The Right to Travel: Breaking Down the Thousand Petty Fortresses of State Self-Deportation Laws

Part I of this Article discusses the limitation of the pre-emption doctrine on state self-deportation laws. Part II discusses a short history of the Supreme Court’s application of the right to travel. Part III explains why the lack of federal authorization or immigrant status does not exclude people from the right to travel’s protection. Part IV discusses how the right to travel relates to citizenship and how the undocumented may exercise what has been described as a privilege or immunity of citizenship. Finally, Part V examines how the current state-based “self-deportation” immigration laws violate the right to travel

Understanding Sanctuary Cities

In the wake of President Trump’s election, a growing number of local jurisdictions around the country have sought to disentangle their criminal justice apparatus from federal immigration enforcement efforts. These localities have embraced a series of reforms that attempt to ensure immigrants are not deported when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. The Trump administration has labeled these jurisdictions “sanctuary cities” and vowed to “end” them by, among other things, attempting to cut off their federal funding. This Article is a collaborative project authored by law professors specializing in the intersection between immigration and criminal law. In it, we set forth the central features of the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans and its campaign to “crack down” on sanctuary cities. We then outline the diverse ways in which localities have sought to protect their residents by refusing to participate in the Trump immigration agenda. Such initiatives include declining to honor immigration detainers, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing immigration agents from accessing local jails. Finally, we analyze the legal and policy justifications that local jurisdictions have advanced. Our examination reveals important insights for how sanctuary cities are understood and preserved in the age of Trump

Morality and progress:IR narratives on international revisionism and the status quo

Scholars debate the ambitions and policies of today’s ‘rising powers’ and the extent to which they are revising or upholding the international status quo. While elements of the relevant literature provide valuable insight, this article argues that the concepts of revisionism and the status quo within mainstream International Relations (IR) have always constituted deeply rooted, autobiographical narratives of a traditionally Western-dominated discipline. As ‘ordering narratives’ of morality and progress, they constrain and organize debate so that revisionism is typically conceived not merely as disruption, but as disruption from the non-West amidst a fundamentally moral Western order that represents civilizational progress. This often makes them inherently problematic and unreliable descriptors of the actors and behaviours they are designed to explain. After exploring the formations and development of these concepts throughout the IR tradition, the analysis is directed towards narratives around the contemporary ‘rise’ of China. Both scholarly and wider political narratives typically tell the story of revisionist challenges China presents to a US/Western-led status quo, promoting unduly binary divisions between the West and non-West, and tensions and suspicions in the international realm. The aim must be to develop a new language and logic that recognize the contingent, autobiographical nature of ‘revisionist’ and ‘status quo’ actors and behaviours

Why are Conservatives Less Concerned about the Coronavirus (COVID-19) than Liberals? Comparing Political, Experiential, and Partisan Messaging Explanations

Given research revealing conservatives are more sensitive to disease threat, it is curious that U.S. conservatives are less concerned than liberals with the COVID-19 pandemic. Across three studies, we evaluated three potential reasons why conservatives are less concerned: (1) Motivated Political (conservatives hold COVID-specific political beliefs that motivate them to reduce concern), (2) Experiential (conservatives are less directly affected by the outbreak than liberals), and (3) Conservative Messaging (differential exposure to/trust in partisan conservative messaging). All three studies consistently showed evidence that political (and not experiential or partisan messaging) reasons more strongly mediate conservatives’ lack of concern for COVID-19. Additional analyses further suggested that while they did not serve as strong mediators, experiential factors provided a boundary condition for the conservatism-perceived threat relationship. These data offer a model of the ideology-disease outbreak interface that can be applied to both the ongoing pandemic and future disease outbreaks