The Constitutionality of State and Local Laws Targeting Immigrants

This paper addresses current immigration issues across the country, specifically in Arkansas, and how lawyers can seek to achieve social justice for immigrants. There currently has been a lot of activity and discussion surrounding state and local laws targeting immigrants. Central to this discussion has been whether states and localities are constitutionally permitted to enact immigration laws and whether state and local actions upset the current immigration system and how, if at all, their actions affect documented and undocumented immigrants\u27 rights. When states and localities pass immigration related laws, the main concern is whether federal, state or local governments are the proper level of government to regulate immigration. The goal of this paper is to challenge the position that states and localities should play a central role in immigration enforcement and regulation. To support this contention, part I provides a brief overview of the historical roles of federal, state, and local governments in regulating and enforcing immigration. In particular, the first section focuses on the most recent state and local laws targeting immigrants. These laws pointedly deny essential services of employment, housing, and welfare benefits to immigrants often forcing them to relocate or self-deport. Part II analyzes current case law and the federal circuit split on the constitutionality of state and local laws. This section focuses on two pioneers in the passage of laws targeting immigrants: Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and the State of Arizona. Part III discusses the implications of state and local laws targeting immigrants

Refugee Reception and Perception: U.S. Detention Camps and German Welcome Centers

The reception of refugees and asylum seekers has emerged as one of the most critical contemporary global issues. In 2015, the world experienced the most forced migrants since World War II. This essay compares the treatment of asylum seekers at reception in United States and Germany through each countries’ freedom and restriction of movement laws. This comparative analysis is based on Professor Karla McKanders’ December 2015 exploratory trip to Germany to learn more about the processing refugees in the midst of Germany accepting unprecedented numbers of refugees; and attorney Valeria Gomez’s December 2015 volunteer experience in the South Texas Family Residence Center. The article proceeds in four parts. Part I provides an overview of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its application to the rights of asylum seekers in receiving countries at their reception. Part II critically examines United States’ laws and policies for detaining asylum seekers in connection with Valeria Gomez’s volunteering in the South Texas Family Residence Center. Part III takes a contrasting look at Germany’s reception laws for asylum seekers through with McKanders’ exploratory trip to Germany. Part IV compares the two reception models and takes a critical look at (1) the role political, social and historical context play in determining a country’s detention policies? and (2) what the contrasting systems for restricting asylum seekers freedom of movement in Germany and the United States signify regarding presumptions of illegality that underlie detention policies. Finally, the essay suggests increased dialogue and examination of alternate detention models to facilitate the humane treatment of asylum seekers and refugees at reception