www.immigrationstudies.blogspot.com

2011-08-12T09:41:00.000-05:00

2011-08-09T09:44:00.000-05:00

2009-11-18T07:59:00.016-06:00

CLASS SUMMARY AND RECAP FOR TUESDAY NOVEMBER 18, 2009

-Today's guest speaker, Royal F. Berg, Esq.
-Ancestor paper/Book Review due no later than November 24, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. via email or hard copy to my departmental mailbox. There will not be class on November 24, 2009. Papers received after 11/24/09 at 6:45 p.m., will be graded minus a one grade penalty, ie. "A" papers will receive a "B."

Summary of Mr. Berg's talk:
-Broadview ICE Detention Facility and the prayer vigil every Friday.

-The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Posner, Justice Stevens, and Mr. Berg's precedent-setting cases before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals;

-The need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform or "CIR":
-1k are being deported daily, 360K annually;

-Discussion of the Dream Act, UIC honor student Rigo Padilla, and his deportation in Chicago.

-ICE Raids, Detention Policies and Heath Care of immigrants in detention. Deaths of immigrants while in Detention. "Justice Ignored?";
-Televideo hearings at the immigration court, its shortcomings
-Detention facilities in Illinois: McHenry, Broadview and others.

Major Laws Affecting Immigrants & Court Stripping Provisions
-the 1996 law, IIRAIRA, 212(a)(9)(c) and 241(a)(5)
-Retroactivity of immigration laws. [Why? Remember: Immigration laws are civil in nature--even though they affect liberty interests]!
the Definition of "AG" or Aggravated Felony [note our discussion on 101(a)(43)a few weeks ago]
Immigration "Retrictionists"
-Lou Dobbs
-Dan Stein & F.A.I.R.

The "Benefit" Branch of DHS: USCIS
-60% fewer naturalization or "citizenship" applications. Fee is over $600 today. Intially the fee was $00.00!

-the importance of "getting involved" in immigration issues...

--Mr. Berg's involvement with the immigrant's list, www.immigrantslist.org

--CONCLUSION

Nicole said in her blog entry:

"Here is the link for ancestry.com's free trial. It has helped me clear up some--but not all--of the questions I have about my personal immigration history.

Hope it assists all of you as well!"
http://landing.ancestry.com/popularmedia/hs1.aspx?landingpage=39479&o_iid=39479&o_lid=39479

2009-11-08T19:14:00.020-06:00

CLASS RECAP & SUMMARY FOR NOVEMBER 10, 2009

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
--attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

"If you have a feeling that something is wrong, don't be afraid to speak up." - -Fred Korematsu

CLASS SUMMARY
Ngai, Chapters 4-5.

These quotes were not discussed in class. What is the signifance of these two quotes to our discussions in class?

I. Our telephonic talk with James Kurotsuchi, Esq. son of two Japanese Internees during World War II.
A. What he said.
B. How he feels.
C. Lessons to be learned.
D. Compensation paid to internees

The Appellate Process
A. The stakes are high either way, we we know losers win. Winners go home, but save only themselves.
1. What does this mean (see Fred Korematsu, below)?

Today, America is "at war" Who is the "enemy"?

-Pearl Habor Attack (December 7, 1941)
Executive Order 9088
--who did it affect and why

Japanese Internment-What happened and Why
--Basis under the law
the meaning of "We Shall Never Forget"
--Discussion of the immigration courts and their lack of jurisdiction over US citizens. What is the significance? The protection of immigrants and laws passed in the name of "national security" during these times.
--Compare the NSEERS special registration program.

--How about in times of "War"
--Fred Korematsu and his case at the US Suprme Court.
--Did he have the last say afterall?
--How does his story relate to the Guantanomo Detainees Today?

--The Fort Hood Shootings. Our hypothetical discussed in class

The Nisei, Nikkei, and Sansei

-Korematsu received the Presidential Medal of Honor.
-His "Amicus" brief to the US Supreme Court (decades later) in Rasul v. Bush. Did he have the last word after all?
--compensation paid to Japanese Internees by Congress.
--What do some of these events in our history say about the importance of the writ of habeas corpus for immigrants? The appeallate process for immigrants?

Complete Ngai, Chapters 4-5.

PDF e-handout, US Suprme Court Decision in Rasul v. Bush (emailed to you on 11-10-09).

See you next week...

-Christopher Helt, Esq.

2009-11-06T08:08:00.040-06:00

CLASS RECAP AND SUMMARY FOR TUESDAY NOVEMEBR 3, 2009

-Your blog entry discussions
-Final Paper topic submissions (Ancestry or Book Report from syllabus) due today (or incure grade penalty)

-Absolute Deadline: Papers due November 24, 2009 (One week before Final Review session)

-Final Review Session December 1, 2009;
-Final Exam December 8, 2009

Deportation Policy in America (Cont'd)
--Class Lecture Summary
THE FORMATION OF IMMIGRATION POLICY BY CASE LAW

Precedent: The risks are high, Setting precedent means losing along the way; winning immediately (i.e. no appeal needed) often means others in similar situations lose.

A. Binding Precedent;
B. Persuasive Authority

-Farah Choudhury's Case

I. The Nuts and Bolts of Effectuating One's Deportation From America: Getting the ball rolling for the government in its attempt to remove the alien from the United States.

A. Detention of Immigrants

B. The Charging Document, similar to a criminal indictment. The Notice to Appear or "NTA"
C. Basis for Removability: Generally, there are Three (3) bases...

1. Being "unlawfully present" in the U.S.
a.) "overstaying" one's non-immigrant visa or violating its terms (NIV visa overstay, working without permission here, failure to maintain student status, etc.);
b.) illegally entering the United States;
c.) lawfully here but committing a crime triggering your removal ("deportation") from the United States.

II. What Crimes Trigger Deporation Proceedings? THE TWO "Receipe" Books

A. Federal Statute or "receipe book" for removal. Crimes subjecting an a non-citizen to removal from the United States are set forth in 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43) et seq.

B. State Criminal Statutes or "receipe book" for removal from the United States --

Other topics covered-Youtube video on Deportation Policy in America

--Other incidents of a "Broken" immigration policy in America: The Widow(er)'s journey into US immigration. What is the "Widow Penalty?"

Discussed Topics in Class (Cont'd)

-The definition of "aggravated felonies" under the U.S. immigration laws. THERE ARE MANY in THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OR THE FEDERAL RECEIPE BOOK.

Copy and paste this link below for the list of offenses:

http://w3.uchastings.edu/boswell_01/PDF/Aggravated%20Felony%20Statute.pdf

-To summarize them all, they are "crimes of violence" and sentences imposed of 365 days or more.

-Some state convictions may constitute "aggravated felonies" in the federal statutes

-Immigration laws are considered civil in nature, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, despite a "liberty interest" for immigrants at stake.

-Gideon v. Wainwright, the right to counsel for criminal defendents;
-No right to counsel for immigrants, but right to competent counsel may exist;
-language barriers that immigrants face in immigration court.
-the overall chances of success for an immigrant facing removal proceedings in the U.S. Immigration Court System.

THE WIDOW PENALTY
--Women (and a few men) are citizens of foreign countries who married American citizens, but their spouses died before their residency applications were completed. How do you think the immigration agencies dealt with this heart-wrenching issue? Do "hard-facts" make bad law"?

Here is the link to the video we watched:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Next week our discussion will include Chapters 4 & 5 of Ngai, a handout on the widow penalty, Fred Korumatsu, the Nisei, and the Gitmo Detainees.

Our Guest Speaker, Royal F. Berg, Esq. will visit us the following week November 17, 2009, due to a schedule conflict. We may have a guest speaker next week on the subject of Japanese Internment, schedule permitting.

See you next week...

--Christopher W. Helt, Esq.

2009-10-27T15:25:00.010-05:00

CLASS RECAP & SUMMARY FOR OCTOBER 27, 2009

-Paper overview and deadline
-Mandatory Blog Entries Due next week no later than November 3, 2009 by 4:15 p.m. (to earn particpation credit)
-Coming to America (cont'd); Deportation Policy in America (Cont'd)
-Guest Speaker Farah Choudhury and her autistic son, Umair.

Nicole P. said...

As we have learned, the history of US immigration policy is the product of politics and economics, and thus often arbitrary. We have analyzed the laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act, and most recently IIRIRA and NSEERS, and have hence found them draconian. But is there light at end of the tunnel for immigrants traveling to the U.S. today?

After listening to Farah Choudry’s story today, I saw a glimmer of hope. After all, according to Ngai, Umair would not have even been considered for entry into the US in the late 1800s, a time when immigration law was least restrictive in all its history : 1875 law still banned mentally disabled, diseased, or “insane” persons (Ngai 59). Maybe America has progressed. Not only was it remarkable that Umair was granted asylum for autism when there are no immigrant visas; moreover, his mother and brother were granted asylum when they were not necessarily in any foreseen danger as healthy individuals in Pakistani society. Clearly, the judge of the immigration courts showed a great sense of compassion and exercised his or her power as generously as current law allowed. This case gave me great hope for the future of immigration reform until I discovered that it did not set precedent.

I often feel this catch 22 when discussing immigration news. Just today, 100 Democrats sent a letter to President Obama calling for immigration overhaul. Rep. Guitierrez’s bill on immigration reform will be revealed within a month; the issue of immigration is expected to take the limelight in March.

Such small steps towards transformation can give us glimmers of hope. Unfortunately, the past has taught us that they may only be fool’s gold. After all, immigration was the hot topic in 2006—the “healthcare debate of 2009”—but the debate then did not yield results, only a reinforcement of the status quo. Will this happen again in March 2010? With local elections occurring in April, it unfortunately is a likely result. But what would happen if we re-imagined immigration? If we ended deportation? If we recognized immigrants as visible and vital contributors to American society and economy? We can only hope to find out.

Joey said...

I agree with Nicole that our immigration system is in a sad state. Draconian laws and policies set forth by a bunch of men eager to appease the ignorant majority. Much of what happens in Washington seems to take us backwards, to times when things were even worse for immigrants coming to the US, instead of taking us forward to a new era of inclusion and acceptance of people who want to improve their lives.
Farrah Choudry's story offered some hope that there are still good people in the world (and that some of them even work for the government!). But, as Nicole said, it did not set any precedent and so cannot really help anyone else who is in a similar situation.
The unfortunate fact is that Professor Helt is right: immigration policy is a product of politics and economics, and not at all about humanity. People who come to the US fleeing obstacles in their home countries are faced with even larger obstacles when they arrive. Getting through the extensive immigration process requires immense amounts of time, money, and patience, and even then may not produce the desired result: US citizenship. And even if it does end in a green card, the people still have to live with the shadow of the federal government and the specter of ICE over them. Don't appear to put one toe out of line or you might be sent packing, to return to a place where you haven't lived in decades and where you know no one.
We can only try to be optimistic about Rep. Gutierrez's bill. Nicole is probably right that the elections in April will keep the bill from gaining any ground, but let's hope that we're wrong.

1:57 PM

Cassandra said...
I really enjoyed Farrah’s visit to our class. I found it incredibly inspiring that she continues to advocate for an improved immigration system despite her difficult circumstances. I think it is a testament to the immigrant spirit and there is no doubt in my mind that not only does she deserve to be in this country but she is a great asset to our society.
As I was listening to the NPR report about Farrah’s case I found it difficult to agree with one of the commentator’s opinions that Umair’s asylum cannot be considered a precedent-setting case. I think it is wrong to not acknowledge that laws are evolutionary by nature. The Choudry’s case reminded me of another case, Matter of Kasinga (1996), where a Togolese teenager fleeing Female Genital Mutilation and forced marriage was denied asylum partly because gender was not accepted as grounds for seeking asylum in the U.S. The BIA ended up reversing the IJ’s decision and Kassindja was eventually granted asylum. Like Farrah Choudry, Kassindja went on to become a powerful advocate for immigration reform. Although the Matter of Kasinga ruled that gender could qualify as grounds for seeking asylum, the BIA stated that the case should not be seen as a precedent for future cases. Despite this, today gender is a widely accepted as a ground for seeking asylum. This gives me hope that in the future perhaps mental disabilities will also be accepted across the immigration system as a means to seek asylum despite the fact that some do not believe it should be.
The Choudry’s case also got me thinking about the flaws in the immigration system itself. There are various irregularities and broadly defined laws that are purposely left vague so they can be interpreted on a case by case basis. For example asylum law broadly defines the term ‘persecution’ and what constitutes persecution in asylum cases. ‘Membership in a particular social group’ is also broadly defined and as a result has evolved drastically in the past 15 years (now including gender). The immigration system is flawed in this aspect as laws are becoming increasingly difficult for IJ’s to interpret in the face a changing immigration population.

3:56 PM

Ana Caridad said...
Last week I attended a Conference in which various individuals who have attempted to enter the United States illegaly shared their experiences. Amongst these were Men from Honduras and El Salvador who have suffered severe injuries, and have been maimed by the trains on their journey through the Mexican territory.
As we have discussed in class the US has a broken immigration system, and we usually focus on the issues illegal aliens face in the United States, forgetting the journeys and the hardships they had to put up with on their way to attain the "American Dream".
For thousands of illegal immigrants from Central America, the long journey to the U.S. starts in Mexico's Southern border, on the groaning back of a freight train they call The Beast. The journey from the border between Mexico and Guatemala, and the Southern borden of the United States is approximately 1,400 miles. Many of the travelers who take the train are children. . More than 90,000 unaccompanied minors were apprehended by authorities at the Southwestern border in 2007. The freight train is known as the beast for it has killed thousands on its passing. Immigrants must often bribe private guards and police stationed along the tracks. Many stowaways are too tired to hold on to the train and fall, losing limbs.
Jorge Guevara, a 21-year-old Salvadoran, who participated in the Conference, said he first rode the train to the U.S.-Mexico border in 2001 and saw 20 people crushed, and probably killed, when cars derailed. He fled and never found out what happened.
Since President Felipe Calderon took office two years ago, Mexico has added more soldiers and federal police on its border with Guatemala and more immigration and military checkpoints thoughout the south.

Recently HBO Documentaries brought the issue to light in it's documentary "Which Way Home", that follows several unaccompanied child migrants as they journey through Mexico en route to the U.S. on a freight train called "The Beast." Putting a human face on the immigration issue, director Rebecca Cammisa reveals some of the reasons kids resort to drastic and dangerous measures, among them: bringing an end to long-term separation from their parents; escaping life on the streets; lack of jobs or educational opportunities at home; and hopes of a better life north of the border.

2:55 PM

Map said...
I am reading a lot about how flawed, out-dated and draconian the immigration system is, and this is undoubtedly true. However, I feel that in order to achieve reform one needs to not only define how unfair or wrong something is, but to offer reasons why and further, a solution. In this regard, I think Nicole’s comment, “But what would happen if we re-imagined immigration…If we recognized immigrants as visible and vital contributors to American society and economy?” is very important. The answer is invariably politics and economics.
What would happen if we re-imagined immigration? According to the political reasoning, I think the answer to this question would invariably be considerations of limited resources and the ways in which citizens and those who are undocumented should not have to compete for them as one supposedly, inherently has a right to them and the other does not. Secondly, many terrorist attacks are directed at the western world, of which the US is a part. If there were more lax or no immigration laws terrorism would be more widespread.
With these arguments out of the way the question still remains are immigrants without documentation a hindrance to economic prosperity? It would seem this is a fallacious argument as it is proven that undocumented immigrants are as much a source of economic stimulus as anyone in the US. Further, a person who owns a car or pays bus fair, buys food at the grocery store, pays taxes etc. is far more valuable to a failing economy than one who is policed, detained, imprisoned, and transported back to their country of origin. Why is it that the US insists on turning the former into the latter?
Upon even the slightest examination it would seem clear that it is not so much a matter of politics and economics as the economic portion of this argument is not based in facts. The answer is clearly an issue of politics, but what politics does this refer to? The fear of terrorism? This could be solved by policing and monitoring, though not detaining all immigration. What then? Once again it comes back to fear of the unknown or more accurately, the draconian laws and views clung to by the patriarchal collective of people who have long held the power in American society. This is the reason that there needs to be an immigration overhaul but it should start by providing facts about immigration instead of cleaning to stale fears of the “other.”

5:01 PM

Oliver Judd said...

Greetings fellow immigration bloggers! I find it difficult not to repeat what others have already said regarding immigration history, policy, and Farah. I will therefore detail my personal beliefs on immigration and immigration policy.

As an immigrant myself, I can see why people come to America and why they want to stay here. It truly is the land of opportunity. But this poses the question of who gets to share in that opportunity and on a more practical note, how many people can we fit in this country before it becomes too crowded for that opportunity to exist any more? This is the very real question of immigration and should influence policy more politics and economics should.

It is my belief everyone has the right to come to America. If you can prove that you will be a productive member of society, then you have a right to share in that dream. After all, that is what America is all about: happiness built on the back of hard work. So why should those who can prove that they will work hard not share in that dream? That is what immigration policy should focus on. Because in the end, if we aren't fighting to extend the American Dream to as many people as possible we are doing an injustice to the founding fathers and the ideals this country was founded on.

11:19 AM

Erin said...
I think that Joey makes a good point when she discusses the fact that immigration policy and deportation may force people to return to places that they no longer consider their home, where they no longer consider themselves part of the culture.

The issue of being a hyphenated American does not depend on one's legal status, but none the less has huge implications. When people discuss the issue of undocumented immigrants, there are those that advocate for mass deportation. But what are the social implications of this policy? Beyond forcing people to return to economically or socially unstable areas, deportation displaces people from a culture that they may now consider their own.

An important example of this, I think, is that of undocumented youth in the United States. These are kids that, having crossed the border with their parents illegally when they were extremely young, have spent their entire lives in the United States. In Plyler vs. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that undocumented minors had the right to a fee k-12 education. So, these children have grown up, literate in English, but probably not their first language that they speak at home, more immersed and a part of American culture than the culture of their "country of origin."

When these children are deported, they return to a situation worse than when they left because they are returned to a country and a culture they know very little about.

While I think it is true that immigration policy can never be as humanitarian as we would like it to, such situations still merit our attention and the attention of the courts. If we are to have a just immigration policy, it must consider the impacts upon those that it most profoundly affects - the immigrants.

12:24 PM
Kasia said...
I agree with all the comments made so far. I attended an Immigration conference during which we discussed immigration issues that we are faced with today. From the conference, things we have learned in class and other sources I've come to some conclusions. Statistics show that over, 59% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats support some sort of immigration reform currently, which means there are a lot of people supporting the cause. I think that when stepping forward with immigration reform we need to have clear goals in order to write truly effective legislation and the following are what i think are the most important goals. First, any legislation must have a national and humane approach to immigration. It must protect both citizens and migrants, needs to reflect national values, needs to protect the family. We must increase the number of visa's for migrants. We should remove the bars to admission we have in place now because they are ineffective and generally not considered by migrants who make the choice to remain in the US undocumented. We need to facilitate the adjustment of status for undocumented workers instead of making the process more difficult and convoluted. We need detention reform because the current system is costly, ineffective, humiliating and borders on human rights violations. Lastly, we need to eliminate the concept of "aggravated felonies" which currently evokes a permanent bar on becoming a citizen regardless of permanent status. I think that if we keep in mind all those things we can truly find a solution to our 'broken system" and move forward with a system which can benefit everyone.

2:02 PM

Madeline Louise said...

