Deconstructing and Reconstructing Rights for Immigrant Children

Children rights advocates and scholars alike continue to call for the development of innovative and alternative rights models, which specifically provide for an expansive conceptualization of children’s rights. Central to their calls for reform is a simultaneous recognition that children’s rights must embody agency – a child’s voice (a proxy for autonomy) – free from governmental interference, as well as the establishment of certain fundamental “needs” that place an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure the child has, and affirmatively provide, when necessary. Reimagining children’s rights also requires reforming our laws in such a way that reflects children as inimitable rights holders possessing unique positive rights. Yet, in U.S. immigration law, children are still most often seen as illegal migrants and their status as alien is continually prioritized over their status as children. With a few notable exceptions, immigration law has been stagnant to adopt dynamic models that incorporate rights models that are informed by the developmental needs of children. This Article contributes to the much-needed discourse about how children’s rights should be understood and realized in immigration law. Unlike other areas of the law, U.S. immigration law still affords no legal distinction between children and adults when adjudicating potential forms of relief. Procedurally there are no compulsory child specific accommodations for immigrant children, as there are in family or juvenile court. Moreover, children are held to the same credibility and evidentiary burdens as adults. This Article concludes that international human rights law, specifically the Convention on the Rights of the Child, articulates a workable, comprehensive, framework of children’s positive (or welfare) and liberal rights that can and should be implemented in U.S. immigration law. Specifically, immigration law must at a minimum prohibit the return of a child to a country where the child would face irreparable harm; permit children when appropriate to petition for immigration relief on their own behalf; provide experts trained in child welfare and immigration law to assess the best interests of the child; and provide free legal counsel to children facing deportation

My Turn: Halting Refugee Admissions is Misguided

Article excerpt: In the aftermath of terrorist attacks in Paris, state governors from more than 25 states, including the governor of my state, New Hampshire, have stated that they are shutting down their borders and not allowing Syrian refugees to live in their states. While their pronouncements carry no legal weight, because state governors don’t have the authority to decide whether to admit refugees into the United States (that is the president’s prerogative), they are misguided and morally reprehensible

Obama\u27s Failed Attempt to Close Gitmo: Why Executive Orders Can\u27t Bring About Systemic Change

[Excerpt] “In the lead up to the 2008 Presidential election, there was broad bipartisan support for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. President Bush was quoted as saying, “I’d like it to be over with.” John McCain and General Colin Powell echoed similar sentiments for ending detention at the naval base. In addition to prominent Republicans calling for closure, public opinion began to support finding alternative solutions for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama wasted no time once sworn into office executing his central campaign promises. On January 22, 2009, two days after becoming the forty-fourth President of the United States, Obama signed three executive orders in the presence of sixteen retired admirals and generals in the Oval Office. These orders (1) suspended military commissions; (2) set a timetable and created procedures to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility; (3) revoked all existing executive orders that were inconsistent with U.S. Geneva Convention treaty obligations concerning interrogation of detained individuals; and (4) created a task force to review U.S. detention policy options and U.S. interrogation techniques. With the public backing its shutdown, prominent Republicans and Democrats alike calling for its closure, and the President’s executive orders creating the framework and timeline for implementation, the end of U.S. detentions at Guantanamo Bay seemed a fait accompli. Yet, in 2011, Guantanamo Bay continues to operate and currently houses approximately 180 post-9/11 detainees who have not been tried for any crimes. This essay asks: Why, what happened?

Getting Kids Out of Harm\u27s Way: The United States\u27 Obligation to Operationalize the Best Interest of the Child Principle for Unaccompanied Minors

The government estimates by the end of the fiscal year over 90,000 children will enter the United States. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 58% of these children were forcibly displaced and are potentially in need of international protection. However, in U.S. immigration law unaccompanied children are often seen as illegal migrants and law enforcement prioritizes their “alien” status over their status as children. As the crisis escalates, many of these children are being housed at emergency shelters in icebox-cold cells – nicknamed hierleras, Spanish for freezers, with no access to food or medical care, while DHS attempts to establish which children may have an available sponsor in the United States to be released to and initiates removal proceedings against each child without valid immigration status. The only protections for these children are discrete and narrow forms of immigration relief. Such relief depends on if someone such as an attorney identifies the available relief and assists the child with the application process. Yet, children are not entitled to government-funded counsel and must proceed before an immigration judge alone. For other children there is no available immigration relief; but they have witnessed unspeakable horrors and have been the victims of violence and abuse, yet there is no answer to their calls for help. They are not simply migrants crossing international borders; they are emblematic of an international humanitarian crisis rapidly unfolding in Central America. The current crisis on the border has underscored the profound structural deficiencies in our federal agencies to meet the needs of unaccompanied immigrant children – as children. This essay contributes to the ongoing discussion on how to best handle the surge of unaccompanied minors crossing the southern border this summer. Specifically, the essay argues that the United States must provide a solution that both keeps the children in need of international protection out of harm’s way, and is grounded in international human rights law and practice. The best interest of the child principle must be operationalized in all U.S. government responses for children through a congressionally created interagency “Child Protection Corps.” Further, U.S. immigration protections need to flexible enough to create an avenue for a child to remain in this country, if it is not in the best interest for the child to return to his or her home country. Specifically, DHS should consider exercising its administrative prerogatives such as prosecutorial discretion and humanitarian parole to provide children in need of protection with a safe haven. Overall, this essay seeks to specify discrete steps for Congress and the executive branch to take in addressing significant structural gaps in the federal government’s capacity to provide for the best interest of each child in need of international sanctuary

