While the economic crisis certainly hit both wealthy and poor European nations, as is usually the case, the less robust economies ended up worse off. It begins of course with the bail outs. Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus all had to accept large sums of money from other EU members to avoid default.

Furthermore, as a result of the bail outs, these countries and others struggling with the debt crisis have had to employ austerity measures; however, this strategy limits growth especially because creditors will be hesitant to lend money to struggling economies. This then creates a brutal cycle in which these countries have a difficult time paying off their debts because growth is low and unemployment will remain high. The video below gives a great explanation of the European Union’s economic problems.

Changing Demographics

Coupled with a shaky economic situation are dramatic demographic changes in Europe. This change can be divided into three categories: fertility, age, and ethnicity. First Europe as a whole has a very low fertility rate. Fertility rate is basically the number of children a family can expect to have during its childbearing years. Replacement level, or the level of children being born needed to adequately replace the existing population, is 2.1 children. In 2012 the average fertility rate for countries within the European Union was 1.6 children–well below replacement levels.

Since fewer children are being born, the average populations of these countries are rapidly aging. In Poland for example, the percentage of people above the working age population, 15-64, is expected to increase from 20.9 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2050. A large aging population can be a double edged sword, as not only are older people more dependent on public services such as health care and pensions, but they are also less productive in the economy and save less, which affects investing.

Thus a lack of new labor and a society that increasingly needs it has led to mass migration in Europe. This migration can be broken down into two groups. First is the traditional type of immigration, specifically from countries outside the EU to countries inside of it. In 2012, for example, 1.7 million people migrated to the European Union. The other type of migration is within the European Union itself; this figure also was approximately 1.7 million for the year 2012. Both types of migration are headed in one specific direction–west. Western European nations, which not coincidentally have the best economies, are bearing the brunt of the mass movements. The top five destinations in order of descending immigrant arrivals were Germany, the UK, Italy, France, and Spain.

It’s also important to note the origin of the people immigrating. Many are coming from Eastern Europe. A large portion of the incoming people and groups are also Muslim. While it cannot be reiterated enough that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are in every way able adaptable to European life, there is tension in Europe over this influx. Current events, such as the fact that it has been estimated that currently as many as three thousand European-born Muslims have fought on behalf of ISIS or other extremist groups in the Middle East, haven’t helped this tension.

While fear of these fighters returning home has far outstripped any actual problems, the recent shootings in Paris show what can occur when a marginalized group becomes incredibly radicalized. Unfortunately this image of radicalized Muslims plays perfectly into the hands of politicians and right-wing groups that have come to prominence at the expense of immigrant groups.

Europe has a long history of xenophobia. When it deals with mass immigration, the fear has turned into Islamaphobia.  While western Europeans may not be particularly thrilled with eastern European immigrants, Muslims are being singled out in particular because of their different culture and the historical legacy of conflict between Christian and Muslim areas of Europe and the Middle East. This fear and Islamaphobia also extends to first and second generation Muslims as well, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty.

The Reemergence of the Right Wing

All these issues–economic problems, low fertility rates, and mass immigration–have led to a resurgence in the power and appeal of right-wing parties in Europe. More specifically, what has led to this rise is how economic problems are perceived as being compounded by immigration. For example, in the European Union the youth unemployment rate as a whole is 23 percent; in Greece it has been as high as 60 percent.

In a sadly ironic twist the backlash to this has usually been against immigrants who are perceived as stealing the few precious jobs that are available; however, immigration is necessary in the first place because the birth rates are so low. Additionally, immigrant populations have even higher unemployment rates than native youth.

As a result of these concerns, in recent elections several far-right parties including France’s Front National, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, and the United Kingdom’s UKIP all won a surprising number of votes. Each of these parties display different combinations of outward anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and racism, or have been associated with such traits in the past. While this by no means represents a majority, it does indicate a disturbing trend for the European Union.

While it seems clear that far-right political movements are on the rise in Europe, the question turns to what exactly these groups want. Just like other political groups, especially across national lines, their interests vary. Overall, the focus seems to be anti-immigration, specifically based on a fear that immigrants will take away badly needed jobs from native residents. At the forefront of this movement is the Front National in France, which won the most seats in the European Parliament of any far right party.

