Critique [of A PROPOSED MODEL FOR ADVOCACY SERVICES FOR MEXICAN UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS WITH MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS]

Mexican undocumented aliens are and will continue to be a presence in the United States. This Proposal cites a 1972 study of an estimated eight million illegal aliens in this country, a figure that has climbed sharply since that date. Positive contributions toward improving the living and working situations of this population are, therefore, necessary and important

Unlawfully Present Aliens, Driver’s Licenses, and Other State-Issued ID: Select Legal Issues

[Excerpt] This report provides an overview of key legal issues raised by state laws regarding the denial or issuance of driver’s licenses and other forms of ID to unlawfully present aliens. It also addresses the legal issues raised by local governments issuing ID cards to unlawfully present aliens, as well as by state and local approaches to recognizing foreign-issued ID documents

Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues

[Excerpt] As Congress considers reforms to the nation’s immigration system, the detention of noncitizens (aliens) in the United States will likely be an issue. Congressional interest in the policy of detaining noncitizens in the United States while determining whether noncitizens should be removed from the United States tends to be varied. For example, while some want to increase the categories of aliens who are detained and increase the amount of detention space, others want to create alternatives to detention and exempt asylum seekers from mandatory detention. In addition, immigration enforcement activities affect the need for and allocation of detention resources. For example, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expands programs to locate removable aliens from jails throughout the country, DHS may need additional detention beds in areas of the United States where traditionally there has not been a need for detention space. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides broad authority to detain aliens while awaiting a determination of whether they should be removed from the United States and mandates that certain categories of aliens are subject to mandatory detention (i.e., the aliens must be detained) by DHS. Aliens not subject to mandatory detention may be detained, paroled, or released on bond. “Enemy combatants” at the Guantanamo U.S. military base in Cuba are not under the authority of DHS, nor are noncitizens incarcerated in federal, state, and local penitentiaries for criminal acts. Any alien can be detained while DHS determines whether the alien should be removed from the United States. The large majority of the detained aliens have committed a crime while in the United States, have served their criminal sentence, and are detained while undergoing deportation proceedings. Other detained aliens include those who arrive at a port-of-entry without proper documentation (e.g., fraudulent or invalid visas, or no documentation), but most of these aliens are quickly returned to their country of origin through a process known as expedited removal. The majority of aliens arriving without proper documentation who claim asylum are held until their “credible fear hearing,” but some asylum seekers are held until their asylum claims have been adjudicated. There are many policy issues surrounding detention of aliens, including concerns about the number of aliens subject to mandatory detention and the justness of mandatory detention, especially as it is applied to asylum seekers arriving without proper documentation. Some have raised concerns about the length of time in detention for aliens who have been ordered removed. Additionally, issues have been raised about the amount of detention space available to house DHS detainees or the nationwide allocation of the space

Immigration, Statecraft and Public Health:The 1920 Aliens Order, Medical Examinations and the Limitations of the State in England

This article considers the medical measures of the 1920 Aliens Order barring aliens from Britain. Building on existing local and port public health inspection, the requirement for aliens to be medically inspected before landing significantly expanded the duties of these state agencies and necessitated the creation of a new level of physical infrastructure and administrative machinery. This article closely examines the workings and limitations of alien medical inspection in two of England’s major ports – Liverpool and London. – and sheds light on the everyday working of the Act. In doing so it reflects on the ambitions, actions and limitations of the state and so extends research by historians of the nineteenth and early twentieth century on the disputed histories of public health and the complexities of statecraft. Overall it suggests the importance of developing nuanced understandings of the gaps and failures arising from the translation of legislation into practice

Illegal Aliens: The Need For a More Restrictive Border Policy

[Excerpt] In late 1974, the commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the U.S. Department of Justice publicly stated that “the United States us being overrun by illegal aliens” and, he warned, “we are seeing just the beginning of the problem.” During that 1974 fiscal year, 788,000 illegal aliens were actually apprehended by INS. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that INS estimated that the number of undetected illegal aliens who entered the United States in that year ranged upwards to 4 million people. Moreover, the INS estimated the accumulated number of illegal aliens currently residing in the United States in 1974 to be between 7 and 12 million people

