Representations of hom-Lie algebras

In this paper, we study representations of hom-Lie algebras. In particular, the adjoint representation and the trivial representation of hom-Lie algebras are studied in detail. Derivations, deformations, central extensions and derivation extensions of hom-Lie algebras are also studied as an application.Comment: 16 pages, multiplicative and regular hom-Lie algebras are used, Algebra and Representation Theory, 15 (6) (2012), 1081-109

Brackets with (τ,σ)(\tau,\sigma)-derivations and (p,q)(p,q)-deformations of Witt and Virasoro algebras

The aim of this paper is to study some brackets defined on $(\tau,\sigma)$-derivations satisfying quasi-Lie identities. Moreover, we provide examples of $(p,q)$-deformations of Witt and Virasoro algebras as well as $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ algebra. These constructions generalize the results obtained by Hartwig, Larsson and Silvestrov on $\sigma$-derivations, arising in connection with discretizations and deformations of algebras of vector fields.Comment: 30 page

Theorizing the Immigrant Child: The Case of Married Minors

U.S. immigration laws provide special protections, benefits, and forms of relief for children. They also provide certain marriage-based benefits and exclusions. However, the most common definitions of “child” in the Immigration and Nationality Act make the existence of a married child into a legal impossibility. In other words, married children are variously treated as either married adults or unmarried children. This article analyzes the treatment of married minors in the immigration system in three contexts: as beneficiaries of spousal petitions; as petitioners for spouses, parents, and siblings; and as beneficiaries of parent-sponsored petitions. The analysis reveals that married minors are typically treated indistinguishably from married adults; and when they are treated as children, it is often to their detriment. The article attempts to explain why this is so by exploring the assumptions about dependency, marriage, and the family that underlie the immigration laws’ constructions of children and women. These longstanding assumptions are based on stereotypes about women and foreign cultures that are considered offensive to modern sensibilities, and impose a double burden on married minors, most of whom are female. The current, haphazard treatment of married minors under our immigration laws suggests that lawmakers have not seriously considered this group of potential immigrants. Reforming the law’s treatment of married minor children in the family-based immigration system is a first step toward incorporating a critical child-centered perspective into the immigration laws. In an era of unprecedented child migration to the United States and an upward trend in the number of child marriages globally, immigration laws should reflect a contemporary understanding of childhood

Disability, Health, Law, and Bioethics

https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/book-contributions/1000/thumbnail.jp

Health Justice for Immigrants

Should universal health coverage include immigrants within the “universe?” Should federal taxpayers subsidize health insurance coverage for immigrants, even those who are undocumented? Should all immigrants be required to purchase health insurance? Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is conceived as a progressive project to expand access to coverage and promote equity in health care, it intentionally left out the 12.5 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States and preserved the existing restrictions on subsidized coverage for lawfully present non-citizens. In fact, it increased the disparity in access to health care between U.S. citizens and immigrants. As a result, immigrants suffer disproportionately from delayed treatment, unnecessary pain and suffering, and stress. This Article introduces a new paradigm for analyzing the issue of immigrant access to the health care safety net, arguing that immigrants should receive equitable access to subsidized health coverage. It builds on the principles of Health Justice, an emerging model of health law based on a communitarian conception of social justice. Health Justice offers a framework for understanding how universal access to health care protects collective as well as individual interests but has struggled to define who should be included in the universe. This Article demonstrates that the ethical norms underlying access to health care—the principle of need, which directs health care providers to offer care to those in need, and the principle of mutual aid, which dictates that health care resources should be distributed based on medical need—provide this missing definition and support the inclusion of immigrants in the community entitled to health care. This Article illustrates how recognizing immigrant populations can strengthen both health care policy and theory. Understanding how and why immigrants have been left out of progressive efforts to subsidize health insurance coverage can help to illuminate the fundamental defects in our health care system that perpetuate these and other inequities. Inclusion of immigrant health care rights also refines and fortifies the Health Justice framework as a tool for influencing progressive legislation, doctrine, scholarship, and advocacy. Finally, this Article begins to make the case for why communitarianism is a useful lens for analyzing problems of access and equity in the U.S. health care system