I agree with the comments that have been posted about the need for reform. However, I feel as though there will be a lot of resistance from a confused public. When we talk about allowing medical visas a big fear in the minds of the public is that these immigrants are going to get healthcare for free and they will be the ones paying for it. Also the ever apparent media will have no trouble finding horror stories to broadcast. An example is in the Time magazine passed around in class there was another man in the article with Umair, a schizophrenic man who attacked and killed someone (a believe a family member but I’m not 100% sure) he is now trying to receive asylum because he will be facing persecution within his own country. The article was comparing Umair and all other immigrants seeking safety and health treatment in the United States with a killer. I think that it is excellent that Farah’s story got so much attention so that some of the public that is confused as to why some people immigrate to the United States can also become more compassionate and hopefully more open to the idea of immigration reform.

2:45 PM

Jessica said...
We have learned this semester that immigration policy is a creature of politics and economics, and this has left us with a system that we can all agree is broken.

I agree with Kasia about the kinds of reforms that are needed; we as a society need to leave racism (and its political implications) out of policymaking and adapt a realistic and pragmatic approach to reform. Things like fences along the Mexican border and quotas have no place in a modern society.

While this may seem too idealistic, I agree with some of the comments above that such reforms are possible. There will probably always be a radical minority that opposes pragmatic policy reform in favor of racist fear-mongering, but the truth is that it makes the most sense (economically, politically, socially, and morally) to implement comprehensive reforms like those outlined by Kasia. Our society can't afford to let this issue get any worse.

3:19 PM

Alanna said...
I think we can all agree that the US immigration system is broken and that immigrants are unfairly targeted in the US today. Although the specific flaws of the system are innumerable, I think the clearest and most significant problem is the fact that the government agency charged with handling immigration operates on an adversarial basis and not on an advocacy basis. Essentially, I think that the post-9/11 restructuring of the immigration system which abolished the INS and replaced it with the DHS is utterly ridiculous and non-sensical. It is perhaps analogous to a situation where the Department of Education is put under the control of a law enforcement agency simply because of a few school shootings or because of gang activity and violence within public schools. As with this example, a few isolated security threats does not mean that immigration should be placed under the control of agencies ill-equipped to represent the interests of immigrants. Although, I don't disagree that DHS should work together with the department of immigration to help secure national security interests, I think that objectively speaking, immigrants need and deserve a government body that is capable and willing to work in their interests. Subjectively speaking, the current arrangement makes even less sense given that the US is a nation built on immigrants. In fact, many of the loudest opponents of immigration are second or third generation immigrants themselves.

However, what is most disheartening about this current arrangement is the fact that it illustrates that anti-immigrant sentiment is not only a product of an "ignorant minority" of Americans, but is also the mindset of a collection of educated, powerful elites responsible for putting immigration under the guise of national security. In so doing, they have tragically asserted a government position that all immigrants are assumed to be enemies until proven otherwise. In this sense, it seems as though our own government is sanctioning if not promoting the xenophobic attitudes that plague American society today.

Finally, given the current "broken" state of our immigration system, could the money we spend be better spent targeting problems in the countries from which many immigrants flee? Perhaps the US could serve as a better ally for immigrants by working more closely with the UN to establish more humanitarian missions and aid to refugees and asylum-seekers. Perhaps the solution is working to give immigrants less of a need or incentive to come the US rather than working so hard to keep them out. Although this is undoubtedly easier said than done, the US government must do something to become more of an advocate for immigrants and less of an adversary.

2009-10-20T15:34:00.004-05:00

CLASS RECAP FOR TUESDAY OCTOBER 20, 2009

-DEPORTATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES

-THE IDEA OF JUST VS. UNJUST DEPORTATION

"[D]eportation is . . . exile, a dreadful punishment, abandoned by the common consent of all civilized peoples. . . . That our reasonable efforts to rid ourselves of unassimilable immigrants should in execution be attended by such a cruel and barbarous result would be a national reproach."

--Judge Learned Hand, 1929

COURT OVERVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT AND THE NEW YORK TIMES HANDOUT
US DOJ
EOIR- WHAT DOES IT STAND FOR?
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
INVESTIGATIONS
DEPORTATION
NGAI'S "ILLEGAL ALIENS"

Joey wrote in response to a recent comment:

Joey Harmon said...
Wow. I think that rant is one of the more ignorant that I have heard in a long time. It's important to get "facts" from sources other than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
What should all of the people who have been living here "illegally" do? Should they all be sent back to their countries of origin en masse because they don't have a piece of paper? And if one of these people without that ever-important piece of paper gets sick, should we just let them die because "it's not our problem"? It's absurd to even think like that. These are not practical solutions. Our immigration system is BROKEN and sending people away from the US is not going to fix the system. E-verify is not going to fix it. People need to stop thinking that's it's just an economic issue or just a political issue or just an issue about one group of people and realize that these are real human beings we're talking about here, not just numbers or statistics. They deserve the chance to live a better life and to give their children a better life ("Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"). The US is a country of immigrants, built and made strong by immigrants. What has changed? Is it that the face of these immigrants has changed and our old xenophobic roots have come back? Do we only want immigrants if their skin is the right color or if they speak the right language (i.e. of European/Germanic descent and language)?
Basing immigration policy on fear, politics, or economics without practical, feasible solutions is just going to create more problems. And don't you think shipping out all of the "illegal" immigrants or just letting them all die without healthcare on Main Street USA will be expensive, not to mention morally bankrupt?

2009-09-29T16:38:00.013-05:00

CLASS RECAP FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

-MIDTERM EXAM

-GRADES WILL BE EMAILED TO STUDENTS BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE MIDTERM BREAK

-Continue Reading assignment on Syllabus, Ngai, Chapters 1-2, Deportation Policy and the Making of Illegal Aliens.
-Read handout "WHY WE FIGHT"
-Read handout "THIRD AND SEVENTH CIRCUITS CONDEMS PATTERN OF ERROR IN IMMIGRATION COURTS"

NOTE: CLASSES WILL NOT BE HELD NEXT WEEK (MIDTERM BREAK)

NOTE: OUR NEXT CLASS WILL MEET AT THE CHICAGO IMMIGRATION COURT, 55 East Monroe Street, 19th Floor. 9 a.m.

Since this Blog is dedicated to you and all others who wish to engage in a respectful debate, I'm posting the comment below made on your site. Please comment on it if you wish.

Britanicus said,

The bombardment of American voters at the doors of Congress must be heard, to make E-Verify a permanent illegal immigrant enforcement tool? It's incredulous that we are winning small wars against our lawmakers beneficiaries--the special interest lobby. LEGISLATORS ARE FINALLY HEARING OUR ANGRY VOICES. Rep. Joe Wilson C-SC opened the eyes of millions of Americans, who are been left unaware of the cloaked--AMNESTY--committees that is going to rip the fabric of every voters life apart. Any detail in the national media has been subdues or intentionally omitted, as with the crowds of Tea Party opponents. Sen. Harry Reid could be stretching his neck out for the headsman in his re-election campaign, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They both have used their political influence in trying to overturn E-Verify. Pro-Illegal alien lawmakers could table it, under the "Sunset Provision" on September 30?

President Obama's direction towards an unmentionable path to citizenship for all those who broke our law is abhorrent. After the controversial eruption in the Session of Congress, they surely must be aware that imposing immigration reform on the people could break them? Americans taxpayers are already supporting business welfare? Corporate entities want these destitute people here to exploit, but don't want to pay for their health care, schooling or towards the massive numbers surviving in prison. They leave that to the fading middle class taxpayers who carry the tax burden? Over a decade has passed since illegal people started coming here in droves and with little or no laws, to blockade their arrival we are now talking over 20 million. Nor does it stop there? Owing to the clarion call of Amnesty ringing out in the slums and ghetto's of foreign criminals, sick, elderly and those without means, from all over the world will descend on us. IT MEANS OVERPOPULATION?

Bad as it may be now, who is going to subsidize the new arrivals? Not the business cartels that’s for sure? Once again taxpayers will be heavily taxed to pay for the new shipment of poor, uneducated from every region. How can we expect to have any government public option for our own people, when our gates remain wide open for "Anchor Babies" and the illegal millions expecting a free handout? A nurse in a Nevada hospital indicated they have a row of beds of illegal immigrants on dialysis, which was costing weekly $18.000 dollars for each treatment. Tell me who pays for that? The US government pays a small portion; the rest is acquired from the hospital or taxpayer.

I want a single payer system for homeless veterans, seniors, single mothers with children and poor American families. But I refuse to pay for everybody who climbs, crawls under the fence or bluffs the Federal officer at shipping ports and airports of entry. It's not our responsibility. DON'T WAIT! PESTER YOUR SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY AT 202-224-3121? Find true facts by GOOGLING NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH & IMMIGRATION COUNTERS

3:35 PM

2009-09-22T14:49:00.008-05:00

CLASS RECAP AND SUMMARY FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2009

I. Conclusion of Avalon and discussion.
II. Midterm Review
III. The Documtary Patriot Acts, getting "Tossed-Out" of America and the NSEERS "Special Registration" Progam.

MIDTERM REVIEW

You will have the entire period to answer the exam.

The midterm exam will consist of 2-3 questions to answer. You will have the option of choosing from two questions in separate sets.

During the semester, we first discussed that there really is not common sensical—even rational, way to answer the question, “Why are the immigration laws and policy made that way?” Unlike criminal law and policy, for example, where you have generations of precedent, common sense foundations for the way things are done a certain way for example, immigration law and policy is a creature of what?

Politics and economics.

-We also discussed the three reasons why one comes to America? What are they? People come to America for one of 3 reasons or a combination of them:
(1) Generally, to reunite themselves with family members; for financial reasons, or
(3) because they fear persecution in their home country or are stateless and are persona non grata (not wanted). Or a combination of all three.

--that being said, procedurally speaking, generally there are FOUR (4) ways, with a few exceptions that we have discussed in class, that one can come to the United States permanently. Can anyone tell me what they are?? These are called VISAS, or IVs for short:

(1) via Job sponsor;
(2) via Family Sponsor:
(3) via Political Asylum;
(4) via The Visa lottery;

• What are the elements for a job sponsor?
• What are the elements for a family sponsor?
• What is political asylum How can one stay in America permanently thru political asylum?
• What is the visa lottery system?

Most people come to American via the family-based green card method. Job sponsor is second in line.

-We also discussed the temporary ways to come to America legally? Those are called NIVs or NON-immigrant visas.
--There are temporary in nature and the road never leads to a green card. How many visas are there?
--Since they all begin with the first letter of the Alphabet, how many NIVs can there possible be then? 26 (or so--for the purposes of this course).
--So there’s approximately 26 nonimmigrant visas (or so) in the US! We also discussed the Frog and the Lilly Pad example and how the NIV visa system is very similar to that.
We Also covered some of the “THE EXCEPTIONS” the generally (4) ways of coming to America permanently: Amnesty Programs and Cancellation of Removal. Please know what each of these two are be able to provide an example of each.

(Victor C., my case in Florida, or any example in Daniels)

-We discussed that people from all over the world come there through these ways. But we also discussed that some people don’t come here with the express invitation and consent of the US government. They come here illegally. Or they overstay their visas and become "illegal" or "unlawfully present". And then there are those who are not citizens in the US, and commit certain crimes here. Some already have lawful status here (such as "green card" holders or lawful permanent residents ("LPRs").

-There are various bureaus within the US Department of Justice which oversee all of these different types of ways people come to America, their benefits and enforcement of the immigration laws here. And what is the Department's name that handles all of this? The "DHS" or Department of Homeland Security.

-The DHS was created as a direct result of the events occurring soon after 9/11, where for the first name, IMMIGRATION and TERRORISM were seen really for the first time, as causally connected, whether true or untrue.

-What are the DHS Branches?

-USCIS;
-ICE;
-CBP; (Customs and Border Patrol)

-You may also be given a hypothetical fact pattern question on the exam, possibly on current controversial issue like heathcare reform and immigration. Well-known, contemporary individuals who seem very much like historical figures cited in Daniels may appear in your fact pattern (i.e., "modern-day nativists"). Be prepared to compare them with those discussed in Daniels' Guarding the Golden Door...

We discussed that like the debate between O’Reilly and Geraldo Rivera, many issues may get distorted or clouded. Despite heated, often emotional debates over immigration, it is important to parse through irrelevant issues, often red hearings, and reach a conclusion that is supported in existing law and policy. The law and policy that we have discussed this semester. So if you are asked about an undocumented person who needs healthcare, for example, you know that we have discussed that Heathcare reform proposals do not include "illegal" aliens—so remember that this would certainly not be a relevant point if asked whether health care would affect undocumented persons in the US or not. You may optionally used the “IRAC” method of answering the question for any fact pattern question you see on the exam.

As for Patriot Acts, the material on NSEERS will be covered, but not the information on Enes Hadzovic anything mentioned in the syllabus but not discussed in class or on the blogspot. Know what it is and the lessons we have learned from this unfortuate page in our immigration history and our "war on terror" Know all chapters GUARDING THE GOLDEN DOOR, and HIS PANIC, expecially topics discussed in class from assigned in the syllabus.

OK. Good luck with your preparations and Ill see you next week. If you have any questions, please email me.

--Christopher Helt, Esq.

2009-09-15T08:18:00.011-05:00

CLASS RECAP AND SUMMARY FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

-Class Meeting at La Unica today at 4:15 p.m.

-Questions on Avalon film
-One question from Avalon study guide will be on the mid-term exam
-IRAC method of answering test questions
-We have covered thus far the four ways of coming to America permanently and one of the two exceptions. This afternoon we will discuss one of the other ways (the other exception to the four general ways: Amnesty programs.
-Meet Victor C. In what ways does Victor's story bring to life the issues discussed in Geraldo's His Panic that you have read thus far?
-As Geraldo Rivera's asks us in Chapter 10 of his book, "Do Hispanics and other Immigrants steal our jobs?" What does our author say?

2009-09-08T10:28:00.014-05:00

Class Recap and Summary for Tuesday SEPTEMEBER 8, 2009

STUDY GUIDE HANDOUT for film, AVALON
-Recap from last week-Obama's talk to students: "Take responsibility for your education. Go to class and listen."
-Daniels, The Golden Doors Closes and Opens, 1882-1965; The Beginnings of Immigration Retriction, 1882-1917; Statistics: Between 1860 abd 1920, a period when almost every aspect of American life was transformedm tge incidence of immigrants in the American population was remarkly stable: in seven successive censuses, about one American in seven was foreign born, the actual percentages varying only between 13.2 and 14.7 percent.

-What did the Founding Fathers know about immigration?

-The Dualistic Attidude;
-Nativism, "their 3 complaints" as discussed in Daniels, and Geraldo Rivera's HIS PANIC
-The Know-Nothings;
-Chinese immigration, the Gold Rush and the Railroad;
-American labor concerns in the 1880s and today.
-Daniel's view of early immigration and the film Avalon: some similarities.

NEXT WEEK'S CLASS WILL BE HELD AT the same time, but at LA UNICA RESTAURANT 1515 West Devon Avenue (chicago, Il).

2009-09-01T15:54:00.020-05:00

Class Recap & Summary for September 1, 2009
LAST WEEK we continued our discussion of the Four (4) ways in which one may stay permanently (and lawfully) in the United States, noting some of important "exceptions": the previous amnesty or "legalization" law, passed during the Reagan administration, in which an individual (similar to the Bracero program mentioned in Daniels) who had been illegally and continuously present in the United States from January 1982 or before could legalize their status and obtain their green card (formally known as "lawful permanent residency"). The second method is called cancellation of removal (for non-permenant residents). This later method can only be done via an immigration judge. One has to be placed in removal ("deportation") proceedings. There is no "application process" with USCIS.

-We also viewed the heated debate shown on YouTube between Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly. What does Geraldo say about his debate with O'Reilly in his book?

-We discussed the currrent statistics on health care and illegal immigration;
-We discussed the fact that dispite divergence of opinions on the immigration debate, everyone agrees that the current immigration system we have in place is BROKEN.

We also discussed that since 9/11, in March of 2003 the former Immigration & Naturalization Service or "INS" was "abolished" (very strong words, don't you think?). Legacy INS was replaced by the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS has three Bureaus: (1) United States Citizenship & Immigration Services ("USCIS"); (2) Immigration & Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); and (3) Customs & Border Patrol ("CBP"). Links to the three (3) respective DHS bureaus are to the right of this blogspot...

Nicole has made an interesting comment about an event on November 6, 2009 at Navy Pier. One of the topics, assimilation and immigration--will be a major theme (and test material!!) in our film Avalon, next week. Her comments are below:

"Tonight in class(and probably more in classes to come), we learned and discussed just how difficult it may be to obtain a greencard.On a somewhat different note, there will be an event touching upon the difficulties that many immigrants face even after gaining citizenship: Zócalo in Chicago, "What Does Immigrant Integration Mean Now?" on Nov. 6th.

Visit the website below for more information and to make your reservation:
http://zocalopublicsquare.org/upcoming.php?event_id=334

-Last week's important points to consider...
-Health care reform and immigration
-Three reasons why one "comes to America"
-the Geraldo v. O'Reilly heated debate: what, if anything, does it symbolize about the divided opinions on our "broken" immigration system.

2009-08-24T10:58:00.020-05:00

Welcome to the immigrationstudies.org 2009 fall semester Blogsite! Here students of Special Topics: Immigration Policy (SOC) 370, INTS 398, ASIA 397, University faculty, and others interested in this subject can express their views on the great American immigration debate or enhance communication on their course. Some of your comments may be the subject of my lectures. If you have not already done so, please register on blogger.com. This will allow you to post comments on this blogsite! Please also take part in our informal survey about immigrants and health care reform, to the right of this site.

I also welcome students and faculty to provide commentary, news and/or other information on a particular immigration subject. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to this topic and I welcome immigration-related information. While this blog is primarily textual, I encourage focus on immigration-related photographs (photoblogs), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting) as well.

We are a nation of immigrants and it is important to express constructive viewpoints on this great issue. You are now part of the Great American Debate on Immigration!
For the immigration policy class, please first register ON BLOGGER.COM and review comments made my me and your classmates.

--Christopher Helt, Esq. Lecturer, Loyola University of Chicago.

WEEK ONE CLASS MATERIAL COVERED

-Course Overview, our class blogsite and field trip to Immigration Court and LaUnica
-Immigration, the great "American Debate"
-Geraldo vs. O'Reilly: Does this symbolize the divergence of opinion on immigration reform in America?
-Statistics on undocumented aliens and health care reform
-House Bill 3200 and current legislation. Who does it really cover?
-OBAMA & Health Care Reform
-Three reasons why one "comes to America"
-Four Ways to "come to America"
-Blogsite entry assignment by you due next week
-Next Week's Reading Assignment given

READING ASSIGNMENT FOR WEEK ONE

• READ Daniels, Chapters 1 and 2). Daniels pp. 1-9 Coming to America (Cont’d): We are a Nation of Immigrants. The first immigrants. What is an immigrant. Nativist? What is an Alien, Illegal (undocumented) & otherwise.
• READ GERALDO, Chapter 1, “ Proud To Be An American” and Chapter 2, “Probing the Panic”

• Register on Blogger.com. Mandatory Blog Assignment, based on blogsite list of topics and 100-200 word critique, due next week.

• Answer survey on class blogspot.

-Ana said...

Although the United States is a country built on immigrants, and immigration, immigration reforms and policies seemed to have been put on a backburner lately. As a result to the lack of Federal reforms, States are doing what they can to deal with the illegal immigrants showing up in their states, making the matters worse. States like Arizona, that have stricter policies on illegal immigrants, force aliens to move to states with more lenient policies. Putting up walls, and applying harsher policies won’t stop aliens from coming to the States, so rather that implementing policies that endanger de life of many aliens coming into the country, the government should consider viable solutions for the problem, maybe establish temporal work programs to allow immigrants to come to the states legally.