The Front National can be characterized as one of the most moderate of the far-right parties coming to power.  Its primary focus is on nationalism instead of more overtly far-right ideologies espoused by other groups such as Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and the accused neo-Nazi NPD group in Germany; however, Front National has its roots in exactly the same kinds of dogma that these groups maintain, namely anti-Semitism and racism. This is why the far right party in Britain, the UKIP, has refused to join with them. Thus the main connection these groups all seem to have is strong support for anti-immigration measures, which entails moving away from a united Europe and its open migration policies between nations. The video below provides further explanation of the rise of far-right parties and what they believe.

Current State of the Union

Europe appears to be in serious trouble. Its native population is dwindling because of low fertility rates and an aging population. The people migrating in to fill this void, while on the whole younger, also bring different cultures and mindsets. All this has led to a wave of right-wing parties that are in favor of closing borders, ousting immigrants, and breaking away from the ailing European Union.

Europe’s economy, while growing slightly, is still badly damaged and will likely take years just to return to pre-recession levels. Additionally, fertility rates in Europe show no signs of increasing for the most part, at least in native-born citizens. Without more people to assist the aging population, immigration is also likely to continue. This immigration is also likely to continue from Eastern Europe and nations with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, which often include large numbers of Muslims.

In the future, however, it seems possible that significant changes could come to the union. First it is possible that the UK leaves the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron has already been cornered into a vote on whether or not to stay in the union. While a vote certainly doesn’t mean anything for certain, the mere fact that it is being forced upon him does. If the UK does leave it could have additional shockwaves on other nations such as France and Germany and may also lower confidence in the EU’s future.

A lot rides on France and Germany. They both have already invested a lot in the European Union and reaped rewards from it, so it might be a stretch for them to leave; however, calls for potential European bank reforms to mimic what they have done nationally shows not only how they view their own importance in Europe, but also is a test of how the other members view them as well.

Conclusion

Far right parties are becoming increasingly popular and powerful in Europe. This has been the result of a number of factors; notably the Eurozone economic crisis, low fertility rates, an aging population, and a large influx in immigrants. Furthermore, every indication shows that these mechanisms are only likely to keep moving down this path and not reverse course. Therefore, while it is too early to give up on the grand experiment of a United States of Europe, serious reforms are needed if the experiment is to work. Reform is also necessary if European leaders hope to quell the rising influence of far-right parties and their supporters.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Learning About the Unknown: The Economic Impacts of Aging in Europe and Central Asia

European Commission: 2014 Autumn Economic Forecast; Slow Recovery With Very Low Inflation

European Commission: Eurostat; Migration and Migrant Population Statistics

Additional

NPR: A Brief History of the EU

Forbes: Suddenly the EU’s Break-Up Has Moved From a Long Shot to a Probability

The New York Times: Study on Wealth Fuels Euro Crisis Debate in Germany

Statista: Unemployment Rate in Member States of the European Union

Eurostat: Total Fertility Rates

Vienna Institutefor International Economic Studies: Effects of Euro Crisis on Europe’s Periphery

Telegraph: Muslim Europe; The Demographic Time Bomb Transforming Our Continent

CNN: From Antwerp to Aleppo–and Back; Europe’s Nightmare

Guardian: Eurozone Growth Figures; Germany Narrowly Avoids Triple-Dip Recession

New Geography: Will Europe Hit a Demographic Turning Point?

Huffington Post: Sudden Rise of Far-Right Groups in EU Parliament Rings Alarm Bells Across Europe

USA Today: Immigration Backlah is on the Rise in Europe

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force? appeared first on Law Street.

On December 17, 2014 following a prisoner exchange, President Obama outlined efforts being made to normalize relations with Cuba. The announcement was monumental as it signaled a major change in a policy dating back to the Cold War. It was also vague. What exactly did this mean and how will the Cuban American community take this? To answer these questions it is necessary to go back in time and look at the relationship between the United States and Cuba from the beginning, from before the embargo to present day.

History

It’s easy to imagine that the relationship between Cuba and the United States only began when Fidel Castro became the ruling dictator; however, the two nations shared a bond that is much older than that era. It can be argued that it goes all the way back to the 1860s when, after seceding from the Union, the Confederacy believed it would eventually conquer the small island of Cuba and incorporate it as one of its states. A more concrete beginning to the relationship, however, lies in the events following the American victory in the Spanish-American War.

