A Rising Share: Hispanics and Federal Crime

Analyzes the rise in the percentage of Latinos/Hispanics among sentenced federal offenders in 1991-2007 by citizenship status, offense, length of sentence, and U.S. district. Examines the effect of heightened enforcement of immigration laws

On Normative Effects of Immigration Law

Can laws shape and mold our attitudes, values, and social norms, and if so, how do immigration laws affect our attitudes or views toward minority groups? I explore these questions through a randomized laboratory experiment that examines whether and to what extent short-term exposures to anti-immigration and pro-immigration laws affect people\u27s implicit and explicit attitudes toward Latinos. My analysis shows that exposure to an anti-immigration law is associated with increased perceptions among study participants that Latinos are unintelligent and law-breaking. In contrast, Ifind no evidence that exposure to pro-immigration laws promotes positive attitudes toward Latinos. Taken together, these results suggest that exposure to anti-immigration laws can easily trigger negative racial attitudes, but fostering positive racial attitudes through pro-immigration laws might be substantially more dfficult. I argue that a fuller appreciation of the impacts of immigration laws requires an understanding of their normative effects-the laws\u27 impact on people\u27sjudgments about how they ought to view and treat certain social groups or conduct. I conclude by discussing the directions for future research on law, racial attitudes, and intergroup relations

Construction of Race and Class Buffers in the Structure of Immigration Controls and Laws, The Symposium: Citizenship and Its Discontents: Centering the Immigrant in the Inter/National Imigination: Part II: Section Three: Rethinking Agency: Global Economic Restructuring and the Immigrant

In the midst of current anti-immigration sentiment, which is motivating dramatic changes in the United States immigration laws, there exists the myth that prior immigration laws were more equitable and humanitarian. Yet historical analysis reveals that immigration law has been put to uses far from idyllic, and has always been concerned with the racial makeup of the nation. Specifically, national preoccupation with the maintenance of a White country is reflected in immigration law. The continued national preference for White immigrants is explicitly featured in the visa profiling codes of U.S. embassies and consulates. This Essay employs a race-conscious lens to analyze the way in which immigration law has been structured to perpetuate a racial hierarchy which privileges Whiteness, primarily by preferring White immigrants to immigrants of color, and secondarily by drafting immigrants of color to form a middle-tier buffer and, alternatively, to provide a bottom-tier surplus labor supply

Immigration Manual

[Excerpt] This manual is designed to provide a general overview of the immigration laws and procedures of various countries. Please note that the immigration laws and procedures are constantly changing and are subject to new policies and developments. Therefore, this manual is not intended to be exhaustive. Unless otherwise indicated, the law is as stated on 1 November 2006

Foreword

The immigration laws in our country have been influenced by population growth and distribution, as well as economic and political conditions both in the United States and foreign nations. Such influences have caused significant variations in patterns of immigration throughout our nation\u27s history. It is important for us to remember our distinguished immigrant heritage when commenting upon past immigration policy and projecting as to the future of our immigration laws

In the Child's Best Interest: The Consequences of Losing a Lawful Immigrant Parent to Deportation

Congress is considering a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws more than a decade after the enactment of strict immigration measures. Lawmakers should take this opportunity to reaffirm the nation's historic commitment to family unity by addressing the discrete provisions that currently undermine it. Current U.S. immigration laws mandate deportation of lawful permanent resident (LPR) parents of thousands of U.S. citizen children, without providing these parents an opportunity to challenge their forced separations. Through a multi-disciplinary analysis, this policy brief examines the experiences of U.S. citizen children impacted by the forced deportation of their LPR parents and proposes ways to reform U.S. law consistent with domestic and international standards aimed to improve the lives of children.This report includes new, independent analysis of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data. We estimate that more than 100,000 children have been affected by LPR parental deportation between 1997 and 2007, and that at least 88,000 of impacted children were U.S. citizens. Moreover, our analysis estimates that approximately 44,000 children were under the age of 5 when their parent was deported. In addition to these children, this analysis estimates that more than 217,000 others experienced the deportation of an immediate family member who was an LPR

Immigration Enforcement Within the United States

[From Introduction] An estimated 11 million unauthorized aliens reside in the United States, and this population is estimated to increase by 500,000 annually. Each year, approximately 1 million aliens are apprehended trying to enter the United States illegally. Although most of these aliens enter the United States for economic opportunities and family reunification, or to avoid civil strife and political unrest, some are criminals, and some may be terrorists. All are violating the United States’ immigration laws

The Inherent Flaws in the Inherent Authority Position: Why Inviting Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws Violates the Constitution, Immigr. & Nat\u27lity L. Rev.

After 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that state and local authorities have inherent authority as sovereigns to enforce federal immigration laws. This announcement, a reversal from previous legal positions taken by DOJ, sent shockwaves through the immigrant and law enforcement communities. Previously, immigration law had been treated, both by law and in practice, as the exclusive province of the federal government. This article considers the constitutional barriers to local enforcement. Although the fascinating interplay among immigration law, national security and anti-terrorism, and federalism has been highlighted in some of the debate up to now, the federalism-related issues go beyond mere preemption and require a fundamental examination of the proper scope of the federal immigration power. Specifically, this article argues that there is a constitutional mandate for uniform immigration laws, and DOJ\u27s position will lead to uneven enforcement of immigration laws in violation of that mandate. As proposed by DOJ, local authorities decide for themselves whether to enforce immigration laws, and then, if they agree, they will be bound by different state laws affecting their arrest powers. This proposal will result in an unconstitutional thousand borders, as the same immigration violation will be enforced in one jurisdiction but not in another, perhaps neighboring, jurisdiction

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