10:11 AM

Cassandra said...

TIME’s, ‘Does This Boy Deserve Asylum?’:
A point that was brought up in this article that I think is important to discuss is the issue of evolving standards of asylum and immigration policy in general. The executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform suggested that, "Our asylum laws cannot account for all the vagaries of human vexation and misfortune." The issue I have with this statement is our laws are meant to account for ‘vagaries of human vexation and misfortune’. Our asylum laws are in place to protect individuals from situations where their own governments cannot protect them or perhaps where their own governments are perpetrating the persecution. I think it is a great injustice to not acknowledge that laws evolve and change along with the times. Ten years ago a woman from Togo who was going to be forced into an arranged marriage where as part of the marriage ritual she would have to undergo female circumcision was not considered to be deserving of asylum in the US. Today these standards have changed and it is irresponsible to say that they cannot again change in the future.
In the case of the autistic boy from Pakistan despite the fact that the argument for asylum based on a disability is relatively new, the individual facts of the case seem to confirm that the boy is eligible for asylum based on his well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the certain communities in Pakistan because of his membership in a particular social group of Pakistanis with mental disorders.

5:18 PM

Oliver said...

After watching a video clip where Geraldo Riviera and Bill "Papa Bear" O'Reilly go to town on each other ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhwwbNA3hjg&feature=fvw ) it raises a very important issue. That is of the politicalization of the illegal immigrant. In this video, a drunk driving tragedy in picked up by FNN and turned into a story concerning illegal immigration. The same vein of reporting is notoriously seen on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight. I feel that part of this because the word "illegal" makes every topic a hot topic. The news not run half as many stories about citizens not paying taxes as they do illegal immigrants not paying taxes. Maybe because their are more illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes but the point is the term is controversial. And controversy sells. So this opens the door to an even greater problem. How much of the immigration debate is just a ploy to get ratings. I am not saying that it is not an issue, but is it so important that Mr. Dobbs must commit almost half of every show to it or is that because it is a controversial topic that people want to "learn" about?

3:39 PM

Matt said...
The video clip Geraldo vs. O’Reilly does touch upon the opinions of those on each side of the debate of immigration reform specifically that of empathy and fear mongering, but it leaves much out and as a result is not so accurate of a symbol of the diverging opinions on immigration.
The far right conservatives of Fox news, perfectly depicted by Bill O’Reilly immediately equates “illegal aliens” as people who are criminals and perhaps more importantly- dangerous. This is a strange and perfect example of the difference between causation and correlation. There is no denying that the young man who caused the accident was in the US illegally, as such he is a criminal. This is what should have been the focus of the argument, to delve into the complexities of and what it means for a person to be in the US illegally. Instead it is as Geraldo said, the use of a tragedy to further a political agenda.
This argument is, as is too often the case, about political agenda (and appearance) instead of the political situation being discussed.

6:13 PM

Nicole said...
Oliver is right in noting the “politicalization” of the illegal immigrant. But it is also important to note the context of when immigrants are most politicized: namely, when they are non-white. After all, I can’t imagine Lou Dobbs or Bill O’Reilly babbling with such hatred (or using up air-time) if a white, English immigrant from the U.K. drove drunk with fatal consequences. Clearly racism fuels talk about the “negative” impact of immigration on national security and identity.

Although the United States should regulate and monitor immigration, it must do so with justice. While I have little knowledge of immigration policy and law, I have heard the personal horror stories of outright injustice from friends and their families from Latin America and the Middle East. Comprehensive reform is desperately needed. This means policy that welcomes immigrants by making them more transparent in our society (for example, allowing the previously mentioned immigrant the opportunity to take driver’s ed course and licensing exams) and providing them with basic human rights, including healthcare and education for young children. However, as the United States struggles economically and politically as a world power, I fear such reform may not be in sight.

6:15 PM

Jessica said...

I agree with everyone who has said that comprehensive immigration policy reform is needed; many of the things that we have talked about and will talk about in class would be non-issues if the immigration system were perfect.
Like Ana said, I think that one of the problems with current policies is that too often the "solution" that is implemented is unrelated to the source of the "problem." Obviously, putting up physical or legal barriers is completely ineffective at dealing with whatever issues are causing people to immigrate in the first place. I think for any sort of reform to be successful, it has to at least attempt to address the factors that result in immigration.

I also think it's important to address the role that racism plays in immigration policy. Like Nicole said, immigration is most often politicized when the immigrant is non-white. However, while immigration policy and racism seem like they have always been closely linked, the nature of racism in the United States has evolved over time. I agree that it's hard to imagine an immigrant from the UK getting caught in the middle of a controversy, there have been periods in US history in which different European ethnic groups have been discriminated against. I think that because race and politics have always been closely linked, it will always be hard to separate certain issues from immigration (I don't mean to sound pessimistic; I definitely think that it should be attempted.)

12:42 PM

Kasia said...

I wasn't sure where to post my blog so I wrote my response to a recent article i read in the economist in my own blog that i signed up for. i assume it can be seen at

http://kasiaimmigrationpolicy.blogspot.com/.

2:15 PM

Alanna said...

I have yet to form an opinion on many facets of the immigration debate, however I do believe that the apparent treatment of many illegal immigrants in our country today is unconscionable. Immigration is undoubtedly an important security issue for the United States, however the poor treatment of immigrants already held in custody fits neither our national security agenda nor our nation's democratic principles. It seems as though we have developed an us vs. them mentality that, with the help of our paranoid and sensationalist media, has allowed the humanity of illegal immigrants to fall through the cracks. In addition, I think that the federal program to identify and deport illegal immigrants held in local jails, which began under the Bush administration and continues today under the Obama administration, might contribute to the paranoia and stereotyping of illegal immigrants as individuals who have "invaded" our country and who commit crimes and threaten our security. Perhaps this sort of immigration control program which singles out criminal illegal immigrants while ignoring non-criminal illegal immigrants helps to villify immigrants and paint a picture in many Americans' minds of the immigrant as the enemy.

3:35 PM

George said...

The topic discussed in the Bill O'Reilly video was obviously unjustified, and merely used to further attack individuals residing in the US illegally. Like Rivera pointed out, had a legal resident committed the crime, the public would not have been notified. Like Oliver pointed out, this repulsive technique by O'Reilly does nothing more than create a scapegoat within a country built upon the backs of immigrants.
Whether anti-immigrant, specifically Latino immigrants, sentiment seen on the show is racially fueled, I do not know, although it does help create a "us versus them" phenomenon. A phenomenon which can be found throughout American immigration history, for example the hardships faced by the Irish when they arrived to the United States during the 19th century.

3:39 PM

2008-12-15T09:42:00.016-06:00

To the Students of Immigration Policy (SOC370/INTS 398) Thank you all for being a part of Loyola University's only immigration policy course.

Your footprint will be remembered by me and your fellow students for many years to come and while you mostly likely will forget the precise details learned in class, I hope you will never forget the rudimentary principle that immigration law and policy in the United States is a creature not always of common sense or logic but a creature of _____ and _______. I do not need to fill in the blanks for you...

If you enjoyed the class and wish it to continue, please let us know.

The Final Exam is also posted below and individual grades have been emailed to you.

I would also like to acknowledge the follow students' performance this past semester:

Best BLOG ENTRIES: MICAH
BEST CLASS PARTICIPATION: AIDA
BEST PAPER: DARA & DANIEL D.
BEST FINAL EXAM: DIANA & DANIEL D.

I wish you all the best.

---Christopher W. Helt, Esq.

Loyola University of Chicago
Immigration Policy 370 (INTS 398)
FINAL EXAMINATION
December 9, 2008

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FINAL EXAMINATION. ANSWER ONLY ONE (1) QUESTION WITHIN EACH SET.

N.B. Choose only one question to answer from Sets I, II, and III.

REMEMBER, AS DISCUSSED IN CLASS, THERE IS MUCH INFORMATION TO “FILTER” or SORT OUT IN ANY IMMIGRATION ISSUE—NOT ALL IS RELEVANT AND OFTEN A “RED HERRING” (e.g., the Bill O’REILLY/GERALDO RIVERA DEBATE, TERRORISM AND IMMIGRATION issues). The fact patterns below are formulated that way.

READ EACH ESSAY EXAM QUESTION CAREFULLY. When asked to provide examples, provide examples used in class lectures, our film, class blogsite, and/or the reading materials. USE INK PEN.

YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE PERIOD TO ANSWER THREE (3) EXAM QUESTIONS.

DO NOT ANSWER MORE THAN ONE QUESTION FROM EACH SET.

PART I EXAM QUESTIONS

A. SET # 1:

A.) Who is Nasser Din and Ziaul Hassan? In what context did you learn about them and Why?

1.) who and what were they fighting and why?

2.) Who is Fred Koramatusu and why is he similar to Naseer Din and Ziaul Hassan? What two media sources did we watch in class that were germaine (i.e, associated with or related to) to each?

3.) What law affected each individual? Were the laws affecting each individual upheld (i.e., lawful or “constitutional”)? How so?
(please cite two (2) laws for full credit or more if you like).

4.) Why is the adage, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” apropos here? If not, why not? Please include a discussion of Chapter 3, We are All Suspects Now, in your analysis.

OR
B. SET # 2:

(1) (a) Who is Fred Koramatsu, (b) who are/were the NISEI and what immigration policy/law affected Koramatsu (name the exact law)?
(2) What happened to him? Why?
(3) What event in our nation’s past affected him?
(4) What did Fred Koramatsu and the Guantanamo Detainees have in common, if anything?
(5) Why did he have the final say in laws/policies affecting similar persons like him?

PART II EXAM QUESTIONS

YOU MAY USE THE “IRAC” METHOD TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU LIKE. Full Credit will be given either way for a complete answer, but you must identify the issues and note comparisons with material covered in class.

FACTS

Somewhere in the Gulf of Aden. Tuesday morning, December 9, 2008. The SS Namor, a 656 passenger luxury cruise liner (owned by the Norwegian Government) and considered one of the world's most luxurious cruise liners, is headed for its eventual destination, port-of-Miami, capping its three continent, six country port-of-call.
Passengers on board the Namor range in social class and status, but include Oscar-nominated actress Brangelina Polie, her six adopted children from Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam and India, (all United States Citizens by Brangelina's adoptive immigrant petitions (IVs) derivative US citizen status) and her heartthrob husband, Aad Jitt, also a conditional lawful permanent resident (a temporary “green card” holder).

Four-months earlier, August 26, 2008. Hollywood, California. Jitt immigrated to the U.S on a P-1 (entertainer's visa) for his first major motion film in 1991
(Thelma & Louise). He later married actress Anniffer Jiniston, (the couple was
known affectionately in Hollywood as “JJ” who filed for a change of status to a lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) for him. Because of the widespread
media attention given to the wedding (the wedding photographs were sold to People
Magazine for a whopping 1.2 million dollars), United States Immigration &
Citizen Services (USCIS) processed Brangelina's I-130 visa petition a little
faster than it normally does: It approved the petition in one day (and absent
an interview). The marriage, unfortunately, later resulted in a divorce (having
been consummated) lasting less than the requisite 2 years to consider it to
be a “bona fide” marriage for immigration purposes. As such, Jitt recently received a knock on his door at his Malibu residence from ICE agents, personally handing him a notice from USCIS revoking his conditionally approved residency status (his “green card”) and issuing him a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) before an immigration judge as he now was placed in removal (“deportation”) proceedings awaiting a hearing before immigration judge Judy Rothchild, chief immigration judge at the Hollywood , CA. immigration court.

At the first court hearing (known as “master calendar”), Jitt appeared before Judge Rothchild, with his attorney, Hollywood Holt. Holt denied all allegations and demanded a speedy trial (though he knows that Jitt needs as much time as possible to support his deportation defense).

At immigration court, the government insisted that the supposed relationship and subsequent marriage of the “JJs” was a sham marriage solely for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits (and done only so Aad could continue his film career in the United States). As evidence of this, the government argued that no children resulted from the marriage and the couple rarely lived together. The ICE attorney stated mater of factly, “this is a textbook case of a paper marriage—the respondent [Jitt] was in it [the marriage] for a green card, your honor.”

The most damming evidence produced by the government were phone records and text messages of Jitt and Brangelina during the filming Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Hold vehemently objected to their admission, but with a packed courtroom of reporters inside, Judge Judy sustained all of Hollywood's objections admonishing him: “You've been practicing long enough counselor to know this is ALL relevant evidence against your client!”

The government also brought in shocking paparazzi photographs of Brangelina and Jitt taken at a remote Caribbean nude beach [depicting both committing unspeakable –and unprintable-- adultered acts]. There was no doubt that Brangelia and Jitt were carnally involved while Jitt was still married! Jitt's official green card
had not even arrived in the mail. One could hear a pin drop as the enlarged
photographs of Brangelina and Jitt were tendered to the judge. There was no
denying the affair now, but does that make Jitt guilty of immigration fraud?
Should he be deported on that basis as the government now contends? He was
clearly out of status (thus an “illegal alien”), as USCIS revoked his I-130, and
he could not file another one. Or could he?

This evidence above was admitted against Jitt, and it was now clear that there was some serious hanky panky going on between Brangelina and Jitt, all while he was still married to Annifer. The judge then found Jitt removable (“deportable”) as charged, as the marriage was less than two years old and under the law Jitt needed to show the marriage wasn’t a sham. Jitt could be deported simply because the marriage did not last two years and thus the conditions to remove his temporary residency were not meet. Attorney Holt knew of the affair, and knew there were only
four ways Jitt could stay here permanently [absent some limited exceptions]: (1)
the visa lottery; (2) an asylum claim; (3) a job sponsor; and/or (3) a family
(visa) petition.

“Hollywood” Holt had a novel idea, however. He would plead that Jitt certainly was removable (deportable) as the two-year requirement was not met, knowing he would lose that argument, but if he avoided the fraud charges, a later marriage
between Brangelia and Jitt would allow him stay here, obtain his permanent greed card (lawful permanent residency) and Jitt would not be deported to his native country, Missouropa (a former soviet bloc country). Missouropa has no political strife, civil war or any other political turmoil and is considered a peaceful, Thespian society (90% of its population are actors). Due to the recent worldwide economic spiral and Missouropa being denied EU status, however, its chief currency, the Guild, is virtually worthless.

If Brangelina, however, could file another family-based visa petition (an I-130
petition) for Jitt once they are married, the Judge could grant him a
continuance while the visa peititon was pending with USCIS. Jitt then would not
be deported. That was the plan of attack or defense for this case, Holt
decided.

This time, Holt also knew USCIS wouldn't approve a subsequent visa petitioner between the two in a timely fashion (as the first one), especially
since the government now was alleging fraud. But he nevertheless needed to buy time for his client. The case was ultimately continued until 2012 for status.

With the court hearing now more than 3 years away, Brangelina and Jitt enjoy taking a break from acting, having both worked on the recent US Presidential Campaign ,
and donating much money and time to causes they believe in: World hunger,
continued Katrina relief, and immigration reform. They both decide to take a cruise on the SS Namor. The children come with them.

Time on the cruise ship also allows Brangelina and Jitt quality time with their
family and a welcomed respite from the paparazzi, as the luxury cruise liner
screens its travelers very carefully. Every passenger on board in accounted
for and a thorough background check is made to ensure no guests are
photographers or anyone else from the media for that matter.

QUESTIONS (PLEASE CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

(A) (1) Can Jitt stay in the United States legally? (2) How so? (3) identify all the issues present in this fact pattern; (4) What procedure must he pursue, as we have learned in Class? (4) what are some of the problems he faces? (5) what audiovisual segment did we watch in class which parallels Jitt’s story and what are the similarities in that piece with Jitt’s predicament?

OR

(B) Using Ngai’s discussion of Just vs. Unjust Deportation, discuss (1) why AAD JITT SHOULD BE DEPORTED OR NOT? (2) Cite specific examples used in class similar to Jitt’s predicament in our discussion of just vs. unjust deportations in society. (3) why do court delays (or continuances) help immigrants like Jitt? (4) Who else did we see in class that was in need of a long court continuance and why? Please specify by name.

PART III EXAM QUESTIONS

Gulf of Aden. December 9, 2009. Traveling the crystal clear, sea green waters of the Gulf of Aden, a body of water just South of the Red Sea, is the SS Namor.
The ocean waters touch the shores of both Somalia to the West and the Saudi
Arabian Peninsula to the North. The nautical course traveled by the SS Namor is
both majestic and biblical, but also efficient. Both industrial tankards,
fishing ships, scrap heaps and tourist vessels alike traverse this course.

The gulf’s treacherous waters are home to dangerous “man-eating” species, human and otherwise. Below the water’s surface live deadly man-eating piranhas; above the water live another life threatening creature: Pirates. Yes, just like Blackbeard and his crew from centuries past lurk the modern day equivalent, who cruise theses waters in search of defenseless prey.

These modern-day buccaneers, who seemingly have ported through a time warp, originate from the war-torn lawless country of Somalia. Somalia, a predominately Muslim country, once was a majestic and proud land, today is defined by severe civil strife, clan-based murders, genocide, and anarchy. These pirates, like the piranhas deep below, must feed on their prey to survive: Famine and fear of starvation motivate the pirates. They are both fearless and vicious and have nothing to lose.

Composed chiefly from scrap metal heaps and rope, the small rag-tag boats or “skiffs” are diminutive in comparison to large vessels like the Namor. As the skiff approaches the ship, its captain, believing it to be stranded refugees and seeing a white distress flag waving, navigates towards the boat. Thus today the Pirates have found their victim: the SS Namor. Once the Namor is alongside the skiff, a burlap bag is removed, revealing a grenade launcher, and an anti-tank missile launcher, all remnants of U.S. troop intervention in Mogadishu in the early 1990s. Five-men and one woman, brandishing aka-47 automatic machine guns, one with a shoulder-strapped grenade launcer, board the ship. The Namor is commandeered by the Pirates in less than 10 minutes.

At least 50 passengers then are murdered on the deck of the Namor, when one of the Pirates’ shoulder rocket launchers accidentally fires. One of the passengers killed instantly from the blast is the famous actor, AAD JITT. His wife Brangelina Polie and their USC children are floors below and are not injured. The captain is also murdered and with no knowledge of the ships navigational system, the attempted hijackers are forced to surrender to German and U.S. maritime military vessels.

The Namor eventually arrives to the U.S., docking at the port-of-Miami in flames. With smoke billowing throughout the morning Miami sky, passengers are carried off of the ship, many on med-vac stretchers.

One of the individuals carried off the ship is Idel Hussain (pronounced EE-DEL), the only female accompanied with the Pirates.

After it is discovered that she was not an official passenger she is detained, placed in the Miami Detention Center, and interrogated by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

After a “credible fear interview” by ICE, it was learned that Idel was 16-years-old and forced to sail on the skiff with the other pirates, one of whom she claimed to be her husband. She also stated that in Somalia, it is common for young woman to undergo a horrendous procedure. She also told ICE officers something horribly shocking—a story that not one ICE officer believed at the time: Idel claim that she (as well as most all woman in Somalia) were subjected to a form of genital mutilation which only females were subjected. Idel was forced to undergo this horrific procedure, she claims, when she was about 11 years old.

