Birthright Citizenship Under Attack: How Dominican Nationality Laws May be the Future of U.S. Exclusion

Attacks on birthright citizenship periodically emerge in the United States, particularly during presidential election cycles. Indeed, blaming immigrants for the country\u27s woes is a common strategy for conservative politicians, and the campaign leading up to the 2016 presidential election was not an exception. Several of the Republican presidential candidates raised the issue, with President Donald Trump making it the hallmark of his immigration reform platform. Trump promised that, if elected, his administration would end birthright citizenship. In the Dominican Republic, ending birthright citizenship and curbing immigration are now enshrined into law, resulting from a significant constitutional redefinition of Dominican citizenship and a major court decision. Essentially, the Dominican Republic both modified its constitutional equivalent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and also ruled that change applied retroactively, leaving four generations of former citizens stateless. Both the U.S. and the Dominican cases are driven by the same factors: fear and distrust of foreigners, historical xenophobia, selective interpretation of citizenship, and plain racial discrimination. In this Article, the authors examine the historical context of the Dominican Republic and the United States, including legal precedents and constitutional modifications and the actual and potential legal ramifications and social consequences of these changes. They conclude that in both cases, these changes are for the wrong socio-political reasons, are based on flawed legal arguments, and are harmful to constitutional and human rights. The authors call for inclusive, welcoming legal regimes that enhance-rather than undermine citizenship rights

‘Super disabilities’ vs ‘Disabilities’?:Theorizing the role of ableism in (mis)representational mythology of disability in the marketplace

People with disabilities (PWD) constitute one of the largest minority groups with one in five people worldwide having a disability. While recognition and inclusion of this group in the marketplace has seen improvement, the effects of (mis)representation of PWD in shaping the discourse on fostering marketplace inclusion of socially marginalized consumers remain little understood. Although effects of misrepresentation (e.g., idealized, exoticized or selective representation) on inclusion/exclusion perceptions and cognitions has received attention in the context of ethnic/racial groups, the world of disability has been largely neglected. By extending the theory of ableism into the context of PWD representation and applying it to the analysis of the We’re the Superhumans advertisement developed for the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games, this paper examines the relationship between the (mis)representation and the inclusion/exclusion discourse. By uncovering that PWD misrepresentations can partially mask and/or redress the root causes of exclusion experienced by PWD in their lived realities, it contributes to the research agenda on the transformative role of consumption cultures perpetuating harmful, exclusionary social perceptions of marginalized groups versus contributing to advancement of their inclusion

SFFA v. Harvard College: Closing the Doors of Equality in Education

The United States Supreme Court’s recent combined decision ending affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina was hailed in conservative circles as the beginning of “the long road” towards racial equality. Others declared that “the opinion may begin the restoration of our nation’s constitutional colorblind legal covenant.” Another writer pronounced, “Affirmative action perpetuated racial discrimination. Its end is a huge step forward.” A Washington-based opinion page even declared: “[T]he demise of race-based affirmative action should inspire renewed commitment to the ideal of equal opportunity in America.” Despite these laudatory pronouncements, the decision and celebratory calls are wrongheaded and champion nothing close to equality, or an actual colorblind approach to society for that matter. The SFFA decision held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause forbids the consideration of race in college admissions. The holding, implicitly and explicitly, rests on a vision of equality based on the conservative theory of achieving a colorblind society. As this Article will demonstrate, the embrace of a so-called colorblind society by the members of the Court is one in which endorses a society to continue to provide lessor opportunities for racial minorities. The Court endorses a society that provides a public education system that is not even remotely approaching any notions of equality but can hold illegal efforts seeking to bring us slightly closer to racial equality

Membership and Immigration- Today\u27s Civil Rights Agenda part 1

Ediberto Roman, J.D., Professor Law at Florida International University\u27s College of Law presents a lecture on Martin Luther King Jr in relation to today\u27s current immigration issues