After the end of that war, Spain ended its claim to Cuba. The United States granted Cuba its independence, but this came with two conditions: first, that the United States had the right to intervene in Cuban affairs; and second, that the U.S. would be granted a continuous lease for a naval base, which would become the infamous Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

While the United States has clearly exercised the second right, it also made use of the first. The U.S. intervened in Cuban affairs by frequently helping to crush rebellions in the first half of the twentieth century, despite brutal crackdowns on dissent, which was one of the reasons it allegedly wanted to fight Spain for Cuba’s independence in the first place. Aside from American government overtures, American businesses also invested heavily in Havana, turning it into a popular vacation getaway. Even the Mafia became involved in Cuba, using it as a conference center and investing there heavily themselves.

The Cuban revolution occurred in 1959, and Fidel Castro overthrew the U.S.-supported Batista regime. The immediate aftermath did not foreshadow what was to come. In fact, in one of history’s odd turns of events, the United States quickly recognized Castro’s regime, and Castro himself came to visit Washington, D.C. just weeks after the successful coup.

The honeymoon phase, of course, did not last long. Along with Castro’s increasingly clear Communist leaning, he made efforts to nationalize private companies, including American ones, and impose heavy taxes on American goods, which served to sour the relationship. In response to heavy taxes on American goods, President Eisenhower in turn enacted trade restrictions allowing for only food and medical supplies to be shipped to the island. Outraged at what they deemed to be American imperialism, Cuban officials then increased trade with the Soviet Union. This proved to be the nail in the coffin; the United States severed all diplomatic ties and the permanent and infamous embargo was put into place in early 1962.

Sanctions & Embargo

The embargo itself both leveled economic sanctions on Cuba and restricted travel and commerce with the country for all people and companies under United States authority. The embargo was strengthened in 1963 with the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, which prohibited financial transactions with Cuba and outlawed the importation of Cuban-made goods. The embargo was further strengthened by two additional acts passed in the 1990s.  According to these acts, the embargo could only be lifted if Cuba would:

Legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions.

Since Cuba has not met these conditions yet the embargo has endured.

Diplomacy Under the Embargo

Since the enactment of the embargo, the two countries have been at strife, communicating only through Switzerland when necessary. Nevertheless, while the two nations were not talking they were still crossing each other’s paths. The action was greatest immediately following the embargo with the Bay of Pigs disaster and the Cuban Missile crisis, which nearly led to nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  

In the Bay of Pigs operation, 1,400 Cuban exiles who had been trained in Guatemala were to land at night and begin guerilla operations against the Castro regime with the additional aid of U.S. airstrikes. The invasion faltered immediately when the airstrikes missed their target and the invading force met much stiffer resistance than expected. In the end, downed U.S. pilots were taken hostage and nearly the entire invading group was  forced to either fall back, surrender, or was killed.

That operation led directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that situation, Cuba asked for and was to receive Soviet nuclear weapons as a deterrent against future American attacks. The United States learned of the planned installation of nuclear weapons and a standoff briefly ensued when Cuba was quarantined by American naval ships. Eventually the Soviets agreed publicly to remove the weapons if the United States promised not to invade Cuba; privately the U.S. also removed nuclear weapons it had in Turkey.

Since the 1960s, the relationship can best be characterized as a standoff with each side occasionally making an effort to proverbially poke its rival. On Cuba’s part this includes releasing thousands of criminals and mentally ill and sending them to the beaches of Florida as exiles. For the United States, this has meant continuing to turn the screws and ratcheting up the intensity of sanctions, even while Cuba suffers from hunger and a grossly underdeveloped infrastructure.

The video below outlines Cuba and U.S. relations since Castro’s takeover.

The Winds of Change

Despite nearly 60 years of animosity, the relationship between the two nations began to change again following the election of President Barack Obama in 2008. As part of his original campaign platform, Obama had vowed to reduce restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to visit relatives. Obama’s actions were two-fold: first, they allowed Cuban-Americans with family in Cuba to travel there freely, and they eliminated the cap on the amount of remittances people could send back. Secondly, people without family members in Cuba were also allowed to send capped remittances to the island, and could travel there with a license for educational or religious reasons. This also opened Cuba to companies that wished to provide cellular, television, and telephone services to the island.

Recent Developments

The last domino fell the day before the president made his speech on the path to normalization between Cuba and the United States when Alan Gross, an imprisoned USAID worker, was finally released and brought home to America in a prisoner exchange. The exchange was in part made possible through a dialogue brokered by Pope Francis who had invited the two sides to resolve their differences. Also, part of the agreement were pledges by both countries to open embassies in each other’s capitals. Additionally, the United States promised to further relax business and commercial travel restrictions with the island nation. Lastly, the U.S. has guaranteed to go even further by unfreezing bank accounts and agreeing to review Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terror.