She went on to discuss this in detail: commonly referred to as infibulation and in Somalia, called "Pharaonic circumcision"), she claimed Eighty percent (80%) of all genital procedures for women and girls consist of this form which is the most harmful form. Of the remainder, the less radical or Type I (commonly referred to as clitoridectomy and in called "sunna" by Idel) is practiced mainly in the coastal towns of Mogadishu and Kismayu. The procedures leave a lifetime of physical suffering for the women. She described many Somalis mistakenly view this procedure as a religious obligation. The concept of family honor is also involved. It is carried out to ensure virginity. Because virginity of daughters and family honor are related, it is believed that the family’s honor will also remain intact if the daughters are subjected to this procedure. Women who have not undergone this procedure, Idel described, may be thought of as having “loose morals”. A girl who has not undergone it will result in less bridewealth for her father and brothers. Either way, Idel claims she had no choice in the matter. She also claimed she had to accompany her husband aboard the skiff or she would be killed by her husband.
Felling sympathy for Idel, she was further asked by ICE officers if she feared the government upon returning to Somalia. She stated that there is no government in Somalia and thus there is no government to fear.

PART III. EXAM QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS (PLEASE CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

A.) The Pirates survive and are taken into custody by ICE. Once fingerprinted, it is learned that two of the men had been admitted to the Untied States previously with visitor visas. One admitted to successfully commandeering a cargo ship in between his visits to the U.S. If biometrics had been used, (ie if the Somalia government had agreed to share its fingerprints to U.S. intelligence) clearly, one of the pirates would have not been on board resulting in the death of at least one American (and Aad Jitt). (1) Make a case, for or against why biometrics should be used for immigration enforcement. Include in your analysis a definition of biometrics. What did our guest speaker from the FBI believe and why? (2) Do we need to be more vigilant as to who enters the United States on a temporary basis or not? (3) should we fingerprint all visitors (non-immigrants or NIV visa holders) who come to the United States? Why or why not? (4) What liberties/privacy interests are involved, if any?

OR

B.) (1) Is there a basis for asylum here? By whom? (2) Provide the definition of political asylum as discussed in class, in Ngai or both. (3) What are the five (5) bases of asylum--what must it be on account of? Please name the five. (4) What asylum case did we see from class (which guest speaker?) similar here? (5) What would the asylum case here be “on account of” (i.e, which one of the five (5) above would it fall under? and why? (6) What policy issues may be present which may serve as a hurdle to obtaining safe haven here in the United States? (7) Finally, what are Idel’s chances and what conditions would she be subject to if she pursues an asylum case in the U.S., based on what we discussed in class and the 60 Minutes piece we watched on detention of immigrants?

MODEL EXAM ANSWERS
1B) Fred Koramatsu was a naturalized citizen of Japanese decent. Mr. Koramatsu was detained under Executive Order 9066, which was enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, following the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Basically, Koramatsu was detained for occupying a Military Zone, by the Secretary of War, and he was placed in a Japanese Interment Camp. Mr. Koramatsu was/is referred to as an NISEI, which is in Nagai and our class discussions an A2 or a second generation American Born citizen of Japanese decent. As stated earlier, Mr. Koramatsu (Now will be referred to as Mr. K.) was detained under executive or 9066, which gave the Secretary of War, absolute power to detain persons of Japanese decent in Interment Camps because of the beginning of WWII. Mr. K fought his detainment, in the Internment Camp, all the way to the Supreme Court. The case can be found in any law research database for reference. Furthermore, Mr. K. challenged his detainment as being unconstitutional. While Mr. K. lost his case before the high court, the court cited that his detention in violation of 9066 was lawful because he was being detained for the criminal violation of occupying a military zone; however, the court never fully addressed the constitutionality of native born Americans of Japanese decent being detained in these camps, but they articulated, in their opinion, that the detainment of American citizens was, at the very least, was Constitutionally Suspect, but this was not the issue before the court at the time. However, in my opinion, in our day and age, and with the evolution of our jurisprudence, had Mr. K challenged his detainment in our current society and before this court, he may win, but that is only a brief opinion. Mr. K was detained because of the attacks on Pearl Harbor. At this point in time, all people of Japanese decent were considered to be suspect as a result of the attack. The government did not know what Japanese Americans would sympathize with the Empire of Japan. So, every member of Japanese decent was detained and relocated to Internment Camps. The commonalities of Mr. K. and the detainees at Gitmo are similar in a sense. While was able to use the appellate process, Mr. K did not receive due process of law in his exclusion and relocation to an internment camp. The same can be said for the detainees at Gitmo. Some are American citizens, but yet, because they have been labeled as Enemy Combatants, in the War on Terror, they have been denied Due Process of Law, one of our fundamental foundations in this country. Thus, Mr. K. had the final say, when he filed an Amicus Brief * (A Friend of the Court Brief), on the behalf of the detainees in Gitmo. I may be paraphrasing, but, he did not want the government to make the same mistakes it made during WWII by denying Due Process of Law to American Citizens, once again. However, as a matter of fact, I believe Mr. K held that as long as people were detained on US Soil, which Gitmo technically is US soil because it is a Military Installation; all persons detained here were entitled to some Due Process of Law.

2A)

Issue: Whether or not Jitt can remain in the United States lawfully as a permanent US resident?

Rule: Marriages lasting less than two years do not constitute a bona fide marriage; therefore the petition for permanent status is denied.

Analysis: The general Rule, in this case, is stated very clearly. In order for a marriage to be valid, in the eyes of immigration, it must last a period of at lest two years. This is not the case. The Petitioner entered the US on an entertainer’s visa, which was converted to an application for Permanent Status following a marriage. The marriage resulted in a divorce, which does not meet the threshold of the two year minimum. Moreover, the Petitioner contends his marriage was not a sham; however, clearly, the evidence points to that fact. The couple rarely resided together, the relationship bore no children, and the Petitioner carried on an affair, while married, with another woman. As we proceed, do we think that adultery amounts to Moral Turpitude? I think so, because the Petitioner was married at the time of his affair. However, it is the year of 2008 and the case has been continued until 2012, and his current relationship can result in another marriage. The conclusion will support my finding.

Conclusion: The facts here are very clear. Jitt was married to woman while carrying on an affair during his marriage. His first marriage has resulted in a divorce, which does not meet the threshold of a 2 year minimum to obtain a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Status for a family sponsorship. Thus, the Petitioner, Mr. Jitt is eligible for deportation, and the deportation is just under the law. He rarely lived with his spouse, bore no children during his marriage, and carried on an affair with another woman. Adultery is certainly an offense of Moral Turpitude in our society. While we can entertain the issue of a job sponsor, there are certainly an ample amount of actors, certainly capable, of playing in roles that Jitt would be sponsored for. Therefore, the deportation against Jitt remains just. His native homeland is a peaceful nation with no political strife, civil war, or other political turmoil; however, the country and its currency are worthless. We will concede that Jitt is certainly well off financially due to his blockbuster roles, and his economic financial viability does not only reside in Missouropa. Thus, his deportation does not meet the threshold of persecution under financial distress because his wealth is global. Also, an asylum claim is out of the question because there are no relevant facts that point to a well founded fear of persecution. Therefore, under the objective factual analysis, the deportation would be approved; however, and this is a hypothetical, if Jitt was to marry again, and file another petition for permanent status, and meet the threshold of the two year requirement, his petition may be approved. But we do not deal in hypothetical, and given the fact that, currently, there is no change in marriage status, Jitt will be deported for the aforementioned reasons.

3B) Yes, there is a basis for a claim of Asylum. Idel could wage a claim of Asylum. Asylum must be based in a well founded fear of persecution due to the association of political Ideology, membership in a social group, race, gender, and nationality. While there is no government to fear because of the current status in Somalia, there is a state of lawlessness, which any state of nation has an obligation to preserve the right of law. Idel has been basically castrated by her parents against her will, which rises to a level of persecution. Meaning, she would be a member of a social group, which is uncircumcised and therefore persecuted in this country. Not to mention, this procedure seems to be a bit barbaric in a Westernized Ideology, thus resulting in a level of persecution because of the membership in a social group. Further, it appears, while customary, she was forced into a sense of indentured servitude because her refusal to board the vessel without her husband was met with severe consequence, death. In my opinion, this also rises to the level of persecution because there is no government to protect her from this way of life. Therefore, on the basis of the aforementioned facts, Idel would be granted Asylum because of her well founded fear of persecution due to the government of Somalia, which theoretically is non-existent but there is a government structure of some sort, inability to protect her. Also, she was not given any choices as to her membership in any social group; this also appears to meet the threshold of persecution because the government cannot control the group

2008-12-02T10:40:00.004-06:00

This week marks our last class meeting and our final exam review session. I am grateful to you all for allowing me to be a part of your Loyola experience and I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. let me also say that your participation in the Great American Immigration Debate on this blogspot served as the additional reading material for this course (and maybe the most important!). Thank you for all of your entries and comments during the semester...

I look forward to seeing you (and reading about you in the future) in the future. Below is the study guide for the final Exam which will take place DECEMBER 9, 2008. YOU WILL HAVE THE ENTIRE PERIOD TO TAKE THE FINAL EXAM.

--Christopher Helt, Esq.

IMMIGRATION POLICY (SOC 370/INTS 398) FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE

THE FINAL EXAM COUNTS FOR 20% (or 20 points of your overall grade). It will be in essay format and require you not only to know the subject matter covered in class but you must be able to apply it.

You may use the IRAC method of answering the essay questions for one or all of the exam questions, depending on what is asked and your preference. I will be available by email or telephone before the exam for you. I can also meet with you if you have any last minute questions, depending on our schedule (I will be in town this week and next).

Everything we covered in class is fair game for an essay question on the final. There will be three questions to answer, from a choice of two or three. You will have the entire period to answer the exam. To keep everyone honest, their will be essay questions related to the reading material, especially since there was not an enormous amount of reading material assigned the second half of the semester.

Pay particular attention to the following:

I. DEFINITION OF ASYLUM-be able not only to define it, but know the five bases. Be prepared to cite class lectures and DANIELS, NGAI. Be able to identify a specific fact pattern or scenario similar to what you have heard about from out guest speaker, Farah Choudry, Class Lectures, Audiovisual and blog spot entries. There may be a question on the final exam taken directly from one of your entries or comments.

II. PATRIOT ACTS FILM-who were the individuals portrayed in the film? (Tariq Moti and Mohammad Tariq). See handout given in class (profiling illegal immigrants in the U.S.), Chicago Tribune Article "Tossed out of America" on our class blogspot, the Chicago Lawyer Article "New Era In Immigration Law". (1) What was this law all about, (2) who did it affect, (3) what was its stated purpose, and (3) was it "legal"? (4) Is it still in existence today? Know chapter 3 of Nguyen, and Sadru Noorani and Qadir. How did their lives parallel those depicted in Patriot Acts? Be prepared to provide specific examples in the reading material and the film.

III. KNOW NSEERS ("Special Registration"), the time period why it was implemented and who was affected. Be able to identify similarities in this law with other laws affecting individuals such as the Japanese Internment camps.

1. Japanese Internment Camps refers to the forcible relocation and internment of approximately 110,000 Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans to housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps", in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. Know why and its justification.

2. Know the similarities between 9/11 and another unfortunate incident in our history, on December 7, (1941): PEARL HARBOR. What policy changes were effected and what laws were enacted as a result and why? The terms remember 9/11, and we shall never forget are just about identical to the slogans "remember Pearl harbor"-- (remember the poster passed out in class?) what is their significance?

3. KNOW THE LEGAL BASIS TO PASS ANY IMMIGRATION LAW. YOU MAY BE ASKED TO APPLY THIS TO A CERTAIN FACT PATTERN NOT SEEN BEFORE. You may be asked to use the IRAC method to answer the ESSAY QUESTION (see below). Please be prepared to compare the past with the present:

Whereas the special registration program only involved non US citizens, over 60% of the internees were American citizens. President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast. This is discussed in Ngai and you should be very familiar with the readings or what was covered in class on this topic. Know our class discussions!

IV. CLASS LECTURE ON "aliens" and U.S. Citizens from country "A." Be able to justify why immigration laws are made (yes, there are based on "politics and economics" as we have learned--but how are they upheld as "constitutional"). Again, know the legal basis, fair or unfair (just or unjust) upon which to pass any immigration law in the United States.

III. UNJUST vs. JUST DEPORTATIONS-KNOW HOW THIS AFFECTS immigration law and whether to deport individuals or not from the U.S. See Ngai discussion of this topic. Know handout on Naseer Din and Ziaul Hassan family from our class field trip. Know the role of Immigration Judges and their limited authority, as discussed in class.

IV. Finally, know the "IRAC" method of answering an essay exam questions: (1) ISSUE, (2) RULE, (3) ANALYSIS, (4) CONCLUSION. Why is it used? Why is it important? Know that: Immigration laws are often hidden/justified by current public sentiment, economic motivations: (i.e., NSEERS, Deportations of DIN, Hassan family). Oftentimes there is a lot of unrelated yet inflammatory facts associated with immigration (remember the GERALDO RIVERA vs. BILL O'REILLY DEBATE, i.e., are we letting illegal aliens who are drunk drivers stay here). IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU BE ABLE TO objectively parse away irrelevant facts to get at the real issues. This is the purpose of the IRAC methodology of answer exam questions. If appropriate, cite the 60 Minutes segment about widows left behind due to immigration laws where common sense DO NOT GO HAND IN HAND WITH THE LAW: Many viewers (and lawmakers in Congress) were shocked at this segment. DOES THIS COME AS A SUPRISE TO YOU, based on what you have learned during this semester? These laws may be unfair, but can they be supported legally in our society? WHY? (refer to our friend, FRED KORAMATSU. Did he have the last say after all?).

BE PREPARED TO TIE IN THE PAST WITH ANY HYPOTHETICAL FACT PATTERN GIVEN ON THE FINAL EXAM: If you know this--you will be able to identify and answer any type of essay question asked of you.

Please call email me or make an appointment to see me if you have any questions.

2008-11-18T14:35:00.001-06:00

2008-11-10T09:06:00.026-06:00

THE ELECTION IS OVER. We have our first class this week (and our last class blog entry assignment) knowing who will lead our nation now and the most obvious question to ask is WILL CHANGE HAPPEN IN IMMIGRATION WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

Although economic concerns reduced immigration issues to nearly a "nonissue" by the time the presidential campaign drew to a close (when last year it was arguably THE most important issue, second only to the war in Iraq), political experts believe it was largely responsible for the record turnout of Latino voters Tuesday, 66% of whom supported Barack Obama.

According to national exit poll results analyzed by the Pew Hispanic Center, only 32% of Latinos voted for John McCain, in spite of his track record as a proponent of immigrant-friendly reforms (remember last years McCain-Kennedy bill, losing 60-64 last June?). That total represents a significant drop from what President Bush received in 2004, receiving between 40% and 44% of the Latino vote that year and 35% in 2000...

But the heated immigration debate that dominated headlines two years ago, when hundreds of thousands marched in cities across the country and demanding CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) may have been the catalyst that sent Latinos to the polls. WAS IT BECAUSE OF THEIR DESIRE TO EFFECT CHANGES IN OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM?

A large number of Latino voters this year were casting ballots for the first time, suggesting that efforts by national and local Latino organizations to encourage legal residents to become U.S. citizens and participate in the political process paid off, AP concludes.

Interestingly, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced right after the election that 1,051,640 people became U.S. citizens between Oct. 1 of last year and Sept. 30, setting a record. we shall soon see whether Most of them who were able to vote--most likely voted for Obama.

The nonpartisan National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials estimates that between 9.6 million and 11 million Hispanics voted in the election, compared to a U.S. Census estimate of 7.6 million in 2004. Latinos comprised 9 percent of all voters this year, compared to 7 percent in 2004, according to Associated Press exit polls.

Nationwide, the AP polls suggested about two-thirds of Latino voters chose Obama over Republican John McCain. About three-fourths of Hispanics under the age of 30 supported Obama.

In Florida, where President Bush won 56% of the Latino vote in 2004, Obama earned 57% of the Hispanic vote to McCain's 42%. Obama won three-fourths of Latino votes in Nevada, and nearly 7 in 10 favored him in New Mexico, where he would have lost without them, according to a recent AP story.

Gone are the significant inroads by Bush among Hispanic voters (Take a look at our blog spot from last year, below). Bush won over many in 2000 by saying he would build a solid relationship with Vicente Fox, then president of Mexico. Their relationship later soured, AP correctly points out.

In 2004, Bush won 40% of the Hispanic vote.

So a more obvious question to ask is: HAVE HISPANIC VOTERS CREATED A NEW ELECTORATE MAP? If so, and immigration may be the most important political issue for Hispanics now, then by simple deduction, majors changes in immigration are coming...

-Christopher Helt, Esq.

Aida said...

To the question « Have Hispanic voters created a new electorate map?” I deeply believe that the answer is yes.

With 14 percent of the U.S. population, the Latino “minority” accounted for over 8% of the electorate in this election. “While I know how powerful a community you are, I also know how powerful you could be on November 4th if you translate your numbers into votes.” says Barack Obama on his web page dedicated to Latinos: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/latinoshome/. During the campaign both Senator McCain and Senator Obama tried hard to get Latinos’ support by making appearances in front of major Hispanic organizations such as The National Council of La Raza or LULAC back in July. The courting of the Latino vote started in the early stages of the primaries. I remember how Bill Richardson’s endorsement -the Hispanic governor from New Mexico- was coveted after he dropped the race in January.

Hispanic voters created a new electorate map not only because of their growing voting population but they literally influenced the candidates’ strategies as well as the outcome in this election. Indeed, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Obama but they also helped him carry “battleground” sates such as Colorado, Nevada, Florida and New Mexico.

For the anecdote, I was with the Obama campaign in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the weekend of Get Out The Vote (GOTV) prior to Election Day. The main activity of GOTV is canvassing: volunteers knock on doors, ask people if they are registered to vote, if they know where their polling location is, offer them a ride to the polls… Local organizers in Milwaukee had a “code” for Hispanic neighborhoods –they were colored purple on a map of the city-. On November 1st, I went with one of the other Chicago interns in one of the Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. As a second-generation immigrant, my friend is fluent is both languages, which made her an incredible asset for the campaign. We had also had campaign literature in both English and Spanish. All this to show how many efforts were made by the campaign to get the Hispanic vote: “The Latino community holds this election in its hands” (Barack Obama at the NCLR annual conference in San Diego).

1:01 PM

Teresa said...

There is a potential for a mass mobilization about immigration change. These individuals who will be the mass, who might happen to be Latino, have an important voice, but I do fear for a grouping of such a diversity of people as one unit comprised of only one race. It is dangerous for politicians to think the only issue Latinos must care about is immigration. I also don’t think it is only Latinos who are concerned about the future of immigration. We are a whole nation of immigrants from all over the world. If properly educated on our history, we all should care. As much as I have hope for Obama and this change and hope dream initiative we currently attempt to have faith in, I really don’t think his immigration policy is all that different than that of McCain. So I am unsure I claim an immigration victory in the election of Obama.

On April 5th, 2006, Barack Obama discussed the debate going on in the Senate about CIR: "It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came into the United States through Ellis Island had proper documentation. Not every one of our grandparents or great-grandparents would have necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually mean something."

Now, as I look up his official views on immigration on his “Blue Print for Change” website his thoughts have seemed to change (except for his thoughts on strengthening the border). With response to “bringing people out of the shadows, “Obama and Biden support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.” So now we tell people to go to the back of the line and jump through more hoops. Didn’t he recently say that all of our grandparents didn’t come here in a way that would have qualified for legal immigration? Did they have to jump through hoops and go to the back of this line because they didn’t qualify for one of the four ways? I am pretty sure the answer is no. My grandparents were embraced and welcomed by the Statue of Liberty into the land of promise as the weak huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Last night, I was shopping in a grocery store on Bryn Mawr. Two Mexican men behind me were buying six packs of Modelo. An angry white woman pushed past them and clearly yelled, “Excuse me.” As she finished paying and was about to walk out the door, the men were apparently in her way again. She yelled, pushed her way out the door, and clearly stated for everyone to hear, “No wonder people don’t like illegal Mexicans!” I felt discouraged and disappointed as I paid for my groceries. We really have a long way to go as a nation with concern to immigration on the small local level and the larger national level.

