Georgetown immigration law journal最新文献

{"title":"Reluctant Reformer:","authors":"D. Tichenor","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvbtzpm1.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbtzpm1.7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90586955","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}

{"title":"Back Matter","authors":"","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvbtzpm1.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbtzpm1.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81597328","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}

{"title":"Go Comprehensive, Go Bold:","authors":"David A. Martin","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvbtzpm1.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbtzpm1.4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"44 6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72993709","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}

{"title":"Elucidating the Impact of Visa Regimes: A Decision Tree Analysis","authors":"C. Kuzey, Abdullah S. Karaman, Engin Akman","doi":"10.1016/J.TMP.2018.11.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TMP.2018.11.008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89168312","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}

{"title":"Особенности правового положения трудовых мигрантов из ЕАЭС и прочих стран СНГ в России: сравнительный анализ (начало) (Peculiarities of the Legal Status of Labor Migrants from the EAEU and Other CIS Member States in Russia: A Comparative Analysis (Beginning))","authors":"N. Ivanova, E. Varshaver","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3502752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3502752","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Russian Abstract:</b> Статья описывает правовое положение трудящихся временно пребывающих иностранных граждан из стран Евразийского экономического союза (ЕАЭС) и прочих стран Содружества Независимых Государств (СНГ). В тексте резюмируются правила, регулирующие пересечение границы, пребывание, трудовые отношения, налогообложение граждан государств ЕАЭС и прочих стран СНГ. Также в статье представлены результаты сравнительного анализа правового положения таких иностранцев и предварительные выводы относительно преимуществ одного юридического статуса перед другим. Статья написана на основании результатов анализа законодательных актов, а также материалов, описывающих практики правоприменения. Данный текст является первой частью описания результатов исследования. Вторая часть будет опубликована в следующем номере журнала.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> The article describes the legal status of temporary labor migrants from countries of the Eurasian Economic Union states (EAEU) and other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Russia. The text summarizes rules of border crossing, staying, labor relations, taxation of migrants. The article also supplies with results of comparative analysis of EAEU and CIS nationals’ legal status and outlines advantages of both legal statuses. The article is based on the results of analysis of legislative acts and materials describing the law enforcement practice.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88411756","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}

{"title":"The Economic Mobility of Immigrants: Public Charge Rules Could Foreclose Future Opportunities","authors":"L. Ku, Drishti Pillai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3285546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3285546","url":null,"abstract":"Newly arrived immigrants to the United States typically have lower incomes than similar age native-born counterparts when they arrive, but the immigrant-native gap gradually closes as the immigrants remain for a longer time, improving their job skills, English proficiency and social capital. This paper discusses how recently proposed federal rules that threaten the ability of recent immigrants to attain permanent residency conflict with immigrants’ economic mobility and may ultimately harm not only the immigrants, but the broader economy. Specifically, “public charge” rules propose to prevent immigrants from becoming permanent residents if they have used means-tested public benefits or if they have low incomes or less than a high school education. The rule implicitly assumes that immigrants are poor in their first years in the country will remain poor, despite the evidence that immigrant incomes rise relatively quickly. Analyses presented in this paper, which are consistent with other prior research, show that immigrants start out with lower incomes than those native-born, but gradually catch up. Moreover, immigrants with low education close the immigrant-native income gap even faster, catching up with similar US-born counterparts within six to seven years on average. By making it more difficult for lawful immigrants to remain in the United States, the proposed public charge regulations stifle immigrants’ future opportunities and undercut their ability to contribute to the nation.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75285948","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}

{"title":"Do Sociotropic Concerns Mask Ethnic Biases? Experimental Evidence on the Sources of Public Opposition to Immigration","authors":"Omer Solodoch","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3283038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3283038","url":null,"abstract":"Civic (\"sociotropic\") concerns are a main source of public opposition to immigration. Yet whether such concerns stem from ethnic biases remains contested because research consistently focuses on native attitudes toward outgroup members. This lack of variation in intergroup relations limits causal inferences regarding the sources of sociotropic concerns. The present experiment asks both natives and immigrants of various origins to evaluate randomly assigned profiles of visa applicants to the Netherlands. Crucially, the experiment assigns an \"ingroup treatment\"--assessing applications of individuals from the same ethno-cultural background as the respondent. The findings show that sociotropic concerns are shared by both natives and immigrants and are not biased towards co-ethnic immigrants. This suggests that sociotropic opposition to immigration reflects a form of civic nationalism, rather than nativism or ethnocentric dispositions.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82824459","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}

{"title":"La Construcción De La Política Española Sobre Inmigración. Ideas, Legislación Y Discursos Desde 1969 a 1996 (The Construction of the Spanish Immigration Policy. Ideas, Legislation and Discourses from 1969 to 1996)","authors":"Silvana Santi","doi":"10.35295/OSLS.IISL/0000-0000-0000-0980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL/0000-0000-0000-0980","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Spanish abstract:</b> Este texto repasa los antecedentes fundacionales de la política española sobre inmigración, poniendo el foco en el período anterior y posterior a 1985, año de sanción de la primera ley de extranjería. Partiendo de sus inicios en la década de los setenta pero centrándonos en el período entre 1985 y 1996, el objetivo de este artículo es explorar la legislación e ideas políticas circulantes sobre la extranjería, trazando conexiones con las áreas internacionales prioritarias de la política exterior de España: Iberoamérica y la Europa comunitaria. Con un abordaje cualitativo, se revisan las principales ideas subyacentes sobre la temática en documentos oficiales, normativas, leyes y discursos políticos de este período.<br><br><br><b>English abstract:</b> This article reviews the historical background of the Spanish immigration policy, by focusing on the periods both before and after 1985 (i.e., the year of enactment of the first immigration law). The main goal is to explore the legislation and political ideas about foreigners that have shaped the relevant laws. The analysis pays particular attention to the connections with the priority international areas of the Spanish foreign policy: Latin America and the European integration. For this purpose, the article first presents a brief overview of the debate since 1970s; subsequently, it especially concentrates on the 1985-1996 period. By means of a qualitative approach, this article employs official documents, regulations, laws, and political speeches as the main sources of information.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77546417","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}

