New Immigration Articles From SSRN
“Coolies, James Yen, and Rebellious Advocacy” UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 107 Asian American Law Journal, Forthcoming BILL ONG HING
Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=982409 ABSTRACT: Those of us who engage in progressive legal work need to be constantly reminded that we do not know everything – that we are not knights in shining armor swooping in to save subordinated communities. We should be collaborating: working with rather than simply on behalf of clients and allies from whom we have much to learn. Though lawyering for social change is arduous work, there is much to gain in these battles against subordination, not simply from the potential outcome but from the collaborative process itself: as our clients gain strength and confidence, we too are renewed. Thus invigorated by the talent, spirit, and innovation that our clients and allies bring to the table, we aspire to bring that same sense of renewal to those with whom we work. Long before I became a lawyer, I met a person named Y.C. James Yen. Though perhaps little-known among contemporary community lawyers, Yen’s work has merited accolades all over the world, as well as broadened and enriched my own perspective of progressive lawyering. Indeed, Yen’s approach fits well within the theoretical lawyering framework advanced by Jerry López, Lucie White, and Ascanio Pomelli. These scholars, who are grounded in ongoing community work, have challenged us to re-imagine our roles as community lawyers. They advocate a collaborative approach that respects clients’ decision-making capacities, seeks allies in the pursuit of social justice, and is open to learning from clients and community partners. In this article, I first provide some background on Yen and describe his incredible work in Europe, China, and the Philippines. I then revisit the scholarship of López, White, and Piomelli as their theories and experiences pertain to community lawyering in the rebellious or collaborative style, and I relate Yen’s historic work to the philosophy and concepts they advance. My hope is thus to remind contemporary rebellious advocates of collaborative possibilities.
“Protecting National Security Through More Liberal Admission of Immigrants” UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 106 University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2007 KEVIN R. JOHNSON
Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=982236
ABSTRACT: When it comes to immigration law and policy, September 11, 2001 had especially dramatic impacts. Fears of terrorism led to tighter immigration restrictions in many areas, from stricter monitoring of scholars and students entering the United States on temporary visas to new and more restrictive immigration requirements and procedures. Many measures targeted Arab and Muslim immigrants. A vocal group of observers and policy-makers claimed that the fear of a repeat of September 11 required increased enforcement along the southern border with Mexico, thereby deeply influencing the national debate in 2005-06 over immigration reform. This article contends that, even assuming that such a policy outcome were possible, efforts to improve the nation’s security need not necessarily mean closing the borders. Put differently, an open society does not need to be a country whose national security is more at risk than one with nominally closed borders.
“The Constitutional Dimension of Immigration Federalism” U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-06 Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 61, 2008
CLARE HUNTINGTON Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=968716 Although the federal government is traditionally understood to enjoy exclusive authority over immigration, states and localities are increasingly asserting a role in this field. This development has sparked a raging debate on the propriety of such involvement, but the debate is being conducted largely in terms of policy choices. To date, there is no comprehensive theory of the constitutionality of state and local involvement in the regulation of immigration. This article provides such a theory. The central constitutional issue for such a theory is immigration exceptionalism – the view that immigration authority is constitutionally committed to the federal government alone. This is the constitutional preemption view of immigration federalism. Challenging the conventional wisdom, this article argues that the Constitution allows immigration authority to be shared among levels of government. Accordingly, the constitutionality of state and local involvement should be assessed through the lens of traditional federalism values. In lieu of the blunt tool of constitutional preemption, a federalism lens is a far superior means for determining the proper allocation of immigration authority among levels of government, leading to a more nuanced assessment of the interests at stake.
KJ