11:59 PM

all of the above said...

I don't have any empirical data to back this up, but re: your question about whether or not the huge immigrant marches of two years ago impacted this election, but I think the answer is definitely yes. A sign that was seen at every immigrant protest I was at and every one I saw in the media were signs that read, "Hoy marchamos, mañana votamos" - "today we march, tomorrow we vote." I think that community organizers in the Latina/o immigrant community here have taken that slogan seriously, and have really done the groundwork that has helped lead to this huge voting shift--both in terms of registering voters and engaging Latinas/os on the issues, making them realize that an Obama vote was really in their best interests.

On the other hand, a commentator being interviewed on NPR the other day (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96735168&ft=1&f=1015) said that a big reason that Latinas/os voted Obama was "bread and butter issues," the economy in particular. Another NPR story talked about how the economic downturn is hurting Latino/a immigrants, both documented and undocumented, particularly badly (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96700517&ft=1&f=1001). Regardless of why they voted for Obama, though, I do think Latinos/as will now be seen as a more important demographic to court in US politics.

As a personal note, I have often wondered why Latinos/as have been as supportive of Republicans as they have been in the past (besides social issues--I know that many Latinos/as are fairly socially conservative). Sure, there are Republicans like McCain who have supported decent immigration reform, but there is that crazy split in the party between people like McCain and Rep. Tom Tancredo, the crazy xenophobic dude who Geraldo talks about in his book. While the Democrats certainly have their own xenophobic elements, they have not been as vocal as the Republicans'.

12:24 AM

Nikki said...

Have hispanic voters created a new electoral map?

Yes. I read in a Chilean news report just before the election that Obama reached out to the hispanic population by pitching a commercial in fluent spanish, urging the population to vote. This commercial is important for two reasons. One, that our border with Mexico is important. I believe that Obama's ability to reach out to the hispanic population helped win the battle ground states like Florida and New mexico.

Another important aspect to this commercial, was that a Chilean news reported it. I think it is important to realize that this election doesn't have implications just for hispanic people in the US, but for hispanic people in other countries, and for that matter, around the world. Obama will be the leader of the US, but also a leader for the world. When I studied abroad in Chile, I was struck by the amount of people who knew about politics in the United States. They were able to name the candidates that were nominated, and those who they sought fit to be our next president. How many of us know the president of Chile? This goes to show, that the decision of this election will continue to effected many other countries.

The media plays a huge role urging people to vote. Especially when South American countries are showing their support for a particular candidate. In the chilean newspaper, not only did they report on Obama's commercial, but Fidel Castro's support for Obama as a candidate. It is not doubt that media coverage like this will spark other hispanic voters to be apart of the politics in the United States.

1:38 AM

Dara said...

I agree that the electorate map is changing. How that will play out in changes to immigration policy will be interesting. While I believe that change is coming, I’m not sure how much and how soon it will come. In Obama’s “Blueprint for Change”, the focus on immigration reform begins and ends with illegal immigration. I have heard him speak about the usual ideas: securing borders, keeping families together and bringing people out of the shadows but not on issues outside of illegal immigration. I believe that the focus on illegal immigration is important but also limits discussions to one part of a much larger problem. Will new policy changes improve the adjustment and processing of immigrants that are out of status or in the deportation process? Will new policy changes review enforcement methods and policy for civil liberty violations? I am not clear and perhaps even a little less hopeful that the new administration will make addressing the broken system and not just the illegal immigration issue a priority. Accomplishing the proposed goals related to illegal immigration without corresponding reform to the system will result in millions of people being added the already backlogged, inefficient and dysfunctional immigration system.

Diana writes,

In response to the question of whether an Obama administration will bring immigration reform, I think it is still to be determined. Yes, Latinos came out in record numbers and voted for him and the logical answer would be that he should bring immigration reform, but I don’t think it is that easy. As a senator, he played both sides of the aisle on the issue.

Also, immigration reform is not the number one issue of Latinos. Their number one issues are similar to the rest of the electorate: the economy, education, and ending the war. However, Latinos, those who are citizens, residents and undocumented have suffered a tremendous anti-immigrant backlash which was fueled by the Republican party. I think it was in response to this backlash that Latinos came out in records numbers for Obama.

We need to see who President-elect Obama surrounds himself with and how he deals with the pressing concern of the economy. As we learned in class, immigration is a creature of politics and economics. It is becoming evident that there are other issues he’ll need to deal with before solving the immigration problem. This could become difficult for the Democratic party in general if the Latino electorate is not happy with the Obama administration when it is time for his re-election.

bosslet said...

I think that the future Obama administration will responsible for an improvement in our current immigration system but I don't think that the change that will be inacted can be considered comporable to the desired 'comprehensive immigration reform.' It appears as though the Obama campaign has chosen it's immigration policy as one of it's 'middling' policies that places their candidate in a more centralized political position to make him more attractive to moderate and more conservative voters. Of course now that the election is over I think that the rhetoric coming out of the future administration will become more and more liberal.

The change that will occur under Obama that looks most promising will likely involve the opportunity for current illegal workers to pay a fine and begin the process of normalizing their status. Unfortunately it also appears as though Obama is seeking to crack down more on workers who are currently without status. This is a clear separation from more liberal and progressive views on immigration. Further funding of the bureaucracy as well as port and border facilities is also a top priority for the Obama administration which would indicate a strong inclination to enforce current laws involving immigration.

1:51 PM
Michael said...

If this year proved to hold a greater turn out of Latino voters than before, what does that say about the issue of immigration? For me, I often hear people speak of Latinos and undocumented immigrants as if they’re one and the same, as if to be Hispanic in the US implies you are here illegally regardless of where you were born or what citizenship you hold. As Geraldo Rivera said in his book when an angry critic told him to go home to wherever he came from, he responded by pointing out that he was born in Harlem, NY. When the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials estimates that between 9.6 million and 11 million Hispanics voted in the election, this goes to show that when we speak of the Hispanic minority in the US, we are not necessarily referring to border hopping illegals as is often portrayed. This great turn out of voters who come from Latino backgrounds (or at least who check off the Hispanic on the voter demographic form) are no less American citizens than those who come from Irish, Italian or even Chinese backgrounds. In my opinion, the fact that American citizens who have Latino heritage and are expressing their political interest in this country proves that the electoral map is changing. I suppose I tend to be an optimist and idealist in situations like these, but I hope to see this participation in a national, united event such as this as a sign of integration. Again ideally speaking, I’d also like to see demographic reform so that by identifying yourself in one way or another wouldn’t also immediately stigmatize you or make you no more than a number for one group or the next. I think citizens of the United States should be able to cast a vote for their preferred candidate without worrying about how it will affect the demographic, census or question their status as an American.

Tania said...

Like most of my classmate I believe that the electoral map is changing or better yet, last week elections proved that it has already change.

During the first semester of this year i was studying abroad in Mexico and I was able to see for myself how most people in Mexico were interested in the elections.

Most people that I talked to wanted obama to win not only because they home for a new immigration reform but mostly becuase of the ecenomy. The Economy was for both mexicans leaving in Mexico and mexicans leaving in the United States one of the most important issues. There is a saying in Mexico that "si a E.U.A le da gripa a Mexico le da pulminia" -if the U.S.A gets a cold than Mexico gets pneumonia' this refers to any financial crisis faced by the U.S.A

3:50 PM

AnnaW said...

Will change happen in immigration with the Obama administration?
It is clear that some change will occur under the Obama administration in terms of immigration reform, but how much and what kind of change is unclear. Obama voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform, voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government, voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security, votes YES on establishing a Guest Worker program, voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship, supported the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants, and voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”; yet he also voted YES on buliding a fence along the Mexican border, and wants there to be a high penalty fee that illegal immigrants have to pay in order to be able to stay and get in the back of the line for citizenship.

Obama is definitely a proponent of stronger border security and wants to require that undocumented workers go to the back of the line so they do not get citizenship before those who applied legally. He believes that illegal persons should not be able to work in the US; therefore, there needs to be a push to crack down on employers who are hiring illegal immigrants and are taking advantage of them.
Obama is pushing for comprehensive immigration reform in a country where the immigration system is broken; it is going to take a while for any of the policies, be they good for immigrants or bad, to be implemented.

3:56 PM

Zubeyir said...

It seems like Diana outlined what I would say about the issues we are discussing. Having said this, I think that we still need to see what Obama will actually do with the immigration policy. We like most others expect that Obama presidency will be relaxing for the immigrant at least in comparison to 8 years of Bush administration which was fostered anti-immigrant sentiments and policies. That, I think, effected the ways many immigrant voted and Latino community is no exception. I have heard that Muslim immigrants had voted for Bush in 2000 election because of his conservative policies regarding issues of family and morality. However, they voted against him in 2004 simply because of the hardships Muslims encountered during his first term of presidency.

However, I don't think that Latino community was only and primarily concerned with immigration policies like Muslim immigrants. Again, this is not to say that they were not concerned with issues of immigration. Issues of immigration is only among many factors that affected voting behaviors of Latino community. I agree with Diana that they mostly voted on the basis of their economic concerns as 8 years of Republican administration fell behind economic prosperity of Clinton administration. Obama's call for change appealed and reached to Latino communities as they wanted to see a more prosperous future. I think that Latino communities, in this regards, show that they are less bounded with ideological issues when it comes to the decision of whom to vote. They mostly voted for Bush in 2004, if I am not wrong, and they turned to Obama in 2008. That, I think, indicates that Latinos will not hang on to Obama no matter what. What matters most is their, like many others', economic well-being. Who ever seems more promising in that regard will get the majority Latino votes unless they show sarcastic anti-immigrant sentiments.

10:53 PM

2008-10-21T11:32:00.010-05:00

At the time of this entry, none of those who particpated in our informal class survey believe that we should deport individuals from the United States.

Nikki writes,

I found this article online. I thought it was interesting because it talked about asylum of sexual orientation. And it also discusses the role of judges, similar to the article about the immigration courts for this week's assignment.

This article gives a different perspective for those wanting asylum for being a lesbian or gay. The article raises the question of those who might be "pretending" to be gay to stay in the US. Is deportation the answer, if they are returning to a homeland of unsafe circumstances. Some are not even able to utter the word of their sexual orientation. check it out...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/14/seeking_a_home_away_from_homophobia/

nh said...

I found this article online. I thought it was interesting because it talked about asylum of sexual orientation. And it also discusses the role of judges, similar to the article about the immigration courts for this week's assignment.

This article gives a different perspective for those wanting asylum for being a lesbian or gay. The article raises the question of those who might be "pretending" to be gay to stay in the US. Is deportation the answer, if they are returning to a homeland of unsafe circumstances. Some are not even able to utter the word of their sexual orientation. check it out...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/10/14/seeking_a_home_away_from_homophobia/

3:49 PM

nh said...

With the upcoming election next tuesday, I think it's important to consider both candidate's side on immigration.

Here's Barack Obama's stance: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
In his opening quote about immigration he discusses how the immigration law system in broken, and it's necessary to fix the system. He has a plan to bring people out of the shadows, work with Mexico and try to keep families together.

Here's John McCain's view:
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/68db8157-d301-4e22-baf7-a70dd8416efa.htm
McCain also agrees that the immigration laws are broken and seeks a two-step process reform, which involves securing the boarders and then comprehensive immigration initiatives for a secure nation.

This is an article from Miami Herald that looks at both sides and the similarities and differences:
IMMIGRATION POLICY: McCain, Obama hold similar views on immigration - Rivals John McCain and Barack Obama both claim to be champions of immigration reform, which could be an issue for each in his respective party.

If this doesn't work, you can find in loyola's World News through the electronic articles.

Do you think that Obama and McCain are similar on their views? What reform might accomplish more?

2:26 PM

AnnaW said...

I drive down Devon Avenue every day to get to Loyola, and never have I paid more attention to the store-fronts, restaurant names, and the faces of the people on the sidewalks than I do now that I have seen the movie about the Patriot Acts that we watched in class last week. I think that one of the reasons that the movie had such a big impact on me was because I drive through that neighborhood every day.
Something that struck me was that it was said in the movie was that before the Patriot Acts, the Indo-Pakistani neighborhood was a lot more vibrant- there were more stores and restaurants- but I have always thought that that neighborhood was lively anyway. I started commuting down Devon in 2006. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is hard for me to imagine how much more alive the area must have been before people started getting deported because it seems so full of culture and vibrancy today.

Ngai opens chapter 2 with a discussion of the Immigration Act of 1924 that effectively created a “new class of persons within the national body- illegal aliens-whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility” (Ngai, 57). She says that the restrictions placed on immigrants raised problems that were “administrative…juridical…and constitutional (do illegal aliens have rights?)” (Ngai, 57). I find this question of whether or not illegal aliens should have rights to be ironic in a country that was founded on Christian values. As Christians we believe that every person is equal because he or she has been created in the image and likeness of God; so if every person is equal, shouldn’t every person have rights? Yes, it is necessary for every country to have laws regarding immigration, but shouldn’t people (be they legally or illegally residing in the United States of America) be treated with the dignity and respect that is due to them? It seems to me that deporting people en masse does not respect their rights as human beings.

8:06 PM

Kip Young said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/31inquire.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin#
October 31, 2008
Inquiry Targeted 2,000 Foreign Muslims in 2004
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — An operation in 2004 meant to disrupt potential terrorist plots before and after that year’s presidential election focused on more than 2,000 immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, but most were found to have done nothing wrong, according to newly disclosed government data.
The program, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, received little public attention at the time. But details about the targets of the investigation have emerged from more than 10,000 pages of internal records obtained through a lawsuit by civil rights advocates. Parts of the documents were provided to The New York Times.
The documents show that more than 2,500 foreigners in the United States were sought as “priority leads” in the fall of 2004 because of suspicions that they could present threats to national security in the months before the presidential election and the inauguration. Some of those foreigners were detained and ultimately deported because they had overstayed their visas, but many were in this country legally, and the vast majority were not charged.
The internal reports show that immigration agents questioned the foreigners about what they thought of America, whether violence was preached at their mosques, and whether they had access to biological or chemical weapons. A sampling of 300 cases turned over by federal officials showed that none of those interrogated were charged with national security offenses. Fewer than one in five were charged, most of them with immigration violations.

A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Richard Rocha, would say only, “Due to ongoing litigation, ICE is not at liberty to provide any comment.”
Officials said they were not aware of any similar programs now under way.
At the time of the 2004 operation, the immigration agency said publicly that it was tracking leads in an effort to disrupt potential terrorism plots, but emphasized that its investigations were being conducted “without regard to race, ethnicity or religion.”

But the records showed that 79 percent of the suspects were from Muslim-majority countries, according to an analysis by students at the National Litigation Project at Yale Law School, who obtained the records, as did the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Each group sued for the records under the Freedom of Information Act, and both say the operation showed that the government was using ethnic profiling to identify terrorism suspects.

“This was profiling,” said Michael Wishnie, a professor at Yale Law School who helped lead the research effort. He added that the findings raised questions about both the effectiveness and the propriety of the program.
“The resources devoted to this were enormous,” he said, “but the results clearly were not.”

The issue of ethnic profiling in counterterrorism programs has taken on added significance because of new Justice Department guidelines that go into effect Dec. 1 and give investigators even broader authority to open terrorism investigations without evidence of wrongdoing. The American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups argue that the new guidelines will allow federal investigators to make targets of Muslims, Middle Easterners and others without evidence of links to terrorist groups.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the administration began a series of efforts that strained relations with Muslims and Arab-Americans in particular. The detention of more than 700 illegal immigrants as terrorism suspects — often for months at a time without lawyers — generated a blistering report from the Justice Department on the “unduly harsh” treatment of the prisoners. Follow-up efforts in 2002 and 2003 led to the questioning of thousands of Muslims and Middle Easterners as well as measures requiring that immigrants from some countries register their presence with federal authorities.

The investigations conducted in the fall of 2004 were part of what federal authorities called Operation Front Line. It was unusual in that it relied on intelligence data from across the government to identify “priority leads” and then conduct interrogations in October 2004, just before Election Day.
One foreigner, in the country on a student visa, was asked his “opinion of America,” according to internal investigative reports. He responded that he was “living the American dream and cared greatly for the equal opportunities, rights and values that are afforded in America.” Another person, from South Asia, was asked about a mosque he attended and told an agent that “the mosque did not espouse any radical or fundamental form of Islam or denounce the United States in any way.” A third visa holder was asked if he owned any chemical or biological explosives. He said he did not.

The Homeland Security Department announced several hundred arrests at the time, mostly of visitors whose visas had expired, but the records obtained in the lawsuit show that the scope of the operation reached much further. More than 2,500 people were interrogated, with more than 500 arrests for immigration violations like overstaying visas.

A former immigration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because aspects of the program remain classified, said the operation analyzed data, gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency and other agencies, to identify people who might pose particular threats to national security. “I think the intelligence we were getting was bona fide and mineable, and we were doing the best we could to follow it up,” the former official said.

Kareem Shora, national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said he considered the findings a “slap in the face” because they contradicted the claims of American officials.
“It is very disappointing to see that despite all the reassurances that they were not profiling people, this comes out,” Mr. Shora said. With nearly 80 percent of the targets in the 2004 operation coming from Muslim nations, he asked, “how can you tell us you’re not focusing on people from these countries?”

Julia Preston contributed reporting from New York.

11:31 PM

2008-10-15T16:08:00.039-05:00

[D]eportation is . . . exile, a dreadful punishment, abandoned by the commom consent of all civilized peoples. . . That our reasonable efforts to rid ourselves of unassimilable immigrants should in execution be attended by such a cruel and barbarous result would be a national reporach.

---JUDGE LEARNED HAND, 1929

The above quote is from Chapter 2 of Ngai's Impossible Sujbects: Illegal Aliens and The Making of Modern America.

THIS PAST WEEK, we visited the Chicago U.S. Immigration Court, and observed a number of individuals facing imminent deportation from the United States. I invite you to post comments and/or questions. See you next week...

Christopher Helt, Esq.

Dara writes,

For me the immigration court experience was profound in sharing the very personal side of what has become a controversial "topic" of discussion and debate. Beyond the politics and even economics is the reality of injustice. I don't think it is possible to see a situation like Mr. Din's or Mr Hassan's and not develop a sense of outrage and feel compassion for their families. Again, the question of Constitutionality surfaces.

To say the immigration system is broken is an understatement that became even more apparent in seeing the court proceedings. Hearing the years spent processing cases, many of which seem to be based on errors and technicalities and realizing the amount of money and manpower used is beyond wasteful. The figuratively fine line determining lawful and unlawful status looks more like a noose (to me).

Teresa writes...

I had mixed feelings upon arrival at the immigration court. I assumed I would immediately loathe the judge, scorn the prosecuting attorney with eyes of judgment, and leave feeling even more enraged with the immigration laws of this country.

Contrary to my anticipation of dramatic decisions, NOTHING HAPPENED. Even cases which were supposed to be decided were postponed to a later date for various reasons. When I say moved to a later date, I mean a year to a year and a half from now. Wow. I can't even imagine how one plans his or her life under such circumstances. If you are unsure you can even remain in the United States, I assume you would do your best to set up "back up plans" somewhere else. If you are raising a family, how do you simply live without being constantly fearful and anxious?

