Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race

By: *Kayla Butz

Blog Category: Immigration

The Secretary of Homeland Security recently announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which will defer removal action for non-citizen children of illegal immigrants for two years if the applicant meets certain requirements.[1]  Some of these requirements include: (1) being under the age of thirty one as of June 15, 2012; (2) having entered the United States before turning sixteen years old; and (3) current enrollment in school, a high school diploma or GED, or honorable discharge from the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States.[2]

The benefits of this program include allowing young adults to remain in the U.S. for the opportunities to work or get an advanced education. Although the applicants for deferred action originate from another countries, they moved to the U.S. at a young age and view this as their “adoptive country.”[3]  The concern with the onset of this program was summarized by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, who stated that “[w]hile potentially millions of illegal immigrants will be permitted to compete with American workers for scarce jobs, there seems to be little if any mechanism in place for vetting fraudulent applications and documentation submitted by illegal immigrants.”[4]  Lastly, some believe this executive order was signed by President Obama as a maneuver to gain the vote in the November election of the fastest-growing immigrant population in the country: Latinos.[5]

By: *Katelyn McKenzie

Blog Category: Immigration

Courts in New Jersey and Florida recently decided that colleges and universities can no longer deny financial aid to students based on the immigration status of their parents.  These rulings came after many universities, feeling pressure to reduce spending, instituted regulations denying need-based financial aid and lower in-state tuition rates to children of illegal immigrants, even though the children are United States citizens.

A Federal District court judge in Miami found regulations denying financial aid to students who could not prove the legal immigration status of their parents unconstitutional because they “create a second-tier status of U.S. citizenship,” and deny benefits that are widely available to other Americans.

In New Jersey, a state appeals court found its law denying aid to children of illegal immigrants “decidedly un-American” because it denies American citizens rights and privileges based on the identity of their parents.  These policies often go unnoticed because many American students are reluctant to bring challenges because of the possible deportation consequences for their parents, but they affect thousands of college-bound American students every year.

_________________________________

*Katelyn McKenzie is currently a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics and Race. To learn about Katelyn McKenzie, click the link to visit her page: Katelyn McKenzie

To learn more about this topic: See Julia Preston, Court Rulings Help Illegal Immigrants’ College-Bound Children. N.Y. Times, September 5, 2012, at A20, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/us/florida-and-new-jersey-courts-aid-illegal-immigrants-college-bound-children.html?_r=0.

Blog Category: Immigration

By: *Elizabeth August

The current immigration debacle has been met with a perfect storm for social upheaval:  high numbers of undocumented immigrants, a severe economic recession and an increased of drug violence at the U.S.-Mexican border.  This “perfect storm” has resulted in several laws passed by states and municipalities designed to tackle the immigration “problem” that many feel the Federal government has been unable to handle.  As Marisa Cianciarulo argues in her article The “Arizonafication” of Immigration Law:  Implications of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting for State and Local Immigration Legislation, there is rhetoric throughout these pieces of legislation that suggests a fear of immigrants being a threat to U.S. sovereignty and culture, as well as contributing to an already dire economy.

Ms. Cianciarulo begins by asserting that the national frustration over immigration comes from perceived national consequences of illegal immigration, as well the perception that the Federal government has failed to handle the problem.  She then examines a number of pieces of legislation from passage at the state or municipal level, through each appeal, concluding with an application of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting to Arizona’s Immigration law and a municipal law from Hazelton, Pennsylvania (this article was published before the Supreme Court’s decided Arizona v. United States in June, 2012).  She concludes by saying the Supreme Court sidestepped the emotional and political argument in Whiting by basing its decision entirely on federal preemption.

Check out Ms. Cianciarulo’s article at http://harvardllr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/HLA101.pdf.

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

______________________________________________

*Elizabeth August is currently one of the Articles Editor on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics and Race. To learn more about Elizabeth August, click here to view here page: Elizabeth August

Blog Category: Immigration

By: *Melissa Chapaska

Many would not dispute the claim that illegal immigration is a problem for American workers because it limits the number of jobs available and lowers wages for citizen workers. But, as research suggests, the accusation that illegal immigration has a negative impact on American jobs may be unwarranted. While illegal immigration adversely affects some American workers by reducing wages and the availability of jobs, these short-term pitfalls are overshadowed by the seemingly positive long-term effect that illegal immigration has on the American job market. Illegal immigration has provided businesses with a cheap labor force, which has allowed many businesses to become profitable. Beyond the positive effect illegal immigration has on the economy, American workers also directly benefit as businesses are able to expand, creating higher-paying, skilled positions for American workers.