Health Care Sanctuaries

It is increasingly common for noncitizens living in the United States to avoid seeing a doctor or enrolling in publicly funded health programs because they fear surveillance by immigration authorities. This is the consequence of a decades-long shift in the locus of immigration enforcement activities from the border to the interior, as well as a recent period of heightened immigration enforcement. These fears persist because the law incompletely constrains immigration surveillance in health care. This Article argues that immigration surveillance in health care is a poor choice of resource allocation for immigration enforcement because it has severe consequences for health and the health care system; additionally, it compromises the legitimacy of the state vis-à-vis its noncitizen residents. The consequences include public health threats, health care system inefficiency, ethical dilemmas, and increased vulnerability in immigrant communities. Laws permitting immigration surveillance in health care also create legitimacy harms by obstructing noncitizens’ access to health care and undermining their privacy and rights to public benefits. The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illustrates these dangers, but they exist even in the absence of a novel disease outbreak. Health care access for noncitizens has largely been left to the vagaries of immigration policy. Immigration surveillance in health care should prompt us to consider the scope and limits of health law and the role of discretion in immigration law. Health care sanctuaries —durable legal protections against immigration surveillance in health care —recover some of the lost equilibrium between immigration enforcement and other goals and values of public policy

Destigmatizing Disability in the Law of Immigration Admissions

Chapter Abstract In U.S. immigration law, disability has historically been associated with deviance, and has served as the basis for legal barriers to entry and eventual citizenship. For example, immigrants with actual and perceived physical and intellectual disabilities, mental illness, and other health conditions have been deemed “inadmissible” to the United States based on the belief that they are likely to become dependent on the government for support. Although the law has evolved to accommodate immigrants with disabilities in some ways, significant legal barriers still exist on account of the widespread, persistent characterization of disability as a “bad difference” from the norm. This chapter contributes to the scholarly literature on disability rights and immigration by examining the strengths and limitations of adopting a destigmatizing account of disablement in the context of immigration admissions. Such an approach, which characterizes disablement as a “mere difference” as opposed to a “bad difference,” would build on the momentum that has liberalized disability-related immigration exclusions over the years. Framing disability as a valued form of diversity, while acknowledging its inherent costs, would be a promising first step toward characterizing immigrants with disabilities as valuable and contributing members of society, and supporting a more just societal allocation of the economic costs of disability.https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/fac-books/1002/thumbnail.jp

Stemming the Shadow Pandemic: Integrating Sociolegal Services in Contact Tracing and Beyond

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the challenges of complying with public health guidance to isolate or quarantine without access to adequate income, housing, food, and other resources. When people cannot safely isolate or quarantine during an outbreak of infectious disease, a critical public health strategy fails. This article proposes integrating sociolegal needs screening and services into contact tracing as a way to mitigate public health harms and pandemic-related health inequities

Health Justice for Immigrants

Should universal health coverage include immigrants within the “universe?” Should federal taxpayers subsidize health insurance coverage for immigrants, even those who are undocumented? Should all immigrants be required to purchase health insurance? Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is conceived as a progressive project to expand access to coverage and promote equity in health care, it intentionally left out the 12.5 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States and preserved the existing restrictions on subsidized coverage for lawfully present non-citizens. In fact, it increased the disparity in access to health care between U.S. citizens and immigrants. As a result, immigrants suffer disproportionately from delayed treatment, unnecessary pain and suffering, and stress. This Article introduces a new paradigm for analyzing the issue of immigrant access to the health care safety net, arguing that immigrants should receive equitable access to subsidized health coverage. It builds on the principles of Health Justice, an emerging model of health law based on a communitarian conception of social justice. Health Justice offers a framework for understanding how universal access to health care protects collective as well as individual interests but has struggled to define who should be included in the universe. This Article demonstrates that the ethical norms underlying access to health care—the principle of need, which directs health care providers to offer care to those in need, and the principle of mutual aid, which dictates that health care resources should be distributed based on medical need—provide this missing definition and support the inclusion of immigrants in the community entitled to health care. This Article illustrates how recognizing immigrant populations can strengthen both health care policy and theory. Understanding how and why immigrants have been left out of progressive efforts to subsidize health insurance coverage can help to illuminate the fundamental defects in our health care system that perpetuate these and other inequities. Inclusion of immigrant health care rights also refines and fortifies the Health Justice framework as a tool for influencing progressive legislation, doctrine, scholarship, and advocacy. Finally, this Article begins to make the case for why communitarianism is a useful lens for analyzing problems of access and equity in the U.S. health care system