As I sat outside the hearing room, I looked at everyone present. The lawyers, naturally, stuck out like sore thumbs. I wondered what brought them to the job. I was fascinated with the large presence of people's families. This does not surprise me because it is important to support loved ones and show the judge a life actually exists in the United States. What I did wonder was how these families were able to continually come back to court. Time off of work, pulling children out of school, and continued legal fees are not luxuries everyone can afford. In this respect, the court system seems to be incredibly disrespectful of people's time and lives.

I did not hate the judge. I found her, instead, to have a warm and friendly demeanor. I found not loathing for the Honorable Jenny, but I still got a sick feeling in my stomach when I thought of the power she has over people's lives. I was not impressed with the government representative. His stacks of paper and routine distribution of fingerprinting instructions made him seem indifferent and apathetic to the people fighting for their residence in the United States. I wondered what the outcomes for so many diverse people would be. I left with mixed feelings. I was ashamed of the immigration court system. I also felt responsible. As a daughter of immigrants from Italy and Norway, my families never faced a similar process of starting or continuing a life in the United States as those I witnessed in the courtroom. As a citizen of the United States, I question what my role has to be in the restructure of our immigration system.

MODEL MIDTERM ANSWERS

Immigration, the act of one coming to America to live either temporary or permanently, is a creature of politics and economics. Laws and policies towards immigrants in the United States are created and, in fact driven by, political or economic bases. In Daniels' Guarding the Golden Door, for example, we read about immigration laws created to restrict Chinese immigrants (The Chinese Exclusion Act), (ANY EXAMPLE cited in Daniels is acceptable--Senator Sumner or any of today’s outspoken members of Congress, Senator Frist from Tennessee, etc.), based on an economic basis, as labor movements feared Chinese immigrants were injurious to the economy, taking jobs away from others. Any example from Geraldo Rivera's HIS PANIC acceptable.

B.) Why does one want to “Come to America” (the U. S.) permanently? What are the Four (4) ways, generally, an immigrant can stay permanently in America? List each one, provide any examples from any class discussions, lectures, the film Avalon or (if applicable) or from the reading material for each one.

MODEL ANSWER:

As we saw in the film Avalon, (or cite Enes Hadzovic from Kosovo reading material--facing persecution in his home country or Victor C-) individuals come to America for one (or a combination) of three reasons: To (1) reunite with family already here in the United States, (2) for economic reasons or to (3) flee persecution (problems in their homeland: War, severe civil strife, etc.).

There are four (4) ways to come to america permanently, with limited exceptions.

Generally, individuals permanently and lawfully come to the U.S. via (1) a family member in the U.S. who sponsors them; (2) a job sponsor (employment-based green card petition) sponsor; (3) political asylum; or (3) the visa lottery. Each have their own specific requirements. In class, we listed to Victor C- who was not one of the 4, but one of the exceptions; we watched Simka from the film Avalon come here as a refugee, reuniting with his long-lost sister; we discussed how people who are married to United States citizens can file for their spouses, and the various preference categories in the family-based green card category: spouse of citizens and green card holders, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, children over the age of 21 who are citizens, and siblings of U.S. citizens. The family based visa immigration system is a large "tree" but one without many branches. There are only four branches or relatives that can be sponsored or peitioned for. The Visa lottery is difficult and it’s just like its sounds: a luck of the draw, similar to any other “lottery.”

A). What are the (2) two different types of visas in America (United States)? What is the difference between the type types? Is one better for immigrants than the other? Why is one type of visa similar to a pond frog on a Lilly pad?

MODEL ANSWER

The two types of visas allowing individuals to enter the U.S. lawfully are immigrant AND non-immigrant visas. Immigrant visas (or “IVs”) allow one to stay permanently in the United States (i.e, green card holder) and non-immigrant visas (or “NIVs”) are temporarily.

Immigrant visas, which are permanent (such as through family, a job, or visa lottery) commonly are referred to as "green card" holders once they arrive in the United States. They are immigrants coming to American to reside here permanently. Visas are issued outside the U.S. to allow one to enter lawfully. Non-immigrant visas are temporarily and if one stays in the U.S. past the time permitted, they suffer severe immigration law consequences. In that respect, IVs are better and they are permanent, and NIVs are not, they expire and the immigrant must return after a time period, depending on the type of NIV one enters the U.S.

As for NIVs, there are many types or categories, almost as many as in the alphabet, but the road never leads to a green card for these immigrants. In other words, the permission to stay in America is temporary and the immigrant must leave the United States before their non-immigrant visa time expires. If they overstay they violated their status and suffer severe negative immigration consequences, both if they wish to return someday to the United States (3/10 year bar for example), or if they wish to apply for another longer non-immigrant visa while they are here. They could also be deported for overstaying their non-immigrant visa. This is similar to Frog on a Lilly pad: The frog in the pond can leap from one Lilly pad to another, but the Lilly pad is slowly sinking (the NIV status) and the frog can leap from one to another (change NIV status), but the second the frog touches the water it drowns (or the water is poison!). Those who overstay their visas are considered unlawfully present and make up those considered “illegally present” in the U.S. (along those who enter illegally from the beginning).

A.) What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Cite examples from Daniels’ Guarding The Golden Doors, lectures, or class discussions. How was/is the “Great Writ” used to help immigrants in the United States? Why is it needed? In other words, why do immigrants in America need it or don’t they?

MODEL ANSWER

Essentially, the Writ of Habeas Corpus or the Great Writ, suspended only once during the President Lincoln administration, is a lawsuit filed on behalf of immigrants against the United States Government filed protect rights or obtain rights—asking the government to do or not to do something to help immigrants in the U.S. Daniels, says that the Writ and the decision which followed, provided the “foundation for immigration law [and] arose of struggles on the West Coast among Chinese immigrants, government officials and federal judges over the enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion laws. Though on the margins of society, Chinese in their resistance to exclusion laid claims to principles and practices, habeas corpus, due process…that were the heart of Anglo-American jurisprudence. This lawsuit protected immigrants who were subject to discrimination and other anti-immigrant laws and policies. It has had profound affected their rights, then and today. In class, we learned from class lecture the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a strong arrow in the quiver of immigrants to protect their rights, stop them from imminent deportation for example.

B.) What is the “Dualistic Attitude” towards immigrants in American society? Cite Daniels and Class discussions. What laws have we read about or discussed which restrict immigration? What groups or law makers did we read about who sought to restrict immigration and why?

MODEL ANSWER

The “Dualistic Attitude,” mentioned in Daniels’ Guarding the Golden Door, simply stated, involves loving our past yet hating our present. Our society seems to have wonderful feelings about our nation’s immigration past. Yet we fell today that our immigration system is “broken,” and often blame today’s immigrants for problems with our economy (they take away “American jobs”) for are cause for national security concerns (many feel that allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. or lax immigration laws correlate with terrorism, for example) Others feel that some immigrants break down the social fabric and contribute to the social ills of our society. Overcrowding in schools, the welfare system, etc. The familiar phrase, “We Are A Nation of Immigrants,” for example is familiar to all, and brings to mind the romanticism we have with our immigration history. In realty, however, the obstacles that many early immigrants faced when first coming to America, whether Chinese or Irish, for example, have been severe. Past immigrants faced tremendous prejudice and discrimination in society, and the inscriptions on Statute of Liberty, for example, has been an oxymoron.

Many laws described in Daniels [any laws discriminating against early immigrants is acceptable here] were enacted simply to exclude certain immigrant groups from enjoying certain privileges enjoyed by other immigrant groups or U.S. citizens, discussing the value system of early immigrants, yet we know certain immigrant groups were discriminated against and treated unfairly. Laws and polices were passed severely limiting...(describe or cite examples from Daniels here).

Based on Rivera’s HIS PANIC,(1) define Chicano, Hispanic, and Latino.
What are the differences, according to Mr. Rivera between these terms. Why
are they relevant, according to Mr. Rivera?(2) Would the La Unica Grocery
store/restaurant be considered a Latino, Chicano or Latino establishment?(3)
Back up your answer using the definitions you just provided above.

MODEL ANSWER/OUTLINE:

(1) Any reference to Spain is acceptable for Hispanic, Latino any reference to Central and South America. For Chicano, any reference to Rivera's use of the term and Mexicans is acceptable. For La Unica, any conclusion is acceptable whether Latino or Hispanic or Chicano as long as it is backed up with logical conclusions [i.e, its Chicano because most of its cusomers are from Mexico or the owner is Mexican or former owner Cuban therefore a Latino establishment--or a combination of the two based on Rivera definition. Alternatively, you must state that it cannot be defined as it doesnt fit into Rivera's definition--but you must support your conclusion by providing the definition given by Rivera and contrast it with your own analysis].

(C) (1) What was the “family business” for the Ks in the film? (2) What ethnic
group was the family from? What country? (3) Compare other past immigrant
groups from Daniels and those today and what jobs, if any, are some
immigrants “associated with.” (4) Are there stereotypes? Is that a liability or
an asset for them, and why? Is that fair? What other immigrant groups have
had similar or different job associations? Compare other myths, realties and
implications of associating the Chinese with railroad workers, or the Irish with
saloons or law enforcement, Latino landscapers, Germans (and farming), etc.
or pick your own immigrant group. (5) What were some of the stereotypes of
yesterday’s immigrants in Avalon and today’s immigrant groups? (6) Can you
truly associate a job with a certain ethnic group? (7) Is that fair? What are
some of the implications for these immigrants, both positive and negative.

(A) In what way (1) did Avalon demonstrate how some immigrant families pooled
money together for other newly arriving family members to America?
Provide an example from the film. (2) Did that change for later arriving
family members to America? Do today’s immigrants provide financial
support or any support for other family members coming to America? In what
way? (3) What comments does Geraldo Rivera make in HIS PANIC about
immigrant families? (4) What are some similarities between his comments
about “family” and examples seen in Avalon?

2008-09-10T19:23:00.041-05:00

This past week we watched the first half of Avalon, and then fast forwarded to a present day immigration issue in America: Biometrics. Our guest speaker from the FBI who spoke to us about the use of biometrics, I must say, served as an eye opener. As a group, we must seriously consider its growing use in the United States, as it is likely to replace other security measures such as online passwords or PIN numbers...

Our speaker lauded its use. And he certainly may be correct. There is no doubt that the use of biometrics has assisted in the arrest of many criminal aliens. As our guest speaker noted, the impartialty of the data obtained certainly avoids certain potential stereotypes. Many of these sterotypes joined with the use of Biometrics--unfortunately-- as we will read about-- have been used to profile certain immigrants in law enforcement operations ("Special Registration" of Mostly Muslim non-immigrants). Our guest speaker has been in the trenches, and it may have been difficult at times speaking to an audience like you. As he said, he often deals chiefly with suspected criminal aliens or suspected terrorists. He has no doubt been hardened with the very harsh reality that many individuals wish to come to the U.S. to harm us. He is on the front lines, so to speak, attempting to fight for our right to express ourselves freely. I don't think he (or most of us) would disagree with that.

The American Bar Association, on the other hand, is very, very concerned with the use of immigrant racial profiling. And the use of Biometrics has been a part of certain unfortunate chapters in our recent American jurisprudence. We will soon read about them.

As noted by the ABA on its website, there has no doubt been unfortunate use of racial profiling in the immigration context, as the ABA summarizes important events, legal and otherwise here:

"In stark contrast to the prohibited use of race profiling in criminal law enforcement, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1975 that "Mexican appearance" constitutes a legitimate consideration under the Fourth Amendment for stopping a person to verify his or her immigration status. (See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975).) Such race profiling in immigration enforcement disproportionately burdens persons of Latin American ancestry, the vast majority of whom are U.S. citizens or lawful immigrants. The harms range from embarrassing and humiliating the persons stopped to undermining the status of all Latinos in U.S. society. Race-based immigration enforcement contributes to the fact that 90 percent of the people deported from the country are of Latin American origin (U.S. Dep't of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, "INS Sets New Removals Record," Nov. 12, 1999), when only about one-half of the undocumented population is Latino. (U.S. Dep't of Justice, 1998 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 240 (2000) (Table I).) This helps reinforce and perpetuate the erroneous stereotype that all Latinos are "foreigners."

In United States v. Montero-Camargo (208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disregarded the contrary language in Brignoni-Ponce and held that the Border Patrol cannot lawfully consider "Hispanic appearance" in deciding to make an immigration stop. The court based its holding on that fact that "Hispanic appearance" is a weak proxy for immigration status. It also relied on the fact that under the current interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that all racial classifications are constitutionally suspect. (See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (invalidating a program using racial classifications in an effort to increase government contracting with minority businesses).)

The Lawfulness of Race Profiling in Immigration Law Enforcement
In Brignoni-Ponce (422 U.S. 873, 885-87 (1975)), the Supreme Court held that an immigration stop by the Border Patrol violated the Fourth Amendment because Border Patrol officers relied exclusively on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of an automobile. The Court further stated, however, that "[t]he likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor" in an immigration stop (emphasis added)."

It is this constant give and take that we must be aware. There is no doubt that under our "social contract" we may give up certain liberties to have other, much more important ones--but what about the risk of overreaching by the government. Our government, like corporations, is run by human beings. No one is perfect. The concern of an Orwellian type of abuse--at least potentially--may always be there in anytype of pervasive constant "monitoring" system--whether that be video cameras on intersections or fingerprinting (or photographing, retinal scanning) of immigrants.

Also, in March of 2008, for example, the alleged (by Congress) widespread abuse of the FBI's authority to secretly obtain Americans' telephone, internet and financial records drew pointed questioning from a key U.S. House of Representatives panel.

As promised by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel "chided" U.S. Department of Justice Glenn Fine and FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni about an internal audit released publically that detailed the FBI's missteps and illegal use of an investigative tool known as "national security letters".

"The department has converted this tool into a handy shortcut to illegally gather vast amounts of private information," Conyers said, "while at the same time significantly under-reporting its activities to Congress."

That being said, I think some of your comments about the future use of biometrics was well taken.

I leave you with this image: Does it have any relevance to last week's discussion? Does the imgage reflect some of your concerns with the use of Biometrics?

See you next week...

Micah said,

(all of the above said...)
One of the dangers inherent in this technology, as with many other state-of-the-art devices used in similar ways, is that because it is considered so cutting edge, it is seen as foolproof. And because it can deliver its results instantaneously, legal action (such as deportation) can be undertaken extremely quickly, before a case can be really examined as it should be.

I am not sure this speaks to the question of constitutionality, but this technology also seems to be the latest in a string of measures that criminalizes everyone whether or not we have ever committed crimes or ever will commit crimes. And since the technology is being used in particular on immigrant groups, it will be unfairly and disproportionately used to gather data on immigrant groups... thus treating all members of racial groups traditionally associated with immigrant status in this country (e.g. Latinos and Asians) as suspect, as potential undocumented immigrants. To me, it seems destined to be used in a way that smacks strongly of racial profiling.

Micah

Nikki said...

I agree with Micah, that this technology could cause more problems and raise more concerns then it would help; like gathering data and being used as a census and racial profiling. It seems all too easy of a solution or "goal of safer America" (20).. Relying too heavily on something like this can cause tremendous problems, and as mentioned in the article, "technology is not perfect" (10). Although they are working to improve certain faulty areas, especially with facial recognition, it still seems like these kind of errors can still occur and will never be completely certain with 100 percent accuracy, that a person entering the US is in fact a terrorist.

1:36 PM

Aida said...

I do not see anything wrong with biometrics if it can prevent or at least dissuade terrorists or criminals in general from entering a country. I had to get a biometric passport to come to the United States and I had no problem with that.
I am much more concerned by the fact that after 9/11 some people such as politicians or the media have taken advantage of the situation by playing on the voters’ fear and came to equate illegals with potential terrorists. It seems to me that passing repressive bills on immigrants or building a wall are not very efficient ways to fight against terrorism… Geraldo Rivera makes a good point when he says that “The Saudi Arabian attackers had all entered the United States legally and then overstayed their legally obtained tourist visas” (p.115). So in the case of criminals trying to enter the country, I think that biometrics is definitely useful.
And as far as civil liberties are concerned, I am more comfortable with the idea of having my fingerprints and picture entered in a database than with the fact that the FBI can search my telephone, email and financial records under the Patriot Act.

5:44 PM

2008-09-08T12:17:00.024-05:00

This week begins our third week and there will be a slight change to our course-material schedule, due to one of our guest speaker's scheudling requests. As such, for next week's Rivera reading assignment, •GERALDO, Chapter 6, “Importing Terror” (Week 4 reading assignment) will be due before next week's class. Please review the syllabus for clarification or email me directly. Please also read pp. 6-16 of the PDF email handout, "Biometrics."

This week we will be be viewing the flim, Avalon. At our the break, however, we will be meeting with one of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's supervisory agents in the global inititives unit, "T.L." (We will resume our viewing of Avalon the following week).

FBI Special Agent L____'s presentation will give much illumination to last week's discussion of immigration and terrorism in the United States. His presention will also encompass border issues, global security, immigarion and terrroist issues, and "BIOMETRICS," the U.S. government's use of fingerprinting immigrants--and "other" technology to monitor immigrants inside America (and globally).

Aside from the PDF hand out on Biometrics, there are some things you should know about Biometrics and Immigration in the U.S. How biometric identification works, in sum, is as follows:

Several basic steps are required to make biometric information—our personal physiological features--useful in a contemporary security context.

First, "our" data must be collected as a reference. That's me and you. In order to "catch" a suspected member of a terrorist network, for example, one must compile or collect this information in advance.

That fingerprint, retinal scan, or "facial characteristic map" must first be on record so that it can be used as a reference when the suspected criminal tries to make it through an airport or cross a country border.

State of the art computer programs then use established algorithms to cycle very quickly through their entire collection of references to find a match. If the person crossing the border matches an existing reference at an extremely high threshold, for example, and that reference is for a suspected criminal, then the biometric system has done its job. What are some of the inherent problems with this sort of system? Courld it endanger any constitutionally protected rights? What, if anything, can be done to ensure privacy, for example?

Also, to those who particpated in the blog assignment last week, your thougtful comments are well taken. Well done! Finally, please see below for the Avalon Film Study Guide.

See you next week...

Christopher W. Helt, Esq.

Micah said,

(all of the above said...)
One of the dangers inherent in this technology, as with many other state-of-the-art devices used in similar ways, is that because it is considered so cutting edge, it is seen as foolproof. And because it can deliver its results instantaneously, legal action (such as deportation) can be undertaken extremely quickly, before a case can be really examined as it should be.

I am not sure this speaks to the question of constitutionality, but this technology also seems to be the latest in a string of measures that criminalizes everyone whether or not we have ever committed crimes or ever will commit crimes. And since the technology is being used in particular on immigrant groups, it will be unfairly and disproportionately used to gather data on immigrant groups... thus treating all members of racial groups traditionally associated with immigrant status in this country (e.g. Latinos and Asians) as suspect, as potential undocumented immigrants. To me, it seems destined to be used in a way that smacks strongly of racial profiling.

Micah

nh said...

I agree with Micah, that this technology could cause more problems and raise more concerns then it would help; like gathering data and being used as a census and racial profiling. It seems all too easy of a solution or "goal of safer America" (20).. Relying too heavily on something like this can cause tremendous problems, and as mentioned in the article, "technology is not perfect" (10). Although they are working to improve certain faulty areas, especially with facial recognition, it still seems like these kind of errors can still occur and will never be completely certain with 100 percent accuracy, that a person entering the US is in fact a terrorist.

1:36 PM

Aida said...