We are a nation of laws. As such, illegal immigration must be addressed. However, in addressing the problems associated with illegal immigration, we should also remain mindful of the benefits that illegal immigration continues to have on American businesses and the economy as a whole.

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

__________________________________________

*Melissa Chapaska is currently a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics and Race. To learn more about Melissa Chapaska, click here to visit her page: Melissa Chapaska

Main Article:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/immigration-and-american-jobs/ 

Related Article:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/index.htm

Blog Category: Immigration

Written by: *Jesse Rhodeside

Throughout the history of the United States, periods of immigration have frequently corresponded with concerns over prospects for assimilating new groups of immigrants.  In each instance, however, the fears were found to be overstated and the group at issue would become part of the rich variety of cultures within our nation.  These concerns are present today in contemporary discussions on immigration and frame the belief that immigration is intertwined with the trade of illegal drugs and perhaps even terrorism.  As public discussions about immigration focuses on these issues, and legislators pass laws meant to address concerns related to the “War on Terror” or the “War on Drugs,” more pressing issues are ignored.  Given the interests involved and the contemporary attempts to direct political effort toward economic recovery, it suggests that attention by both the media and lawmakers is misplaced.

Much of the justification for taking a hard line against undocumented immigrants is the purported connection with the illegal drug trade.  Most immigrants are not involved in the illegal drug trade, and the crime rates in immigrant communities are comparable to non-immigrant communities.  Likewise, although the September 11 attacks demonstrated flaws in the defense mechanisms of the United States, the connection between acts of terror and the status of the border is tenuous.  The supposed connections with the drug trade and terror, however, has led to the effective criminalization of immigration law violations.  Given that these workers are afforded few legal protections as a result of their undocumented status, there is great potential for wage and working condition abuse.  Kevin Johnson suggests redirecting our public conversation towards the goals sought and to reduce the inflammatory tone of the conversation in order to achieve reform in this contentious area.

For additional information about unaddressed issues in the immigration policy debate, see Kevin Johnson, It’s the Economy, Stupid: The Hijacking of the Debate Over Immigration Reform by Monsters, Ghosts, and Goblins (or the War on Drugs, War on Terror, Narcoterrorists, Etc.), 13 Chap. L. Rev. 583 (2010).

_________________________________________

*Jesse Rhodeside is currently the Senior Managing Editor on the Harrisburg Campus. To learn more about Jesse Rhodeside, click the link to view his page: Jesse Rhodeside

Blog Category: Immigration

Written by *Alison Palmer

Immigration is deeply rooted in the history of the United States, and much of that history included immigration policy motivated by nativism, racism and selectivism. Congress has plenary power over immigration policy and it created the first federal unified immigration laws with the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) of 1952.  Although the INA was still selective and discriminatory in nature, it set the framework for subsequent progressive changes in immigration policy, such as the elimination of racial disqualifications  in selections and the prioritization of things like labor skills in the selection process.

The amendments to the INA in 1961 and 1965 marked the Golden Age of immigration law, incorporating notions of fairness, humanity, and rationality into the process through increased availability of judicial review at both the administrative and federal court levels. Recently, however, Congress has retreated, once again, to a narrower and more discriminatory immigration policy, with the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996.

With this policy shift,  Congress has effectively diminished the federal courts’ involvement and the notion of judicial review over immigration and deportation proceedings,  removing an absolute check on the legislature by being prevented from ensuring fair administrative review of immigration proceedings.   Robbie Clarke suggests comprehensive immigration reform reminiscent of the ideals set forth in the 1960 INA Amendments to restore judicial review of immigration proceedings by federal courts.

For a review of the history of immigration reform and the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches relating to immigration reform, see Robbie Clarke, Reaffirming the Role of the Federal Courts: How the Sixties Provide Guidance for Immigration Reform, 17 WASH. & LEE J.C.R. & SOC. JUST. 463 (2011).

__________________________________

*Alison Palmer is currently a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To learn more about Alison Palmer click here to view her page: Alison Palmer