The video below explains what exactly the president plans to do.

Obstacles

There are still several potential obstacles to the establishment of full relations. First is the large Cuban-American voting bloc in Florida, a traditionally pivotal swing state. Many Cuban-Americans want to see the entire Castro family regime removed before relations are normalized; however, that may be changing–while a 1991 FIU poll reported that 87 percent of Cuban-Americans supported the embargo, by the time Obama was elected in 2008 the majority had moved the other way. Although this reversed course yet again, by 2014 the majority of Cuban-Americans polled were once more in favor of lifting the embargo. Support was especially strong among young people, with 90 percent in favor of reestablishing diplomatic ties with Cuba. So, it’s difficult to tell conclusively what percentage of the Cuban-American population will be in favor of these more normalized relations.

Another obstacle is Cuba’s extremely poor human rights record. As mentioned earlier, one of the conditions for removing the embargo by the United States was that Cuba respect internationally recognized human rights. Cuba’s human rights record has remained dismal. In 2014, Human Rights Watch listed Cuba as “not free.” More specifically, in three indicators–freedom rating, civil liberties, and political rights–Cuba received scores of six and a half, six, and seven, respectively.  The scale goes from one to seven, with seven being the worst. Clearly, if Cuba wants to lift the embargo and normalize relations with the U.S., improving its regard for human rights is something that needs a lot of work.

Most challenging for President Obama, however, is Congress. While the president can make some tweaks to the relationship himself, he needs Congress in order to abolish the embargo as it is codified into law. This will most likely prove especially difficult for a president who was not having much success dealing with Congress before Republicans won a majority in both the House and Senate in 2014; however, the political loyalties of Cuban-Americans themselves may alter the status quo.

Traditionally, Cuban-Americans have favored the Republican party; in 2002 according to a Pew poll, 64 percent favored Republicans. However, by 2014 only 47 percent favored Republicans and 44 percent now favored Democrats. This is partly a result of this demographic skewing younger, and the younger generation being overall more open to reconciliation. Whatever the reason may be, both parties now will likely work to secure this group’s loyalty. Thus, while the Republican Congress may be recalcitrant on many issues supported by the president, if it believes Cuban-Americans desire an end to the embargo and normalized Cuban relations with the United States, the prospect of that happening is much more likely. Congress may be especially eager to act if it means maintaining historical support from a key swing state supporter. 

Potential Outcomes

While the Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. could gain as much as $1.2 billion annually from lifting the embargo on Cuba, the economic worth pales in comparison to other considerations. By finally lifting the embargo the United States could signal a major policy change from the Cold War tactics of years past and even the “democracy by force” doctrine that many people associate with the war in Iraq.

Furthermore, it could also signal to some of the United States’ other antagonists, namely Iran and North Korea, that there is another way dialogue can be established. It may even serve as a way to save face as the sanctions on both of those countries are also seemingly ineffective. Additionally, it may further add some lost luster to the United States’ image of being an international good guy and not a traditional Western imperialist. Specifically, for other developed critics of the United States such as Russia and China, this might remove some of their argument that the United States is hypocritical and has different policies for different countries based on its interests.

On a more personal level for President Obama, this could signal a foreign policy coup that seems needed after the debacle with the Syrian Red Line and ISIS. If the president is successful in this endeavor it might also secure an important voting bloc in a swing state for Democrats down the road. Of course it may also come back to bite the United States if Cuba doesn’t make any changes. It might make people worry yet again that the United States is weak and has no stomach for drawn out conflicts anymore, which could actually further embolden adversaries such as Iran and North Korea even more. Still, the potential to garner goodwill, end fruitless policies, and reassert the image of the United States as a haven for freedom seem to outweigh the bad and are also the most likely outcomes.

Conclusion

While many critics of normalizing relations with Cuba say that the president is essentially rewarding the country and prolonging the regime, their facts do not add up. Although Cuba certainly should be required to improve its human rights laws as part of any normalization, sanctions seemed to be ineffective. In today’s globalized world, countries cannot be shunned simply because their policies are not what we want them to be. This is especially relevant for nations such as Iran and North Korea that also draw Washington’s ire and are sanctioned accordingly for it. Rapprochement with Cuba therefore appears to have raised more questions than answers, but perhaps these questions are the key to an overall more successful foreign policy.