I do not see anything wrong with biometrics if it can prevent or at least dissuade terrorists or criminals in general from entering a country. I had to get a biometric passport to come to the United States and I had no problem with that.
I am much more concerned by the fact that after 9/11 some people such as politicians or the media have taken advantage of the situation by playing on the voters’ fear and came to equate illegals with potential terrorists. It seems to me that passing repressive bills on immigrants or building a wall are not very efficient ways to fight against terrorism… Geraldo Rivera makes a good point when he says that “The Saudi Arabian attackers had all entered the United States legally and then overstayed their legally obtained tourist visas” (p.115). So in the case of criminals trying to enter the country, I think that biometrics is definitely useful.
And as far as civil liberties are concerned, I am more comfortable with the idea of having my fingerprints and picture entered in a database than with the fact that the FBI can search my telephone, email and financial records under the Patriot Act.

5:44 PM

2008-08-28T02:33:00.027-05:00

WE CONCLUDED OUR FIRST CLASS SESSION with a discussion of why one wants to "Come to America" e.g., emigrate to the United States permanently.

Can you think of other reasons why someone would want to emigrate permanently to the United States?

We also discussed how immigration laws generally, are creatures of politics and economics---and are not always based upon sound judgement or common sense, for that matter. Why is this so? You certainly will hear me state this numerous times throughout the semester. Is my statement consistent with your reading this week of Daniels? Geraldo? I also mentioned how 9/11 has impacted U.S. immigration policy and public sentiment towards immigrants. Is there a direct correlation between terrorism and immigration?

Additionally, we discussed the four (4) ways in which one can obtain lawful permanent residency (and someday United States Citizenship), via: (1) a family sponsor; (2) job sponsor; (3) political asylum; (3) the visa lottery. (There are a few exceptions such as the amnesty program of the 1980s for example, or if one is here without lawful authorization (here "illegally") for 10 years and has a green card or citizen family member and must be in removal ("deportation") proceedings). How do you feel about these 4 ways? Should there be any others? Are there too many? Is this a fair and reasoned approach to allowing one to "come to America"? And for those who come to the United States on a temporary basis--on non-immigrant or "NIV" visas--we discussed how they are similar to a frog on slowly sinking lily pad...

Finally, we discussed how the road to a "green card" (or lawful permanent residency) never leads down the NIV path. Why is this so? Should it? Should a student studying here later obtaining a degree in the United States be permitted to stay here and someday become a U.S. Citizen? Why or Why not? What are some of the inherent problems of telling someone to pack their bags, take their cap and gown and leave the United States immediately--after living here, studying here (sometimes) for many years?

---Christopher Helt

Aida said...

Of course immigration laws are creatures of politics and economics. And it seems to me that perhaps they are first creatures of economics before being that of politics.
Let’s take the example of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
When Chinese immigrants first came to the United States to work for the transcontinental railroad, they were welcome and employers were happy to have a cheap labor force. But then as Daniels puts it in chapter one, the “completion of the Union-Central Pacific Railroad […] in 1869 threw some 10,000 Chinese railroad builders onto the California labor market and pushed the Chinese immigration issue to the top of western workingmen’s political agenda” (p.12).

Another example is given on pages 16 and 17 when in June 1870, 75 Chinese workmen came to Massachusetts to replace striking shoemakers who happened to be members of a union. As a result, the National Labor Union changed its policy about immigration arguing that “the presence in [the] country of Chinese laborers in large numbers is an evil… and should be prevented by legislation”.

In both cases, it was first an economic issue, American workers feeling threatened by Chinese ones. Then it became political with the intervention of the unions or other lobbying groups. Finally, legislation was enacted.

And as we said in class last time, whenever there is a recession (as it was later the case during the Great Depression) the scapegoats are immigrants. So, for me immigration laws are first and foremost creatures of economics.

Teresa said...

This summer, I worked with middle school students in a school enrichment program. One boy, at the beginning of the summer, had a hard time getting along with the other kids. He could be considered to be “strange” as he liked Pokemon and Dungeons and Dragons more than football or poker. Kids, in response to his level of being different, were mean to him. He struggled emotionally and psychologically. In the middle of the summer, however, he began to shift his placement on the social ladder. He began to find a place within a group of other boys. This newfound empowerment gave him the supposed right to be mean to another boy on the outskirts of “cool.” He had achieved his placement and could now further ostracize others who were without higher social placement. I struggled with this event. I asked him what it felt like when kids called him names or didn’t include him. Did he not think this other boy was feeling similar feelings he once felt? He could not seem to grasp the concept.

As I did the readings for this week, I realized immigration law in the United States is similar to the story of the boy. Noncitizen immigrants are always going to be the scapegoat for problems until they achieve citizenship. Those on top have to keep people on bottom in order to maintain their superiority. Those who were once discriminated against become those who speak out against immigration. Geraldo Rivera writes about signs of discrimination which existed against immigrant groups. The Irish who once could see signs on businesses saying “Positively No Irish Need Apply” later became government officials in political and economic power who sought to further limit immigration on other ethnic groups. Is this logical? No. Immigration laws fluctuate with the rise and fall of the economy and the current state of political affairs.

The best way to keep an ethnic group or an immigrant minority on the bottom of the social ladder is through the weapon of fear. This explains the direct correlation between terrorism and immigration. If we fear and hate immigrants because they are responsible for terrorist attacks on the United States, then the white privilege of the United States can be maintained. Those who are safe, with the insurance of their citizenship, feel free to judge and accuse those who are not safe, without the proper papers of registration or a different skin color. As a nation largely comprised of immigrants, how do we fail to see our own often personal roots in immigration? How do we become a land of diversity strong with various immigrant roots and not a land where “It should be legal to kill illegals” (Rivera 32) or “This is the USA, don’t fuck with us” (Rivera 33).

dlewis1 said...
By virtue of the Constitution providing Congress the power and responsibility of determining naturalization laws, the political process determines immigration policies. By nature of our political process being shaped by more often by self and not social interests, economics plays a key role in shaping the political processes determining immigration policies. Daniels details how manipulation by political agendas and trade regulations created immigration policies and current problems. Anti-immigration legislation was born in administrations such as Adams’ who attempted to “keep out” those who might support his political opponents while continuing to support self-interests such as the forced immigration of slaves (pg. 7). Later anti-immigration legislation focused on keeping those out deemed to be “undesirable” due to their race or ethnicity, perceived threat to economic status, or assumed ability to assimilate in American culture. Daniels’ history of immigration policies was supported by Geraldo’s book. Additionally, Geraldo discusses immigration policies on a social level, depicting anti-immigration supporters/hate groups as being often misinformed, usually racially insensitive and always divisive who’s passionate but misguided stance is to protect homes, families, jobs and the American way of life.

nh said...
In reply to the paragraph on fear above...
I remember going to a guest speaker a few years ago that talked about immigration and the fear embedded in Americans. This has been analyzed through many advertisements about the crossing over Illegal immigrants from the mexican border. Many say, we are scared they are going to steal our jobs and money. We feel very insecure, and are scared of change and not proud to be a nation full of diversity. Rivera states that it is, "fear of America's changing face" (6). I enjoy the challenge that Rivera offers, as he states that many people who put down immigration and the change for immigration laws, are in fact, families of immigrants, too.

Also in response to the question of students studying in the US...should this lead to citizenship? This is a very complicated issue, because a person studying here for many years and devoting much time and energy learning about a subject matter in a language, probably not of their first, should not have to pack their bags and get right out of the US. I think that after their higher education is completed they should have the opportunity to apply for citizenship having met certain criteria (that of which I don't know) and if they can not become a citizen, I don't think that they should be allowed to stay or extend their visa.

Michael said...
I just got back from spending the year studying abroad in the south of France. As a part time English tutor, I made a quite a few Euros in order to make ends meet; the Euro/Dollar ratio was not in my favor. I found that not only was English teaching in high demand and well paid, but that I could multiply the number of Euros I had earned by about 1.6 and have that many more in dollars. From my standpoint, I could find myself in a very comfortable position if I were to earn my wages in Euros, and, perhaps, begin paying off student loans with the dollar weakened as it is.

I quite enjoy France and French culture, and would not be against the idea of spending more time there. However, my motivations are more or less based on the financial edge that the strong European economy and the world’s drive to learn English give me in this situation. Should I choose to move and spend my days in France, I would have to accept that I was an expatriate and a foreign immigrant to a new country who came for economic advantages. I would be in the same position as an unskilled Hispanic laborer, yet having followed a different path to get there.

Based on this personal experience, I understand for the first time the allure of opportunity that a foreign land can offer economically, and can only begin to imagine the drive of those who are actually in desperate need of it. Should France ban me from her country, so be it, she’s French; should America close her doors to those seeking a better life, she would be turning her back on those who shaped her history.

Kip Young said...
While we place a large emphasis on immigration control and restriction, when looking at immigration issues in "immigrant nations" (Lynch) it is just as important to examine immigration laws and policies that encourage immigration. The United States has a long history of attempting to open and close it's doors to immigration without understanding the impact on immigrant populations and the effects it will have beyond national borders. The United States not only tries to restrict the flow of new immigrants, but also has the tendency to deport immigrants regardless of their citizenship status, the contribution they have made, the impact that such an action will have on that individual or the global issues it raises with geopolitics.

While at the same time, the United States has targeted specific nations or groups of people with policies that encourage their migration to the United States. A good example of this is the history of immigration policy directed toward immigration flows from Mexico. The policy of the United States has shifted from opening the borders with policies like the Bracero program (or the "guest worker" program that Bush Administration is promoting) to ending those programs and restricting the flow from of migrants from Mexico.

I challenge everyone to look also at the policies that encourage immigration to the United States, beginning with the Homestead Act of 1862. By looking at these laws and policies, we gain a greater understand of which groups are invited and encouraged to come, the racial dynamics of the laws and policies the United States has pursued, and the broader goals that the United States has attempted to fulfill with it's immigration policies.

anna said...
In the 2008 election, there are several hot topics that have caused arguments not just on capital hill, but also around the dinner tables of millions of people living in the US. Should the US withdraw troops from Iraq? How should my tax dollars be spent? How will we be able to afford our home? Should undocumented workers be welcomed to the US workforce? No matter what argument is given, many of these topics are tightly knit together by US concerns over economics.

As argued by both Daniels and Rivera (and Teresa), the public’s opinion is easily swayed by a fear that is fed by publicity-seeking people such as Lou Dobbs or the Minutemen. In the case of immigration, fear is aimed in several (illogical) directions. People are afraid of another September 11th and therefore are afraid of Middle Eastern immigrants. People are afraid of losing their jobs and therefore are afraid of those who are perceived to have taken them- immigrants, especially Latino immigrants. People are afraid of raising taxes and therefore will blame higher costs on “freeloader” immigrants taking advantage of American social programs.

What is most disturbing about this fear-turned-hatred is its historical roots. Not only has this been happening for decades in regards to immigration, it has been repeating itself among various so called “economic burdens on society,” ranging from single mothers to people with disabilities to those who are on welfare. Instead of looking at why someone needs welfare or is forced to stay on welfare, people write off the entire group as being lazy or taking advantage of taxpayers. Those who disagree with immigration rarely look at how the US has contributed to immigration with poor international policy or unequal economic policies such as NAFTA and the maquiladoras of Latin America. We recognize other countries’ roles through our policy of asylum, but disregard how the US has contributed to economic disparities or international conflicts.

This economically based fear has several negative consequences on immigration law/policy. Stereotypes essentialize and generalize entire groups of people, leading to a similar effect in policy. As was shown in letters to Rivera, many US citizens see immigrants as one monolithic group that needs to be deported or shot. While I (being a “white person”) can easily choose to ignore or embrace my Irish heritage while still being called American, many immigrants do not realistically have this option (the Rivera family included.) No matter how long they have lived or studied in the US, they will always be Mexican, Muslim, Israeli, etc. Because of racist views, they are forced into sometimes illogical classifications with which they do not identify. Similarly in policy, entire groups of people are boiled down into four supposedly neat categories. These categories leave little room for the wide array of nationalities, family types, political beliefs, motivations, etc that exist within immigrants. Politicians must appease their constituents so as to keep their jobs and thus begins a vicious cycle of exclusion and illogical policies. When policy is based on illogical anxiety, it will never be just.

Diana Guelespe said...
In response to the statement about economics coming before politics in the case of immigration, I disagree and think that if we look at the reasons why people of some countries are legally allowed to enter the U.S. at higher rates than people from other countries you can see it is for political reasons. I don’t negate the idea that immigrants come to the U.S. to earn higher wages and make a better life for their families, but from my point of view, the U.S. has also implemented certain policies that make life in other countries more difficult, thus leading to a decision to migrate.

An example would be the different policies the U.S. had for allowing Central Americans to enter the U.S. during their ongoing civil wars. During the 1980’s, the countries of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala were each engulfed in civil wars. The U.S. supported the military governments of El Salvador and Guatemala by sending over 1 million dollars a day in foreign aid, over a 10 year period. However, when the immigrants from those countries began to flee, the U.S. government did not grant them political refugee status and stated they were fleeing for economic reasons. In Nicaragua, the U.S. was trying to topple the Sandanista government which it claimed was communist and granted immigrants arriving from that country political refugee status. The point is that it was in the U.S.’s political interest to accept immigrants from a certain country and not others with similar circumstances, because it could claim to be fighting the war against communism, which in the 80’s was important due to the cold war.

AnnaW said...

It seems to me that as a nation founded by immigrants, the United States would hold the door open for newcomers who come to her looking for shelter, opportunity, or family. Yet the history of the immigration policy of this country does not reflect an ‘open door’ mentality, but rather that of an ‘open door when it is convenient’ policy. I think that immigration laws are indeed a creature of politics and economics
Something that struck me while I was reading Guarding the Golden Door was that although President Theodore Roosevelt seemed to create thought-out, and well meaning immigration laws (as in the case of the Japanese), he did not include everyone in these laws (namely, the Chinese). In his 1905 speech to Congress he “seemed to embrace the old pro-immigrant consensus” (Daniels, 42), and said “it is unwise to depart from the old American tradition and to discriminate for or against any man who desires to come here and become a citizen, save on the ground of that man’s fitness for citizenship…”. It is remarkable to note, however, that after this statement he continued to discriminate against Chinese laborers. Was he only admitting Japanese immigrants because he was afraid of Japan’s rising power and wanted to stay on it’s ‘good side’? This would prove that immigration laws are creatures of politics.

Aida said...

Diana, I just wanted to clarify something. I realized that maybe I had not been clear enough because you said : "I don’t negate the idea that immigrants come to the U.S. to earn higher wages and make a better life for their families". When I said that economics prevailed over politics, I was referring to immigration laws/policy and not to the reasons why should one want to emigrate to the US.

2:51 PM

tmanriq said...

Coming from the country that has the largest number of immigrants living in the United States it is very clear that the immigration policy of the U.S.A is a creature of economics and politics. Talking from my own experience most of my family members (including my own parents) would go back to Mexico if they could find a good job. In this respect the United States blames Mexico for not creating enough jobs for its citizens and therefore having many issues about immigration between the two countries.

In return Mexico claims that it was the United States, like it was mentioned in the previous blog entry, who first started looking for Mexican workers and till now employers from various companies still hire illegal Mexican workers. This process is known as the push-pull theory, because Mexico pushes its people away, while it is said that in general in return the U.S.A pulls these people in. This push-pull theory further proves that immigration, like it was said in class, is a creature of economics and politics.

Furthermore I have heard many times from people living on both side of the border that neither Mexico city nor Washington D.C really know what happens on the border and they claimed that the border is a separate country from the Unites States. Having passed the southern border a couple of times I have seen how kids from Mexico go to school in the United States and by the end of the day they go back to their houses in Mexico. Or how U.S citizens go to Mexico for business purposes across the border and go back to their homes in Texas.

3:17 PM

tmanriq said...

Coming from the country that has the largest number of immigrants living in the United States it is very clear that the immigration policy of the U.S.A is a creature of economics and politics. Talking from my own experience most of my family members (including my own parents) would go back to Mexico if they could find a good job. In this respect the United States blames Mexico for not creating enough jobs for its citizens and therefore having many issues about immigration between the two countries.

In return Mexico claims that it was the United States, like it was mentioned in the previous blog entry, who first started looking for Mexican workers and till now employers from various companies still hire illegal Mexican workers. This process is known as the push-pull theory, because Mexico pushes its people away, while it is said that in general in return the U.S.A pulls these people in. This push-pull theory further proves that immigration, like it was said in class, is a creature of economics and politics.

Furthermore I have heard many times from people living on both side of the border that neither Mexico city nor Washington D.C really know what happens on the border and they claimed that the border is a separate country from the Unites States. Having passed the southern border a couple of times I have seen how kids from Mexico go to school in the United States and by the end of the day they go back to their houses in Mexico. Or how U.S citizens go to Mexico for business purposes across the border and go back to their homes in Texas.

3:31 PM

anna said...

RE: Diana's entry

"The point is that it was in the U.S.’s political interest to accept immigrants from a certain country and not others with similar circumstances, because it could claim to be fighting the war against communism, which in the 80’s was important due to the cold war."

Some would claim, however, that even those political reasons (the fight against communism) were based in economics (trying to maintain control over resources, governments, etc so as to advance US business.) If the US took immigrants from those countries, they would have had to recognize that those dictators were indeed wrong/unjust/cruel/corrupt and that the US was involved. I agree that this is horrific in light of the human rights abuses the US has committed in those countries (both via supporting harsh governments as well as via creating maquiladoras and other corrupt/cruel business practices.)But I wouldnt say that politics and economics can be divided.

4:05 PM

fm37181 said...

The United States is known historically as a country in which people of various cultures have found a 'home', a place where people can earn a decent living and enjoy from various types of liberties. Being a country of immigrants, does not necessarily mean that the process of immigrating to the United States is a smooth one. The influx of new people into the United States has been resented by the people who have already lived in the country for some generations. As Geraldo Rivera states the behavior of assimilated citizens, "(there is a) tendency in this country to want to burn the immigrant bridge as soon as your particular crew has come in over it" (Rivera 6). As unjust as it sounds, this has been the case with groups such as the Irish, the Japanese, the Italians, and is now the case with Latinos. As a Latino, particularly a Mexican, it appears to me that there are two principal reasons for the negative sentiments felt/ directed towards my ethnic group. First, I think that the opinion that Mexicans are working the jobs that Americans would work is erroneous. Americans who oppose the Mexican labor, resent the fact that Mexicans send the money they earn here to their hometowns in Mexico. In their eyes, there is no real contribution to the economy, which is a mistake since they represent the majority of manual labor in many industries. Second, Americans who oppose immigration of more Mexicans fear an 'invasion of culture'. As more and more Mexicans come, the need for them to speak English is becoming minimal. The above events are factual and need to be taken/ understood from a humanitarian perspective. Furthermore they convey that immigration laws are economic - based and political - based.

4:09 PM

bosslet said...

Back to the discussion of Ramos...it is clear that the issue Oreilly was trying to address was the prevalence and existence of these sanctuary cities in the more liberal areas of America. Geraldo's point of view was more on the side that the issue is that the terrible accident that occurred is not the result of the cities defacto or dejure status as a sanctuary city. In my opinion it is a bit of a shame that the issue of sanctuary cities was sidetracked to discuss the connection between the drunk driving incident it was important for Rivera to indicate that the connection is very indirect if existent at all. The real tragedy is that we didn't get to hear any commentary about the real issue that should have been discussed in the context which is the issue of sanctuaries themselves, whether cities or communities ought to or should be allowed to legislate or through defacto actions prevent the reporting of illegals to federal agencies.

This ought to have been the issues addressed if any political discourse was desired.

MBazo said...

