The President and Immigration Federalism

This Article lays out a systematic, conceptual framework to better understand the relationship between federal executive action and state- level legislation in immigration. Prior immigration law scholarship has focused on structural power questions between the U.S. federal government—as a unitary entity—and the states, while newer scholarship has examined separation of powers concerns between the President and Congress. This Article builds on both of these traditions, focusing on the intersectional relationship between the federal Executive and subfederal lawmaking, which is an important yet overlooked dynamic in the resurgence of immigration federalism. First, this Article explains the relationship between presidential action and state reaction in the immigration field, deriving a typology from historical examples of curtailing, co-opting, and catalyzing state action. Next, it uses that tripartite framework to explicate the ways that the Obama Presidency has deepened presidential power through immigration federalism, sometimes in unintentional ways. As an example of an unintended consequence of presidential action, this Article provides a novel explanation for the rise of state driver’s license laws for unauthorized immigrants. This Article’s analysis concludes that the President wields significant influence to bring coherency to immigration enforcement and instantiate a de facto national policy, using states to entrench his vision. In some circumstances, however, states may resist presidential action, thereby functioning as Congress’s proxy in separation of powers battles over immigration policy

Asian Americans and the 2008 Election

Presents results of a survey of Asian Americans' views on the 2008 election and political participation. Examines candidate preferences, issues of concern, and percentages of likely voters, by party affiliation, voting record, ethnic group, and state

The President and Immigration Federalism

This Article lays out a systematic, conceptual framework to better understand the relationship between federal executive action and state- level legislation in immigration. Prior immigration law scholarship has focused on structural power questions between the U.S. federal government—as a unitary entity—and the states, while newer scholarship has examined separation of powers concerns between the President and Congress. This Article builds on both of these traditions, focusing on the intersectional relationship between the federal Executive and subfederal lawmaking, which is an important yet overlooked dynamic in the resurgence of immigration federalism. First, this Article explains the relationship between presidential action and state reaction in the immigration field, deriving a typology from historical examples of curtailing, co-opting, and catalyzing state action. Next, it uses that tripartite framework to explicate the ways that the Obama Presidency has deepened presidential power through immigration federalism, sometimes in unintentional ways. As an example of an unintended consequence of presidential action, this Article provides a novel explanation for the rise of state driver’s license laws for unauthorized immigrants. This Article’s analysis concludes that the President wields significant influence to bring coherency to immigration enforcement and instantiate a de facto national policy, using states to entrench his vision. In some circumstances, however, states may resist presidential action, thereby functioning as Congress’s proxy in separation of powers battles over immigration policy

Tuberculosis Medication Nonadherence—A Qualitative Case Study

India is grappling with the problem of controlling tuberculosis nearly for the past 50 years. The problem of nonadherence to treatment regimen has also worsened the situation of multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in India. This article explores the factors behind nonadherence among erstwhile TB defaulters in a rural district in India. In-depth interviews with seven chronic defaulters and with healthcare professionals were conducted at a government-run Chest Clinic. In addition to in-depth interviews with defaulters and healthcare professionals, medical records and government orders related to TB control were examined extensively. Participants were also observed to understand their interaction with healthcare professionals and fellow patients, especially during drug delivery time. Qualitative content analysis is the most appropriate method to analyze the transcribed text and archival records. Qualitative content analysis brought out five major themes responsible for their past nonadherence behavior, namely, (a) Awareness about tuberculosis and treatment, (b) Symptom recognition and self-medication, (c) Family support, (d) Accessibility, and (e) Stigma. Findings are documented according to the major themes and documenting direct quotes from participants and with healthcare professionals wherever appropriate. This case study also provided context-specific recommendations to the healthcare professionals as regards the nonadherence behavior among TB patients. It is hoped these focused recommendations, albeit known to the healthcare professionals, would be extremely useful in making modifications to the existing program to tackle the nonadherence behavior

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

The "California Package" of Immigrant Integration and the Evolving Nature of State Citizenship

Immigration law is no longer the exclusive domain of the federal government. That was certainly clear in the mid 2000s, with restrictive laws on immigration enforcement in many states and localities. Starting in 2012, however, momentum shifted away from these restrictionist laws, and towards a growing number of state laws that push towards greater immigrant integration, on matters ranging from in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented students, to expanded health benefits and access to driver’s licenses. California has gone the furthest in this regard, both with respect to the number of pro-integration laws passed since 2000, and in their collective scope. Indeed, as we argue in this paper, these individual laws have, over time, combined to form a powerful package of pro-integration policies that stand in sharp contrast to the restrictive policies of states like Arizona. In this paper, we provide a deeper look into the “California package” of immigrant integration policies, and ask two fundamental questions, one empirical (Why do pro-integration laws pass in some states and not in others, and in some years but not in others?), and the other theoretical (what are the implications of the “California package” of immigrant integration laws for our notions of citizenship?). As we elaborate, California has created a de facto regime of state citizenship, one that operates in parallel to national citizenship and, in some important ways, exceeds the standards of national citizenship, as currently established and as envisioned in Congressional attempts at comprehensive immigration reform