Resources

Primary

Council on Foreign Relations: US-Cuba Relations

Additional 

Time: US Cuba Relations

ProCon: Cuba Embargo

NPR: Polls Show Cuban American Views

Cato Institute: Time to End Cuban Embargo

History Net: Confederacy

History: Spanish American War

JFK Library and Museum: Bay of Pigs

Freedom House: Cuba

Harvard Political Review: Reexamining the Cuban Embargo

Washington Post: US-Cuba Relations

NPR: Obama Eases Limits on Cuba Travel, Remittances

US Department of State: Cuban Missile Crisis

Pew Research Center: After Decades of GOP Support

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. and Cuba: The Path to Normalized Relations appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration reform is a consistent topic of discussion that plagues Congress and splits our country down the middle. Thousands of immigrants flock to the United States. The reasons range from escaping persecution to looking for a better life for one’s family or gaining access to higher education. In 2013, an immigration reform bill entitled The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigrant Modernization Act of 2013 was introduced. Authors of the bill intended to address illegal immigrants and border security but it never ended up going anywhere even though the bill will probably be remembered as one of the defining political topics of 2013. Read on to learn about the Immigration Reform Bill, what it entailed, and the arguments for and against it.

What was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013?

The bill’s stated purpose was to address the issues of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living within the United States’ borders “by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here.”

Overall the bill was expansive and covered a number of issues, including paths to legality for illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and aiding those illegal immigrants who did not have autonomy in breaking the law–mostly children. The bill would have instituted what were called “triggers” that essentially make sure that in order to provide resources for undocumented immigrants, enforcement also needs to be stepped up. That was to ensure that the compromise that this bill created was held up on both sides of the aisle.

The bill was widely regarded as a compromise. It was created by the “Gang of Eight“–eight leading Senators spread out over both parties: Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). President Barack Obama also admitted it was very much a compromise; after it passed in the Senate he stated:

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.

While the bill passed the Senate in June 2013, it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives announced that they had no intention of voting on it. The inaction on the House’s part may be part of the reason that President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration in November 2014.

What were the arguments in favor of the bill?

It’s no secret that there are many undocumented immigrants in the United States. But many of them make substantive contributions to our nation–they pay taxes and participate in the economy just as citizens do. However, because of their undocumented status, they live in a constant state of fear. This is especially true for the children of undocumented immigrants–morally it seems wrong to punish those who were brought to this nation as children.

The pathway to becoming a legal citizen would be made easier, and the bill aimed to streamline the process out of recognition of the huge blacklog that exists when it comes to processing applications and documentation. In addition the bill would have improved our security measures, helping to further prevent influxes undocumented immigrants in the future.

Another argument in favor of the bill was that it was pretty much as good as both sides were going to get. It was a real, legitimate move toward compromise, created by leading voices from both parties. Unless something changes drastically, there are going to continue to be two parties warring for control of our government. Even though no one got everything they wanted in this bill, it was truly a compromise.

What were the arguments against the bill?

The arguments against the bill included that it rewarded people for breaking the law and entering the country illegally. They argue that providing them help now, even it it only applies to immigrants currently in the country, will encourage others to try to illegally enter American borders. In addition, there’s worry that encouraging undocumented immigrants to stay will lead to overpopulation and take jobs away from American citizens. In addition, arguments against the bill included that it didn’t go far enough, and/or made certain steps harder for undocumented immigrants.

Conclusion

Many believe that undocumented workers take away jobs from American citizens and therefore should not be allowed to acquire citizenship themselves. Others believe that illegal immigrants are a source of increased drug trafficking in our nation. However, we have always been a nation of immigrants. If we begin refusing citizenship to those people who have lived and worked in our country for years we step away from the traditions that make this country what it is and always will be, a nation where people come to build a better life.

Resources

Primary

US Senate: S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Additional

Mic: TRUST Act Gain Traction in California

Breitbart: Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) Gives Pro-Immigration Bill on Senate Floor in Spanish

Hill: Graham Predicts Breakthrough Passage of Immigration Reform Bill

Reuters: Senator Marco Rubio Still Backs Immigration Bill

ReimagineRPE: Black-Latino Coalitions Block Anti-Immigrant Laws in Mississippi

Mic: 5 Critical Amendments That Could Destroy the Immigration Reform Bill

NY Mag: The Gaffe That Could Threaten Immigration Reform

Huffington Post: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Attempts to Add Voter ID to Immigration Reform Bill

ABC News: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wants to Kill the Immigration Reform Bill

The New York Times: In Round 3, Immigration Bill Faces Sessions, Who Won Rounds 1 and 2

Fox News: Senators Rubio and Graham on Immigration Reform Bill

Washington Post: Three Amendments to Watch

CNN: Senate Votes to Begin Debate on Immigration Reform Bill

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Immigration Reform Bill of 2013: Progress That Went Nowhere appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday night, President Obama announced an executive action that will protect millions of undocumented immigrants and restructure the United States’ priorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. And he used some fighting words. Obama stated:

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half century. And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.