I personally think that the issue of immigration is a very tricky subject to talk about. It is definitely a heated subject. You can always find people that are pro-immigration and anti-immigration. I think that a lot of the time people don't see the complete picture but rather see a clouded version of what is going on.
It seems that these days our country is not very tolerant when it comes to immigrants. We are so caught up in the fact that this is "our" country not theirs and there is a constant belittlement of immigrants. I think that perhaps at times we forget that our country is the result of immigration.
With that being said, it is very clear that the immigration process in America could use some work.

2008-08-22T10:05:00.013-05:00

Welcome to the immigrationstudies.org Blogsite! Here students of Special Topics: Immigration Policy (SOC) 370, INTS 398, ASIA 397, University faculty, and others interested in this subject can express their views on the great American immigration debate or enhance communication on their course. Some of your comments may be the subject of my lectures. If you have not already done so, please register on blogger.com. This will allow you to post comments on this blogsite!

I also welcome students and faculty to provide commentary, news and/or other information on a particular immigration subject. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to this topic and I welcome immigration-related information. While this blog is primarily textual, I encourage focus on immigration-related photographs (photoblogs), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting) as well.

We are a nation of immigrants and it is important to express constructive viewpoints on this great issue. You are now part of the Great American Debate on Immigration!

For the immigration policy class, please first register and review comments made my me and your classmates.

--Christopher Helt, Esq. Lecturer, Loyola University of Chicago.

2007-04-27T14:04:00.002-05:00

This week was our final class and review session for the final exam Thursday May 3, 2007. Again, I was very impressed with all of your participation in the immigration policy class blogspot. The course had an added element because of your blog opinions and all of you essentially became the Fourth Reading Material for our class. All of you should be very proud!

The student who participated most in this semester's classblog spot is KATE DALTON. She received the overall best performance/participation in the blogspot and should be recognized as such. Congratualtions, Kate, for your outstanding performance! Well done!

THE FINAL EXAM

--CH

2007-04-20T14:21:00.000-05:00

Cynthia this week requested that I place this rally information and her involvement on the class blog spot. Her comments are below:

Cynthia writes:

Please join Amnesty International USA and the Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America as we rally for justice for Guatemala!

Friday, April 20th
11.30am

Guatemalan Consulate
203 N. Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL

This rally is part of an international campaign to bring to justice former Guatemalan General Efraín Ríos Montt, who has been charged with genocide, torture, terrorism, and illegal detention. The campaign emerged in support of the efforts by a group of Guatemalan survivors – led by Nobel laureate Rigoberta Menchú – to file a suit against Ríos Montt in Spain, urging Spain’s courts to exercise jurisdiction over crimes of international concern.

In July 2006, Spain’s National Court issued international warrants for the arrest of Ríos Montt and several other former senior officials. As Guatemala’s courts review Spain’s request for Ríos Montt’s extradition, complainants, lawyers, judges, witnesses and local human rights organizations are coming under mounting pressure and intimidation. It is a critical time to let the Guatemalan authorities know that the world is watching.

I thouht it important towards immigration because so many Guatemalans fled to the United States and Canada because of the Civil War and more specifically the "scorch earth program" that Rios Montt was responsible for. During his de facto presidency complete villages were destroyed and several refugees took to the north. Most of them applied for political asylum and fixed their immigration status thru that method and most recently NACARA. So, thats why I thought it was important.

--Cynthia Mazariegos

2007-04-15T21:00:00.000-05:00

THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT.....It is with this familar saying that we turn our discussion of the immigration policy toward another immigrant group in the United States: The Japanese during World War II. We see that contemporary programs, as part of today's War on Terror, (such as the NSEERS "Special Registration" Program,) have similarities with the internment program of persons living in the U.S. of Japesnese ancestry, discussed in Chapter 4 of Ngai, was really the first program of its kind in the U.S. discriminating against immigrants during wartime.

"Japanese American Internment" as it was called, was the forced removal of approximately 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans (62 percent of whom were United States citizens)from the U.S. West Coast during World War II. While approximately 10,000 were able to relocate to other parts of the country, the remainder – roughly 110,000 men, women and children – were sent to hastily constructed camps called "War Relocation Centers" in remote portions of the nation's interior. It is clearly one of the most shameful times in our nation's history.

Decades laster, On August 10, 1988 the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. On November 21, 1989, George H.W. Bush signed an appropriation bill authorizing payments to be paid out between 1990 and 1998 to survivors. In 1990, surviving internees began to receive individual redress payments and a letter of apology.

2007-04-05T14:59:00.000-05:00

I was very impressed by your discussions this week (There were 10 students who particpated in the class blogspot this week), partly for the manner in which you articulated yourselves, but mostly because you were all able to raise some very key issues surrounding "illegal" immigration, discussed in Ngai: Foreign policy, culture, Racism, oppression of women, the difficulties of immigration processes, the international economic system, political oppression, and misconceptions made by the American people and through the American media. These are all complex issues, and you seem to be asking very appropriate and necessary questions.

I enjoyed Meagan’s comments because she pinpointed one of the major frustrations regarding illegal immigration, which is how polarized the views are regarding the issue: illegal is bad, legal is good. She used the terms “Black, white”. There is a reluctance to admit that illegal immigrants have real and valid reasons for coming to U.S. This polarization, this belief in absolutes, or the use of absolute terminology, dismisses the complexity of the issue, and is a notion widely held by the public. This is partly the reason that we have seen so little change in policy since early 1900’s.

Belinda continues this discussion and adds that problems of discriminatory immigration practice frustrates legal immigration. She argues that more focus should be on the corporations who hire illegally, rather than on the individual immigrant.

Cynthia brings up the role that media plays in perpetuating the stereotype.

Cezara’s comments focused on the complexity of illegal immigration. Her argument is that we cannot lump all issues into Immigration, but rather on the processes by which illegal immigrants come to the U.S. She mentions particularly the mistreatment of women, “lapdancers,” adoption, drug trafficking, and emphasizes that though the policies have remained the same, the “the process itself of illegal immigration, from an immigrant perspective, has been greatly transformed.” This post was intuitive in that it necessitates the complexity of the issue, and rejects overt assumptions regarding illegal immigration. She states “The significance of the sex industry rises in the absence of other sources for job, profit and revenue” and goes on to suggest that we fuel the sex industry by not permitting legal forms of revenue to reach these women.

Kate brings up the point that illegal immigrants are not coming to the U.S. from the 50 poorest countries, but rather from countries that are already connected economically to the United States. This is an important issue, she argues because “Framing Mexican immigrants as desperate criminals diverts attention away from the fact that NAFTA has had some seriously negative consequences on the Mexican economy.” (Though she doesn’t say this, she raises questions of Responsibility. As an economic superpower, do we have the right to dabble in other economies, without accept the repercussions of our own actions?)

Cynthia touches on this by stating, “What I am advocating is that the United States just reverse initiatives it has currently implemented in other nations that have proven to only worsen the economy of other nations or that has allowed for an authoritative government to continue to rule.” This is also a question of responsibility.

Julie points out that economic stability in other countries would force the U.S. to increase costs and wages for outsourced work. Yet, it is that instability that is a cause for illegal immigration. She also points out (and I agree with her) that Americans would probably still take issue with too many “legal” immigrants. Though she doesn’t say this, she raises the point that Racism is a major part of this debate, though it hides behind the guise of “illegal”. She also points out that illegal workers may boost our economy, because they work without the right for fair wages, unionization, or benefits.

Cuitlahuac emphasizes political oppression and the issues of culture. He also touches on racism, stating “The “Foreignness” concept illustrates the perverted mind-set that pervades and permeated mainstream America. Relations of domination and control attempt to legitimize or hide these xenophobic beliefs. Images of “them” appeals to the deep-rooted racism that is ingrained in many Americans from centuries ago.”

Racheal Deeds wraps up the discussion by referring back to the notion that legal immigration isn’t necessarily the solution, simply because “illegal” immigration isn’t the problem. She states, “All immigrants have been scapegoats for economic and political issues throughout the history of America from the Germans and the Irish to the Itialians and the Greeks and now the Muslims and the Mexicans, all scapegoats regardless of their legal status. The fear goes deeper that just jobs; it's a fear about the changes that take place in our culture.” She also raises questions about international economic stability, “if we stopped exploiting those countries…who would we make money off of? How could we stay on top if there's nobody at our feet?”

For next week's class, we will focus on recent developments in Congress concerning the GUEST WORKER PROGRAM (proposed).

2007-03-26T09:20:00.000-05:00

Georgiann Leads off this week's Class Blog and she writes:

I believe the saying goes, No matter how much things change, they seem to remain the same.

This can easily be said for the United States on immigration policy as it relates to Mexico. We have discussed in class some of the measures currently being discussed to diffuse the topic of illegal immigrants. Such as building a fence, making every one legal as they stand in the U.S. today, renewable temporary work permits, security and health checks, pay a fine and become legal, they take jobs from citizens, they lower the wage scale, etc. These are exactly the same options and concerns tossed about from our readings going back to the 1930s 1950s as they relate to illegal immigrants.

The Bracero Program, according to the Truman Commission, said that this government sponsored contract labor program would eliminate illegal migration bring order to the farm labor market and protect foreign nationals from abuse. This was clearly not the case as with many government programs there were abuses and no money for enforcement. The Bracero Program legally allowed growers to bring in the help they needed from Mexico and pay them below wage even though they were to have a set wage. They allowed the workers to be housed in poor conditions and made them pay for their board and food.

The Filipinos has somewhat the same strife as the Mexican farm worker except they seem to be more willing to strike and use the court system. They also seem to have a few advantages over their Mexican counterparts. The Filipino government looked out for their citizens that came to America. They set up agents in the US, they had a dialog with the US government, and more importantly the US needed their country for military reasons. Although the Philippines were a US territory, they still held some leverage against the US government.

The Filipinos were grouped in with the Chinese; they were excluded from becoming citizens. They tried to argue that of all the Asian groups, they assimilated the best with the American (white) culture. This did not hold up in court. People did not believe that â€œbrownâ€ people could obtain the same intelligence, morality and social characteristics of people. On page 117 of Ngai, there is a quote by Attorney General U. S. Webb, We thank God that only we, the white people, found it first (America) and we want to be protected in our enjoyment of it.

2007-03-21T10:34:00.000-05:00

In Ngai's Illegal Immigration & The Making of Modern America, we turn our attention (South of the U.S. Border) to our nations "undocumented" or "illegal" aliens--persons living in the United States without permission from the U.S. Government. Nagai's focus charts the historical orgins of an "illegal alien" in American law and society and the emergence of illegal immigration as the "central problem" in U.S. Immigration Policy in the twentieth century. As Ngai states,

"what it is about the violation of the nation's sovereign space that produces a different kind of illegal alien and a different valuation of the claims that he or she can make on society? Unauthorized entry, the most common form of illegal immigration since the 1920s, remains vexing for both state and society. Undocumented immigrants are at once welcome and unwelcome: they are woven into the economic fabric of the nation, but as labor that is cheap and disposable. Employed in western and southwestern agriculture during the middle decades of the twentieth century, today illegal immigrants work in every region of the United States, and not only as farmworkers. They also work in poultry factories, in the kitchens of restaurants, on urban and suburban construction crews, and in the homes of middle-class Americans. Marginalized by their position in the lower strata of the workforce and even more so by their exclusion from the polity, illegal aliens might be understood as a caste, unambiguously situated outside the boundaries of formal membership and social legitimacy.

At the same time, illegal immigrants are also members of ethno-racial communities; they often inhabit the same social spaces as their co-ethnics and, in many cases, are members of "mixed status" families. Their accretion engenders paradoxical effects..."

2007-03-15T17:39:00.002-05:00

THIS WEEK, we completed our mid-term examination and listened to our guest speaker, Senior Special Agent Grant Lucas from the Department of Homeland Security.

The following questions and model answers should be reviewed prior to next week's class, as we will review your mid-term answers, discussing chapter 1-3 of Ngai and discuss your book report. See you next Thursday…...

2007-03-04T15:26:00.000-06:00

After concluding Patriot Acts and our mid-term review session, we will resume the course series of guest speakers and have our mid-term examination. Special Agent Grant Lucas, direct from the Department of Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C., will speak to us about the Department’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Branch. Created in March 2003, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the largest investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The agency was created after 9/11, by combining the law enforcement arms of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the former U.S. Customs Service, to “more effectively enforce our immigration and customs laws and to protect the United States against terrorist attacks”.

As ominous as its name sounds, “ICE” does this by targeting undocumented or illegal immigrants. As stated by ICE, this agency’s focus is exact: “[T]he people, money and materials that support terrorism and other criminal activities. ICE is a key component of the DHS ‘layered defense’ approach to protecting the nation…and uphold public safety.”
Note the impact and role that this agency has in addressing society’s concerns on illegal immigration and terrorist threats on U.S. soil.

Please review the prepared questions for Special Agent Lucas prepared by our graduate students and submit your own if you like by email to me. I welcome written questions which will be submitted to Special Agent Lucas from everyone!
The graduate students will compose the questions panel and I will serve as moderator.

MIDTERM REVIEW REMINDER

As a final reminder for our mid-term exam, please review carefully the reading material in Daniels which we covered in the mid-term review session. The historical background, the early American groups which attempted to limit immigration and events in our early immigration history reinforce the premise that immigration policy in the United States in not based on some objective standard, but a “creature” of two concepts or disciplines. Review the Avalon film study guide. Know in detail and provide specific persons (and examples) of the ways in which one “Comes to America” (i.e., immigrant and non-immigrant visas; entering illegally) and the real life examples of them seen in this course (family, job, political asylum, or the visa lottery) and the impact they have on U.S. society in the past and today. As discussed during our review, be able to compare Chapter 3 of We are All Suspects Now with the individuals examined during our class discussions and cite those individuals discussed and those seen in Patriot Acts.

2007-02-15T21:05:00.000-06:00

Can women severely abused also claim protection under U.S. Asylum laws? Under which of the five (5) protected classes we have discussed would they fall under? Commonly referred to amongst immigration litigators as Matter of RA claims (based on the immigration case of Rose Alvarado), the law is still unsettled, and Kimberly mentions a very important and controversial basis for political asylum in her recent blog entry. Many woman asylum seekers are still waiting for final rules and regulations to be released. In the interim, some cases are denied, while other women simply must wait until final regulations are promulgated. Take a look at the gender-asylum timeline and the law as it has developed at http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/documents/cgrs/cgrs_brochure.pdf.

Next week, we will discuss one of the unfortunate chapters in American immigration policy: The "registration" of predominately Muslim male non-immigrants in the United States. Was the policy similar to the Japanese internment camps? Chapter 3, of "We Are All Suspects Now, (Special Registration in Chicago), discusses one community near Loyola University affected by Special Registration. We will learn about other individuals, as registration impacted their lives, in Thirst Films' documentary, Patriot Acts. We will also discuss the USA PATRIOT Act.

See you next week....

2007-02-08T10:36:00.000-06:00

GIVE ME YOUR POOR, YOUR TIRED, YOUR WEAK.....The words at that Statute of Liberty. Lady Liberty stands in New York Harbor to both welcome the travelers, and once was the first thing many immigrants saw when coming to Ellis Island. She's called "Liberty Enlightening the World", and her torch shines forth as a beacon to those arriving, and those still journeying, promising them hope. She's crowned with a diadem of seven spikes, representing the seven oceans of the world, across which her pilgrims travel to reach her, and she carries a plaque with the date July 4, 1776 written on it - the date when our Republic took its first full breath of life. The statement, "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..."Liberty stands, stern and unyielding, the guardian of what we in this country have always held most dear. For this week's lecture, we will finish the film Avalon, and discuss Chapter Five of Daniels, "Admitting Displaced Persons.."

Keep these words in mind when we discuss Refugees, Asylees and learn about the immigration courts in American and the asylum cases of Enes Hadzovic, Farah & Umair Choudry, Kennedy Ugiabe and others...

2007-01-26T08:07:00.000-06:00

"[N]ever underestimate a person's ability to survive..." a profound statement by Cuitlahuac in his blog entry this week! Well said! His observation, made in the context of the success (or failure) of current and future tough immigration laws, often epitomizes the American immigrant's plight--their stuggle for survivial amidst overwhelming obsticles. You will see that in next Thursday's screening of Avalon. You will see it when we cover Asylum and refugee law (one of the "four ways" to obtain a green card in America, generally), and you saw undercurrents of it in the debate on "immigration in a free society" the internet web debate at the University of Louisville last Thursday. Keep in mind this statement when we watch the rest of the debate, especially comments made about the shortcommings of immigrants ("they don't know how to throw away their trash", etc.). Keep this in mind after our discussion of the myths and realities of immigrants "not spending money". Keep in mind also that the benefit branch of the immigration department, Citizenship & Immigration Services (CIS) is entirely fee driven. In otherwords, the agency pays its bills by immigrants! How much does it cost to run that department? Do the immigrant's filing fees really susidize the entire agency?

For this weeks' blog entry, review this material, last week's lecture, and Chapter 3 of Daniels. Offer your summary, critique and commentary!

See you Thursday!

CH

2007-01-24T14:42:00.000-06:00

There were a number of blog entries by your classmates before and after our first immigration policy class last week. Rachael, Julie, and Kate discussed my case with the autistic child, Umair. Was that case merely a way to just bend the asylum rules a little, allowing a sympathetic case get through the seemingly tough asylum rules? Or was the head of the Chicago Asylum office right when he said the case was granted because it met the textbook example of a refugee? How do you think the family is doing today? Is Umair today recieving the treatment he deserves? Has he progressed? Would you be surprised to learn that Umair's brother is a full-time student at Loyola?-- himself living an "American Dream" like Dikembe Mutombo??? (see below)...

Joanna commented about Muslim "speical registration". Keep in mind her comments when we begin our book "We Are All Suspects Now.." and when we watch the documentary, "Patriot Acts." As to the reading due this week, what comparisons can you make with Special Registration and Chapter 2 of the Daniels' book? See also some of my comments, which will be the subject of mid-term or final exam question.

Cezara commented on why immigration is one of the hot topics of the year. A point well taken. I don’t think this class would exist if that were not the case! Immigration certainly is on as many minds of Americans as the war in Iraq. Has it always been that way? Why now? Do you agree with Cezara’s conclusions?
Speaking of these hot immigration topics, Kate commented on President Bush’s state of the union address on January 24, 2007. Here are some of Bush’s comments, as they relate to our class. Take a look:

“Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. (Laughter.) Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth, or the duty to share his blessings with others. He built a brand new hospital in his old hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo a citizen of the United States of America.”

Does this person fit what it commonly referred to as an immigrant attaining the “American Dream?” Offer your comments as to why President Bush choose this individual to use in his example. As to new immigration laws, the big one was his comment about immigration reform. He received a lot of applause from Congress. Here's what Bush said:

“Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology. Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists. (Applause.) We'll enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law. (Applause.) We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. (Applause.) We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. (Applause.) Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.”

Does that mean a new amnesty law is forthcoming? What about the previous amnesty laws/programs in the U.S.? Lorena, last week, mentioned the Bracero program during class. What other recent programs like this have we had? Did they work? If not, why?

See you Thursday!

2006-08-23T06:11:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the immigrationstudies.org Blogsite! Here students of Special Topics: Immigration Policy 370, University faculty, and others interested in this subject can express their views on the great American immigration debate or enhance communication on their course. Some of your comments may be the subject of my lectures.

I welcome students and faculty to provide commentary, news and/or other information on a particular immigration subject. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to this topic and I welcome immigration-related information. While this blog is primarily textual, I encourage focus on immigration-related photgraphs (photoblogs), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting) as well.

We are a nation of immigrants and it is important to express constructive viewpoints on this great issue.

For the immigration policy class, please first register and review comments made my me and your classmates.

--Christopher Helt, Esq. Lecturer, Loyola University of Chicago.