Universal Representation

In an era in which there is little good news for immigrant communities and even holding the line has become an ambitious goal, one progressive project has continued to gain steam: the movement to provide universal representation for noncitizens in removal proceedings. This effort, initially born out of a pilot project in New York City, has generated a host of replication projects throughout the nation and holds the promise of even broader expansion. But as it grows, this effort must confront challenges from within: the sort-of supporters who want to limit this representation system’s coverage in a number of ways, some of which may not merely change the scope of the program, but the core of the project itself

Expression by Ordinance: Preemption and Proxy in Local Legislation

Local laws based on immigration status have prompted heated national debate on federalism and discrimination. A second strain of nuisance-related legislation has emerged in recent years, which often targets these same immigrant communities. This paper examines the hitherto-unstudied correlation between ordinances explicitly related to immigrants and legislation regarding nuisance–as illuminated through primary research into municipal legislation across the nation. Evaluating these laws and the context of their enactment, this research shows when and how nuisance laws target certain populations. Ultimately, this inquiry reveals troubling parallels to previous community responses to disfavored subgroups and the harm resulting from proxy legislation

Inventing Deportation Arrests

At the dawn of the federal deportation system, the nation’s top immigration official proclaimed the power to authorize deportation arrests “an extraordinary one” to vest in administrative officers. He reassured the nation that this immense power—then wielded by a cabinet secretary, the only executive officer empowered to authorize these arrests—was exercised with “great care and deliberation.” A century later, this extraordinary power is legally trivial and systemically exercised by low-level enforcement officers alone. Consequently, thousands of these officers—the police and jailors of the immigration system— now have the power to solely determine whether deportation arrests are justified and, therefore, whether to subject over a hundred thousand people annually to the extended detention and bare process of our modern deportation system. This deportation arrest regime—still anomalous in our law enforcement system— has been justified by the notion that immigration enforcement has always been different when it comes to arrest constraints and that the validity of the modern deportation arrest system is evidenced through its history. This Article investigates and ultimately challenges those justifications. It focuses on the advent of administrative arrest authority in the federal immigration scheme and explores how the once “extraordinary” and confined power to authorize deportation arrests became legally trivial and diffuse. It not only provides the first account of the invention and development of federal deportation arrest authority from its inception to the modern day, but also one that differs from and complicates the conventional account in critical ways. Specifically, it reveals an early system of deportation arrest procedures that, even at a time of virulent hostility toward immigrants and overtly racist immigration regulation, was designed to impose significantly greater checks on enforcement officers’ arrest authority and more robust independent review than does the modern immigration scheme. This Article also describes why that eventually changed, providing important insight on why we are where we are today. Ultimately, this Article contests the conventional narrative that the modern deportation arrest regime is justified by its past and casts doubt on the near-unanimous case law that has relied on it. In so doing, it gives courts a reason to reconsider the constitutional validity of this scheme and provides historical support for calls to fundamentally transform the deportation arrest system

Inventing Deportation Arrests

At the dawn of the federal deportation system, the nation’s top immigration official proclaimed the power to authorize deportation arrests “an extraordinary one” to vest in administrative officers. He reassured the nation that this immense power—then wielded by a cabinet secretary, the only executive officer empowered to authorize these arrests—was exercised with “great care and deliberation.” A century later, this extraordinary power is legally trivial and systemically exercised by low-level enforcement officers alone. Consequently, thousands of these officers—the police and jailors of the immigration system— now have the power to solely determine whether deportation arrests are justified and, therefore, whether to subject over a hundred thousand people annually to the extended detention and bare process of our modern deportation system. This deportation arrest regime—still anomalous in our law enforcement system— has been justified by the notion that immigration enforcement has always been different when it comes to arrest constraints and that the validity of the modern deportation arrest system is evidenced through its history. This Article investigates and ultimately challenges those justifications. It focuses on the advent of administrative arrest authority in the federal immigration scheme and explores how the once “extraordinary” and confined power to authorize deportation arrests became legally trivial and diffuse. It not only provides the first account of the invention and development of federal deportation arrest authority from its inception to the modern day, but also one that differs from and complicates the conventional account in critical ways. Specifically, it reveals an early system of deportation arrest procedures that, even at a time of virulent hostility toward immigrants and overtly racist immigration regulation, was designed to impose significantly greater checks on enforcement officers’ arrest authority and more robust independent review than does the modern immigration scheme. This Article also describes why that eventually changed, providing important insight on why we are where we are today. Ultimately, this Article contests the conventional narrative that the modern deportation arrest regime is justified by its past and casts doubt on the near-unanimous case law that has relied on it. In so doing, it gives courts a reason to reconsider the constitutional validity of this scheme and provides historical support for calls to fundamentally transform the deportation arrest system

Universal Representation: Systemic Benefits and the Path Ahead

At a time when politics, financial considerations, and a push for expediency put pressure on the US immigration system, it can be difficult to have faith in the adjudicatory process. Case resolution quotas, directives that constrain courts’ ability to render justice in individual cases, and executive decisions that contract immigration judges’ discretion contribute to an immigration system that looks less and less like judicial adjudication of some of the highest-stakes cases in our legal system and more like a ministerial claims-processing scheme. A ray of hope exists, however, in the proliferation of public defender–style systems that offer universal representation to those facing deportation. This essay describes the genesis and expansion of the universal representation movement — a project based on the idea that indigent individuals should be entitled to counsel regardless of the apparent merits or political palatability of their case. It describes the benefits of such a program to the immigration adjudication system writ large. Beyond the oft-cited increase in success rates for individuals represented and the benefits to the communities in which such programs are located, universal representation promotes the integrity of the court system and strengthens an adjudicatory procedure that, for too long, has functioned primarily to expeditiously churn through cases. Finally, looking forward, it considers some of the challenges this movement faces as it grows and it identifies areas for further expansion

Digitally manipulating memory : effects of doctored videos and imagination in distorting beliefs and memories

In prior research on false autobiographical beliefs and memories, subjects have been asked to imagine fictional events and they have been exposed to false evidence that indicates the fictional events occurred. But what are the relative contributions of imagination and false evidence toward false belief and memory construction? Subjects observed and copied various simple actions, then viewed doctored videos that suggested they had performed extra actions, and they imagined performing some of those and some other actions. Subjects returned two weeks later for a memory test. False evidence or imagination alone was often sufficient to cause belief and memory distortions; the two techniques in combination appeared to have additive or even superadditive effects. The results bear on the mechanisms underlying false beliefs and memories, and we propose legal and clinical applications of these findings