Hauerwas and Willimon\u27s Resident aliens: Life in the Christian colony (Book Review)

A review of Hauerwas, S., & Willimon, W.H. (2014). Resident aliens: Life in the Christian colony (25th Anniversary ed.). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. 172 pp. $19.99. ISBN 978142678190

Congressional Devolution of Immigration Policymaking: A Separation of Powers Critique

For roughly a decade, federal legislation has devolved to the states some of Congress\u27s authority to adopt immigration policies that discriminate against permanent resident aliens. Equal protection challenges to discriminatory state policies so authorized by Congress raise the knotty issue of the appropriate scope of judicial review. Courts remain divided. The source of the difficulty is that the equal protection congruence principle is not applicable to alienage discrimination. Unlike equal protection cases throughout most of constitutional law, the judiciary deploys different standards of judicial review in alienage discrimination cases depending on whether the discrimination arises under federal or state law. Applying a highly deferential standard of review, courts normally uphold congressionally enacted immigration policies discriminating against aliens. By contrast, courts normally invoke strict judicial scrutiny to find state alienage discrimination unlawful. Congressional devolution legislation authorizing states to adopt policies that discriminate against aliens spawn equal protection challenges that do not fit neatly into either category of judicial review: the controversies entail state alienage discrimination but the discrimination being challenged is congressionally authorized. Devolution presents the question whether Congress should be able to immunize the states from strict judicial scrutiny by authorizing the states to adopt discriminatory immigration policies that Congress could itself adopt. That question is the subject of this Article

Secret Trials

Today, U.S. immigration authorities use secret evidence to lock up immigrants in deportation proceedings, to exclude aliens at the border, and to oppose applications for relief from deportation, including asylum

Immigration Enforcement Within the United States

[From Introduction] An estimated 11 million unauthorized aliens reside in the United States, and this population is estimated to increase by 500,000 annually. Each year, approximately 1 million aliens are apprehended trying to enter the United States illegally. Although most of these aliens enter the United States for economic opportunities and family reunification, or to avoid civil strife and political unrest, some are criminals, and some may be terrorists. All are violating the United States’ immigration laws

Unauthorized Aliens’ Access to Federal Benefits: Policy and Issues

[Excerpt] Federal law bars aliens residing without authorization in the United States from most federal benefits; however, there is a widely held perception that many unauthorized aliens obtain such benefits. The degree to which unauthorized resident aliens should be accorded certain rights and privileges as a result of their residence in the United States, along with the duties owed by such aliens given their presence, remains the subject of intense debate in Congress. This report focuses on the policy and legislative debate surrounding unauthorized aliens’ access to federal benefits. Except for a narrow set of specified emergency services and programs, unauthorized aliens are not eligible for federal public benefits. The law (§401(c) of P.L. 104-193) defines federal public benefit as any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States . The actual number of unauthorized aliens in the United States is unknown. According to demographer Jeffrey Passel’s calculations based on the 2005 March Current Population Survey (CPS), there were approximately 11.1 million unauthorized aliens residing in the United States (the most recent analysis with detailed statistical breakdowns). Passel further estimated the number of persons living in families in which the head of the household or the spouse was an unauthorized alien was 14.6 million. There were 6.6 million unauthorized families, which he defines as a family unit or solo individual in which the head or spouse is unauthorized. A noteworthy portion of the households headed by unauthorized aliens are likely to have U.S. citizen children, as well as spouses who may be legal permanent residents (LPRs). These “mixed status” families represent about one-third of all unauthorized families and five out of six unauthorized families with children as of March 2005. Policy researcher Steven Camarota concludes (based on his estimates drawn from the 2002 CPS) that the U.S. citizen children of unauthorized aliens account for much of the costs associated with illegal migration. Although the law appears straightforward, the policy on unauthorized aliens’ access to federal benefits is peppered with ongoing controversies and debates. Some center on demographic issues (e.g., how to treat mixed-immigration status families). Others explore unintended consequences, most notably when tightening up the identification requirements results in denying benefits to U.S. citizens. Still others are debates about how broadly the clause “federal public benefit” should be implemented. This report will be updated if policy changes warrant