Seek Justice, Not Just Deportation: How to Improve Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law

Bipartisan politics has prevented meaningful reform to a system in dire need of solutions: Immigration. Meanwhile there are eleven million noncitizens with no valid immigration status who currently reside in the United States and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not have the necessary resources to effect their removal. DHS does have the authority through prosecutorial discretion to prioritize these cases and provide relief to individuals with compelling circumstances that warrant humanitarian consideration; nonetheless, DHS’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion is underutilized, inconsistently applied and lacks transparency. This Article suggests a remedy – that the immigration prosecutor’s role should redefined to be one more akin to criminal prosecutors with a concomitant obligation to seek justice. Others have argued that DHS prosecutorial discretion should be subject to notice and comment rulemaking and a presumption of judicial review. However, if prosecutorial discretion is to remain a solidly executive branch prerogative to counter legislation painted with too broad a brush (a defect of almost all legislation) and a mechanism to prioritize individuals for deportation, such as violent repeat criminal offenders, it should be shielded from rulemaking and a presumption of judicial review

Bypassing Civil Gideon: A Legislative Proposal

Eighty-four percent of immigrants appearing before immigration judges are unrepresented. Immigration judges are overwhelmed with the dual role of adjudicating cases and serving as counsel to pro se individuals appearing before them. In addition, due to the rising costs of retaining a lawyer, immigrants are turning to immigrant consultants. These incompetent and unscrupulous individuals are preying on vulnerable immigrants and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In addressing unmet legal needs for immigrants, most advocacy efforts for immigrants regarding the acquisition of competent representation focus on persuading the courts that immigrants appearing before an immigration judge have a constitutional right to government-paid counsel. This tactic has repeatedly failed. This Article, however, explores an alternative strategy -- expanding immigrants’ access to qualified and trained nonlawyer representatives. Increasing access to these accredited representatives would provide immigrants with accurate counsel and advice about the availability of immigration relief; reduce backlog and delay in the immigration agencies; and ensure the individual has a competent advocate demanding fair adjudication of his or her application for immigration relief. In order to accomplish these objectives, the Article puts forth a federal legislative proposal on how to expand the current number of nonlawyer representatives so that every indigent immigrant in need of representation is guaranteed a government-funded representative; creates an interagency taskforce to investigate and federally prosecute individuals who are defrauding immigrants; and makes engaging in the unauthorized practice of law a federal crime. The proposal also provides a plan for funding this new initiative including establishing a dedicated immigrant victim rights fund. Eighty-four percent of immigrants appearing before immigration judges are unrepresented. Immigration judges are overwhelmed with the dual role of adjudicating cases and serving as counsel to pro se individuals appearing before them. In addition, due to the rising costs of retaining a lawyer, immigrants are turning to immigrant consultants. These incompetent and unscrupulous individuals are preying on vulnerable immigrants and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In addressing unmet legal needs for immigrants, most advocacy efforts for immigrants regarding the acquisition of competent representation focus on persuading the courts that immigrants appearing before an immigration judge have a constitutional right to government-paid counsel. This tactic has repeatedly failed. This Article, however, explores an alternative strategy -- expanding immigrants’ access to qualified and trained nonlawyer representatives. Increasing access to these accredited representatives would provide immigrants with accurate counsel and advice about the availability of immigration relief; reduce backlog and delay in the immigration agencies; and ensure the individual has a competent advocate demanding fair adjudication of his or her application for immigration relief. In order to accomplish these objectives, the Article puts forth a federal legislative proposal on how to expand the current number of nonlawyer representatives so that every indigent immigrant in need of representation is guaranteed a government-funded representative; creates an interagency taskforce to investigate and federally prosecute individuals who are defrauding immigrants; and makes engaging in the unauthorized practice of law a federal crime. The proposal also provides a plan for funding this new initiative including establishing a dedicated immigrant victim rights fund. Eighty-four percent of immigrants appearing before immigration judges are unrepresented. Immigration judges are overwhelmed with the dual role of adjudicating cases and serving as counsel to pro se individuals appearing before them. In addition, due to the rising costs of retaining a lawyer, immigrants are turning to immigrant consultants. These incompetent and unscrupulous individuals are preying on vulnerable immigrants and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In addressing unmet legal needs for immigrants, most advocacy efforts for immigrants regarding the acquisition of competent representation focus on persuading the courts that immigrants appearing before an immigration judge have a constitutional right to government-paid counsel. This tactic has repeatedly failed. This Article, however, explores an alternative strategy -- expanding immigrants’ access to qualified and trained nonlawyer representatives. Increasing access to these accredited representatives would provide immigrants with accurate counsel and advice about the availability of immigration relief; reduce backlog