{"title":"Anti-Sanctuary & Immigration Localism","authors":"P. Gulasekaram, Rick Su, R. Villazor","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3141293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3141293","url":null,"abstract":"A new front in the war against sanctuary cities has emerged. Until recently, the fight against sanctuary cities has largely focused on the federal government’s efforts to defund states like California and cities like Chicago and New York for resisting federal immigration enforcement. Thus far, in this federal anti-sanctuary campaign, localities have mainly prevailed on federalism grounds, based in the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering and anti-coercion doctrines. In the past year, however, the battle lines have shifted with the proliferation of state level laws that similarly seek to punish sanctuary cities. States across the country are directly mandating local participation and courts thus far have upheld those state policies. These laws, like Texas’ SB 4, prohibit local sanctuary policies and impose severe punishments on the cities and officials that support them. This new state vs. local terrain creates doctrinal, political and normative implications for the future of local government resistance to immigration enforcement, which have thus far been under-theorized in immigration law scholarship. This Essay seeks to change that. \u0000 \u0000This Essay is the first to focus on this emerging wave of state anti-sanctuary laws. In so doing, it makes four contributions. First, descriptively, the Essay documents the upsurge of anti-sanctuary laws that have appeared across the United States, and explains how they differ from prior state enforcement efforts. Second, doctrinally, it argues that the passage of these laws nudges sanctuary cities to unchartered legal territory in immigration law—localism. Under conventional localism principles, state anti-sanctuary laws are in a position to more fully quash local sanctuary policies and effectively conscript local officials into federal immigration enforcement. However, as the Essay’s third point contends, the draconian structure of state anti-sanctuary laws provides a unique context in which to advance what we call immigration localist claims and protect three distinct interests that concern local governments—structural integrity, accountability and local democracy. Fourth, as a normative matter, the Essay contends that immigration localism provides a more accurate descriptive and theoretical account of how current immigration enforcement operates and promotes community engagement on immigration enforcement. Specifically, the reorientation towards localism accounts for the powerful role that cities play in immigration enforcement and decenters the federal government’s dominant role in immigration enforcement. To be sure, this Essay recognizes that casting our theoretical gaze towards local discretion may end up emboldening the most exclusionary impulses of localities and supporting local anti-sanctuary policies. In the long run, however, local discretion in immigration enforcement is likely to better serve the interests of noncitizens and citizens alike.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75500016","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}

{"title":"Lessons About the Future of Immigration Law from the Rise and Fall of DACA","authors":"Kevin R. Johnson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3244880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3244880","url":null,"abstract":"Observers spanning the political spectrum have characterized the American immigration system as “broken.” Unfortunately, Congress for many years has been unable to forge agreement on the appropriate set of reforms, including a path for regularizing the legal status of the approximately eleven million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Congress also has been unable to change the immigration laws in ways that measurably reduce the undocumented population, which has more than doubled over the last three decades. \u0000In no small part due to the prolonged stalemate in Congress combined with a sizable and stable undocumented population spread across the United States, immigration has become nothing less than a high-profile political battleground. Contemporary immigration touches on some of the most contentious divisions in modern American politics, including race, class, and national identity. Taking an enforcement-oriented approach to immigration unparalleled in modern American history, Donald Trump successfully ran for President by making immigration a central plank of his campaign. In so doing, Trump forcefully criticized the Obama administration’s immigration record. Consequently, to place President Trump’s immigration agenda into proper perspective, we must consider his target — the immigration record of President Barack Obama. \u0000With immigration reform efforts proving fruitless, President Obama sought through executive action to make improvements at the margins. Created by the Obama administration in 2012, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) over a period of five years shielded from removal hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Through an exercise of executive authority rather than a direct act of Congress, President Obama readily admitted that DACA necessarily was a limited, temporary, and incomplete form of relief for one component of the undocumented immigrant population. It was not intended to extend permanent legal status to undocumented immigrants or to address the many policy problems commonly associated with the contemporary immigration system. At the same time, DACA provided a valuable form of relief, including the authorization to work, to a sub-group of the total undocumented immigrant population. \u0000Claiming that DACA infringed on the power of Congress to designate the immigrants to be targeted for removal from the United States, the Trump administration provoked considerable controversy and debate in announcing the end of the program. DACA’s rescission posed critically important questions to the entire nation: what would become of the former DACA recipients? Was their removal a possibility? Might Congress provide them relief? In the political uproar following the attempted rescission, DACA became virtually synonymous with the political movement to reform the immigration laws and their enforcement. \u0000Part I of this essay initially considers President Oba","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90257244","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}