Berkeley La Raza Law Journal最新文献_第10页

The Simpson-Mazzoli Bill in the Ninety-Eighth Congress 第98届国会的辛普森-马佐利法案

Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z380D3T

L. Wong

{"title":"The Simpson-Mazzoli Bill in the Ninety-Eighth Congress","authors":"L. Wong","doi":"10.15779/Z380D3T","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z380D3T","url":null,"abstract":"On February 17, 1983, Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming resurrected his immigration proposal, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983, better known as the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill. Before introducing it to Congress, however, Senator Simpson remarked that \" . . . uncontrolled immigration is one of the greatest threats to the future of this country, . . . portend[ing] much injury ... to American values, traditions, institutions, and to our way of life.... .\" That statement has set the tone of debate this year for a highly complex and little understood subject. Designed to \"regain\" control over our borders, the legislation is enforcement-oriented. It attempts to halt the flow of undocumented workers into the United States by creating a graduated system of penalties against persons or entities who knowingly hire, recruit or refer for employment \"unauthorized\" aliens. It proposesto allocate more resources to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for increased border patrol and other enforcement activities. It also seeks to streamline the adjudication and asylum procedures, as well as substantially curtail the availability of judicial review. Aside from these enforcement features, S. 529 and H.R. 1510 would restrict future legal immigration to the United States. Both versions of the bill prohibit adjustment of status 2 to aliens who violate the terms of their non-immigrant visas. Thus, an alien who is out of status would not be able to remain in the country to await the issuance of his permanent resident visa. Additionally, foreign students in the process of immigrating would have to return to their home countries for a period of two years before they could re-enter the United States as lawful residents. Only limited exceptions to this rule would be allowed. The Senate version attempts a more extensive reorganization of legal immigration by","PeriodicalId":408518,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123959743","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Undone by Law: The Uncertain Legacy of Lau v. Nichols 法律的破坏:劳诉尼科尔斯案的不确定遗产

Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z38J94M

R. Moran

{"title":"Undone by Law: The Uncertain Legacy of Lau v. Nichols","authors":"R. Moran","doi":"10.15779/Z38J94M","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38J94M","url":null,"abstract":"A lthough there has been widespread celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, there has been relatively little recognition of the thirtieth anniversary of Lau v. Nichols. Brown rested on a finding that intentional segregation of public school students by race violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Lau pushes beyond a paradigm of intentional harm to attack exclusionary practices, whether or not motivated by a discriminatory purpose. The Supreme Court’s decision in Lau was based not on a constitutional wrong but on a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as interpreted by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The statute, along with OCR’s interpretation, barred school practices that have the effect of excluding children from the educational process based on language, where language is a proxy for race. By finding a violation based on discriminatory effect, regardless of underlying intent, Lau greatly amplified the scope of civil rights protection. Today, that approach is under increasing attack, and the pressing question is how and if Lau will miraculously survive the undoing of its opinion. This article first provides a brief history of Lau and then examines how it has undergone a kind of ritual dismemberment in the courts. The article closes by exploring whether Lau’s undoing really matters in light of other federal protections. Although these protections continue to provide meaningful access to the courts for English language learners, none is a perfect substitute for the enforcement regime established under Lau. The Lau Decision The Lau case was filed on behalf of 2,856 Chinese-speaking students in the San Francisco school system who received instruction only in English. Although the school district offered special assistance to Spanish-speaking students, it did nothing to accommodate Chinese-speaking students. In demanding relief, the plaintiffs relied not only on the equal protection clause but also on Title VI as interpreted by OCR. The lower federal courts rejected both the constitutional and statutory claims. In refusing to intervene on the students’ behalf, the Ninth Circuit concluded that children arrived at school with “different advantages and disadvantages caused in part by social, economic and cultural background, created and continued completely apart from any contribution by the school system.” In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the school was not required to rectify all of these differences and disadvantages. The United States Supreme Court reversed, relying heavily on OCR’s views about the scope of Title VI’s coverage. According to OCR, language could be a proxy for race, ethnicity, and national origin. Moreover, language policies that effectively excluded children from an educational program could amount to impermissible discrimination. In adopting OCR’s interpretation, the Court did not reach the constitutional question, nor did it order any specific remedy. Instead, the ","PeriodicalId":408518,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130347369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 16

The Lessons of Keyes: How Do You Translate The American Dream 《凯斯的教训:如何翻译美国梦

Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z386W88

R. Moran

引用次数: 1

Selecting Students for Bilingual Education under the Keyes Agreement 根据凯斯协议选择双语教育学生

Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z389Q1H

K. Baker

{"title":"Selecting Students for Bilingual Education under the Keyes Agreement","authors":"K. Baker","doi":"10.15779/Z389Q1H","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z389Q1H","url":null,"abstract":"The Keyes agreement' details the procedures for identifying the students eligible for enrollment in the Denver bilingual education program. First, the agreement requires that a home language survey be conducted which asks whether: (1) the student's first language is other than English; and (2) someone speaks a non-English language in the student's home. Secondly, if the answer to either of these questions is \"yes,\" the student is tested for English oral proficiency and, if in grade two or above, the student undergoes testing in academic achievement in language and reading as measured by a standardized achievement test; and all students are tested for English oral proficiency. A student is assigned to the bilingual program either if the oral proficiency test classifies him as limited English proficient or if the student scores below the cutoff score on the CTBS (Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills)-the thirtieth percentile for elementary school or the fortieth percentile for middle and high school. In this article I will examine whether this procedure can successfully identify students who would benefit from instruction in a non-English language as called for by the Keyes agreement. I begin with the problems encountered in trying to determine which students are eligible for bilingual education. Secondly, I discuss the multiple causes of poor performance in school-causes which were not taken into consideration as part of the Keyes selection methods. Lastly, I look at the problems associated with the specified methods for transferring students from the bilingual program into the regular English-speaking classroom.","PeriodicalId":408518,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley La Raza Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128798447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Ya Es Tiempo para Revitalizar los Derechos al Voto de los Puertorriquenos 是时候重振波多黎各人的投票权了

Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z381M21

Katherine Culliton-Gonzalez

引用次数: 0

Off to See the Wizard 去见巫师了

Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z381T0G

E. Muñoz

引用次数: 0

Cities of Refuge: No Federal Preemption of Ordinances Restricting Local Government Cooperation with the INS 避难城市:联邦政府不优先执行限制地方政府与移民归化局合作的法令

Berkeley La Raza Law Journal Pub Date : 1900-01-01 DOI: 10.15779/Z38CH3R

I. Bau