and delay in the immigration agencies; and ensure the individual has a competent advocate demanding fair adjudication of his or her application for immigration relief. In order to accomplish these objectives, the Article puts forth a federal legislative proposal on how to expand the current number of nonlawyer representatives so that every indigent immigrant in need of representation is guaranteed a government-funded representative; creates an interagency taskforce to investigate and federally prosecute individuals who are defrauding immigrants; and makes engaging in the unauthorized practice of law a federal crime. The proposal also provides a plan for funding this new initiative including establishing a dedicated immigrant victim rights fund. Eighty-four percent of immigrants appearing before immigration judges are unrepresented. Immigration judges are overwhelmed with the dual role of adjudicating cases and serving as counsel to pro se individuals appearing before them. In addition, due to the rising costs of retaining a lawyer, immigrants are turning to immigrant consultants. These incompetent and unscrupulous individuals are preying on vulnerable immigrants and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In addressing unmet legal needs for immigrants, most advocacy efforts for immigrants regarding the acquisition of competent representation focus on persuading the courts that immigrants appearing before an immigration judge have a constitutional right to government-paid counsel. This tactic has repeatedly failed. This Article, however, explores an alternative strategy -- expanding immigrants’ access to qualified and trained nonlawyer representatives. Increasing access to these accredited representatives would provide immigrants with accurate counsel and advice about the availability of immigration relief; reduce backlog and delay in the immigration agencies; and ensure the individual has a competent advocate demanding fair adjudication of his or her application for immigration relief. In order to accomplish these objectives, the Article puts forth a federal legislative proposal on how to expand the current number of nonlawyer representatives so that every indigent immigrant in need of representation is guaranteed a government-funded representative; creates an interagency taskforce to investigate and federally prosecute individuals who are defrauding immigrants; and makes engaging in the unauthorized practice of law a federal crime. The proposal also provides a plan for funding this new initiative including establishing a dedicated immigrant victim rights fund. Eighty-four percent of immigrants appearing before immigration judges are unrepresented. Immigration judges are overwhelmed with the dual role of adjudicating cases and serving as counsel to pro se individuals appearing before them. In addition, due to the rising costs of retaining a lawyer, immigrants are turning to immigrant consultants. These incompetent and unscrupulous individuals are preying on vulnerable immigrants and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In addressing unmet legal needs for immigrants, most advocacy efforts for immigrants regarding the acquisition of competent representation focus on persuading the courts that immigrants appearing before an immigration judge have a constitutional right to government-paid counsel. This tactic has repeatedly failed. This Article, however, explores an alternative strategy -- expanding immigrants’ access to qualified and trained nonlawyer representatives. Increasing access to these accredited representatives would provide immigrants with accurate counsel and advice about the availability of immigration relief; reduce backlog and delay in the immigration agencies; and ensure the individual has a competent advocate demanding fair adjudication of his or her application for immigration relief. In order to accomplish these objectives, the Article puts forth a federal legislative proposal on how to expand the current number of nonlawyer representatives so that every indigent immigrant in need of representation is guaranteed a government-funded representative; creates an interagency taskforce to investigate and federally prosecute individuals who are defrauding immigrants; and makes engaging in the unauthorized practice of law a federal crime. The proposal also provides a plan for funding this new initiative including establishing a dedicated immigrant victim rights fund. Eighty-four percent of immigrants appearing before immigration judges are unrepresented. Immigration judges are overwhelmed with the dual role of adjudicating cases and serving as counsel to pro se individuals appearing before them. In addition, due to the rising costs of retaining a lawyer, immigrants are turning to immigrant consultants. These incompetent and unscrupulous individuals are preying on vulnerable immigrants and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In addressing unmet legal needs for immigrants, most advocacy efforts for immigrants regarding the acquisition of competent representation focus on persuading the courts that immigrants appearing before an immigration judge have a constitutional right to government-paid counsel. This tactic has repeatedly failed. This Article, however, explores an alternative strategy -- expanding immigrants’ access to qualified and trained nonlawyer representatives. Increasing access to these accredited representatives would provide immigrants with accurate counsel and advice about the availability of immigration relief; reduce backlog and delay in the immigration agencies; and ensure the individual has a competent advocate demanding fair adjudication of his or her application for immigration relief. In order to accomplish these objectives, the Article puts forth a federal legislative proposal on how to expand the current number of nonlawyer representatives so that every indigent immigrant in need of representation is guaranteed a government-funded representative; creates an interagency taskforce to investigate and federally prosecute individuals who are defrauding immigrants; and makes engaging in the unauthorized practice of law a federal crime. The proposal also provides a plan for funding this new initiative including establishing a dedicated immigrant victim rights fund