Obama’s speech–just weeks after the Democrats basically got trounced in the midterms–was powerful, and regardless of how both his political allies and opponents are acting on the Hill, will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people who call America home.

But if you were interested in watching this speech, you may have had a hard time finding it. The big TV networks–ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS–chose not to air the speech. Instead, CBS presented an episode of The Big Bang Theory; Fox network viewers saw Bones; and viewers tuning to NBC were able to enjoy The Biggest Loser: Glory Days.

While cable stations like Fox News, CNN, and Univision carried it, the big four networks chose not to and opted for their regular programming instead. That was their choice. When the President is giving an important speech, the White House can put in an official request that the speech be carried. In this case, the White House did not, apparently after hearing from networks that they weren’t too enthusiastic to postpone their normal programming. At one point, a supposed network insider called the speech too “overtly political.”

Obviously, this choice on the networks’ part wasn’t just about politics–it was about money. In today’s epoch of pretty predictable political apathy, you get more viewers when you show beloved shows like Shonda Rhimes’ Grey’s Anatomy than when you show the same President Obama speech on immigration that every other network has access to. And when you get more viewers your advertisers are happy. And then you make more money. It’s a pretty simple equation.

The story gets more complicated than that though. You see, stations like FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS are national, but each place has their local affiliate that actually controls what that locale sees. That’s why I, living in D.C., can watch NBC but see a different morning news team than my parents living in Connecticut. There is some flexibility, apparently, because a few local affiliates gave a big middle finger up to their national stations, and showed the speech anyway. POLITICO found that:

A quick look at some major media markets found that the NBC affiliates in New York, Washington, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and Phoenix; the ABC affiliates in Washington, Chicago, Boston and Kansas City; the Fox affiliates in Boston, Chicago, Dallas and Miami all aired the speech live. CBS affiliates were less likely to air the speech when it fell during the hit show “The Big Bang Theory,” though several of their affiliates outside the East Coast did air it live.

There seems to be fodder for an interesting internal struggle here–networks balked at the idea of showing Obama’s speech for presumably centrally financial reasons. But not everyone was willing to play ball, and the places where the speech ended up being shown are certainly illuminating. With a few exceptions, it seems like channels that showed the speech were in either more liberal areas, or areas like Dallas and Miami, known for larger immigrant populations. As strategic as the call was to not show the speech by big networks, the local stations took their own strategies into account.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Could You Watch Obama’s Speech? Depends Where you Live appeared first on Law Street.

As of March 2012, there were roughly 11.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, many of whom had brought their children with them when they crossed the border. America has been left to figure out how to deal with this massive immigration influx and to determine the best course of action for possible immigration reform. Special attention is paid to undocumented youth who were brought to America illegally as children and have been residing in the country for some time. One big question that the country is struggling to answer is should these young people receive in-state college tuition? Read on to learn about the debate.

What action has been taken?

The Obama administration started the program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which permits undocumented youth who were brought to the US under the age of 16 and have been in the US for more than five years to work, get a driver’s license, get a loan, and go to college without the fear of being deported. These youths have also attended their local school systems through programs designed to provide undocumented youths with a K-12 education. Now, as these individuals prepare to graduate high school, they are met with an insurmountable financial wall that prevents them from attending college and pursuing high-paying careers. While DACA permits these students to attend college, they are required to pay out-of-state tuition costs based on their immigration status, which can be considerably more expensive than in-state tuition. Out-of-state tuition is often unaffordable for undocumented families. Paying in-state tuition would greatly reduce this financial burden and make college a real possibility for many undocumented students.

Several states have begun passing “tuition equity” legislation that allows undocumented youths who have graduated from state high schools to pay in-state tuition costs at state schools. Advocates see this as a model of immigration and education reform. Seventeen  states currently provide tuition equity. However, this legislation has been met with strong opposition by those who feel that offering undocumented citizens in-state tuition cheapens American citizenship and rewards illegal behavior.

What’s the argument for providing tuition equity?