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

Property Is a Two-Way Street: Personal Copyright Use and Implied Authorization

When we use the Internet, we know that copyright law limits our freedom. We know, for example, that downloading popular music is legally risky. Those who want to get moralistic about it argue that illegal downloading violates a property right of the copyright holder. But what about our property rights in our computers? Even if copyright is a form of property, it maintains a parallel existence as an intrusion upon property rights. This intrusion is increasingly a part of daily life, as copyright\u27s literal scope sweeps broadly enough to threaten a range of everyday activities that social norms rega rd as acceptable. These observations form the basis of a moral critique of copyright law, but they do not figure prominently in modern doctrine. This Article looks to the common law property rights of copyright users to develop a framework for limiting copyright\u27s reach. If we take seriously traditional rules governing the interplay between statutes and preexisting common law rights, courts have room to incorporate user property rights into copyright doctrine. First, the common law provides a baseline against which the Copyright Act should be construed. Courts should be reluctant to interpret the statute in a manner that negates longstanding expectations that personal property may be used in conjunction with copyrighted material for personal purposes. Second, the property rights of copyright users offer a new foundation for implied license doctrine. Instead of looking solely to the conduct of the licensor (i.e., the copyright holder) to determine whether an implied license to use copyrighted content exists, courts should appreciate the reasonable expectations of consumers in their control of personal property used to interact with the protected works. Expanding our conception of implied license in this manner would help address the uneasy status of personal uses of copyrighted work s under modern law

Two Relationships to a Cultural Public Domain

It\u27s been well over ten years since Negativland was sued by Island Records for supposed copyright infringement, trademark infringement, defamation of character and consumer fraud contained in our 1991 U2 single. In the big wide world of the ownership of ideas, a lot has changed since then-the advent of the Internet and its worldwide empowerment of individuals through personalized interconnection, the effects of economic globalization and how it bypasses both the ideologies of local governments and the rule of their national laws, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with which intellectual property owners are attempting to survive as all these rugs are being pulled out from under them. There is a contemporary realization that, on one hand, the fate of all content is now in the hands of its receiving audience more than ever before, and, on the other hand, that worldwide commerce is scrambling to forge all kinds of new laws and regulations to maintain their traditional control over the fate of their content

Bringing Sexy Back: Unauthorized Film Editing, Copyright, and How Removing Reproductive Acts Violates Reproduction Rights

The Multicolored Asian Ladybird, Harmonia axyridis, is an extremely successful invasive species. Here we suggest that, in addition to many other traits, the dorsal spines of its larvae contribute to their success, as suggested by behavioral observations of agonistic interactions between H. axyridis and European coccinellids. In coccinellids, the role of dorsal spines in these interactions has been poorly studied and they could be a physical protection against intraguild predators. Dorsal spines of second instar H. axyridis larvae were removed with micro-scissors, which resulted in spineless larvae after molting (spineless group). These larvae were then exposed to starved Coccinella septempunctata larvae. Two control categories were also submitted to interactions: H. axyridis larvae with all their spines (control group) and with their spines, but injured by pin stings (injured group). Spine removal at the second instar did not hamper H. axyridis development. The bite rate by C. septempunctata was significantly higher on the spineless H. axyridis and more dorsally located compared to the control and injured groups, while no bite rate difference was observed between the injured and the control group. Our results suggest that in addition to behavioral and chemical defenses, the dorsal spines play a significant protective role against bites. Therefore, spines in ladybirds could be considered as a morphological defense against intraguild predation. In H. axyridis, these defenses might contribute to its success in food resources already exploited by other guild members and thus further facilitate the invasion of new areas.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Split Chords: Addressing the Federal Circuit Split in Music Sampling Copyright Infringement Cases

This Note offers a comprehensive analysis of the current circuit split regarding how the de minimis doctrine applies to music sampling in copyright infringement cases. Since the Sixth Circuit\u27s 2005 landmark decision in Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Dimension Films, critics, scholars and even judges have dissected the opinion and its bright line rule of “get a license or do not sample.” In May 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in VMG Salsoul v. Ciccione. The Ninth Circuit explicitly declined to follow Bridgeport, holding that analyzing a music sampling copyright infringement case requires a substantial similarity analysis, including applying a de minimis analysis. The Ninth Circuit’s decision created a circuit split and an unsettled area of intellectual property law. This Note seeks to promote critical analysis of this contested area of law by exploring the underpinnings of the substantial similarity and de minimis doctrines, as well as the holdings of each case and their arguments. The Note offers three proposals regarding how courts should handle the circuit split, and in doing so creates a distinctive way of looking at the music sampling issue to help the federal judiciary frame the problem in a more expansive way