Alien Registration- Corcoran, Norman B. (Baldwin, Cumberland County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/33004/thumbnail.jp

The Use of Research Evidence in Instructional Improvement

Those who seek to reform our public schools often argue that school performance would improve if only policy and practice were based on evidence. If decision-makers and practitioners paid more attention to research findings, the argument goes, they would make better decisions about improvement strategies and resource allocation, and we would see better results. The belief in this axiom is demonstrated by the increasing frequency with which reformers, educators, and policymakers find it necessary to legitimate their actions with claims that they are "research-based." However, moving beyond rhetoric to actually put this principle into operation turns out to be difficult.This issue of CPRE Policy Briefs looks at findings from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education's study of how central office and school staff in three urban districts made decisions about instructional improvement strategies, and how much weight they gave to evidence. The three districts, in three different states, had enrollments ranging from 50,000 to over 200,000. Leaders in all three districts were addressing the problems common to most urban districts: students' problems associated with living in poverty, low achievement, high mobility, and high dropout rates. Changes in district and school leadership, high teacher turnover, changes in funding, and new state policies compounded the difficulty of improving performance in all three sites. The districts were also working in environments characterized by decentralized decision-making, high-stakes accountability, and increasing competition among providers of comprehensive school reform designs and other "research-based" instructional improvement strategies.During our study, we looked at three sets of strategic decisions that each district faced as it tried to improve student performance. The first set of decisions concerned what to do (i.e., which reform design or curriculum to adopt). The next set was deciding how to get it done; how to provide adequate support and coordination; and how to focus people's attention on the desired changes, ensure effective implementation, reduce distractions, and buffer this important work from competing agendas. Finally, there were decisions about scaling up the reforms -- the problem of replication. The decision-making process in each case was complicated and the use of evidence to support the ultimate decisions varied considerably. While these categories overlap, they are useful organizers of our findings

Helping Teachers Teach Well: Transforming Professional Development

This brief from 1995 reviews what was known about professional development. The brief discusses its organization, costs, and effects on practice. It also suggests some principles to guide professional development in the future and offers a framework for designing and assessing policies and programs

Teaching Matters: How State and Local Policymakers Can Improve the Quality of Teachers and Teaching

A growing body of evidence confirms what common sense has suggested all along: The quality of teaching in the public schools matters for how well students learn. An important corollary is that poor children, minority children, and children from nonEnglish-speaking homes are even more dependent on the quality of their teachers than are more affluent, English-speaking, White children. Pressures to improve teacher quality stem mainly from state efforts to hold local schools accountable for student achievement and from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Policymakers want to know how to train, license, recruit, select, deploy, assign, develop, evaluate, retain, and compensate teachers to produce a well-qualified teacher in every classroom and especially in the classrooms that need them the most--those in urban, high-poverty, high-minority, low-performing schools (Ferguson, 1991; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Sanders & Horn, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 2000). State policy counts as a salient force in shaping teacher quality, with influence in domains including teacher-licensing standards, teacher-education policies, compensation and evaluation, induction, professional development, and data policy and systems. These were key issues addressed by the National Commission on Teaching and America\u27s Future (NCTAF, 1997) and the Teaching Commission (2004). This issue of CPRE Policy Briefs summarizes the findings on issues related to teacher quality in the chapter authored by Thomas B. Corcoran in the book, The State of Education Policy Research (Cohen, Fuhrman, & Mosher, Eds., in press). This report also draws on discussions that took place during a Summer, 2006, policy briefing on teacher labor-market issues held in Chicago and sponsored by the Spencer Foundation