New Immigration Articles From SSRN

Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com) recently posted thgese new immigration articles:

MATTHEW S. MULQUEEN, St. John’s University – School of Law

On December 12, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS ICE) swept up over 12,000 meatpacking workers in the largest immigration raid in the Nation’s history. While Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff praised the raids as part of the Nation’s comprehensive plan to combat illegal immigration and bolster national security, others denounced the suspect manner in which they were carried out and the detrimental effect they had on immigrants and American citizens alike. Such concerns are not limited to the workplace: Automobile stops by state and local police officers as well as roving federal border patrols, large-scale home raids targeting ethnic communities, and the use of immigration laws to fight the War on Terror have exposed large numbers of people – particularly ethnic and racial minorities – to constitutional violations. While most agree that law enforcement officials should adhere to constitutional mandates, many disagree on how best to deter violations. The exclusionary rule, for example, has garnered both praise and criticism since the Supreme Court first adopted it for federal law enforcement officers in 1914. In criminal trials, the rule generally forbids the introduction of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in order to prove a defendant’s guilt. In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, however, the Supreme Court declared that the rule would no longer apply to civil deportation proceedings. This paper argues that significant changes in the immigration landscape since 1984 – including the criminalization of immigration law and the increasing involvement of state and local officials in immigration enforcement – necessitate a reexamination of Lopez-Mendoza’s cost-benefit analysis, leading to conclusion that the deterrence benefits from the rule’s presence would outweigh its social costs. Readopting the exclusionary rule will have a profound effect not only on the mechanics of government operations, but also on the way in which we view the alien in society. Neither change will be easy, but the landscape that emerges will provide considerable more liberty for us all. “Immigration Enforcement and Federalism after September 11, 2001”

IMMIGRATION, INTEGRATION, AND SECURITY: AMERICA AND EUROPE IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE, Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia & Simon Reich, eds., Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 2008; ANIL KALHAN, Fordham Law School

In recent years, the U.S. federal government has aggressively sought to involve state and local government institutions more extensively and directly in the day-to-day regulation of immigration status and the interior enforcement of federal immigration laws. In this chapter, I discuss two sets of these initiatives – the efforts to involve state and local police in routine immigration enforcement and the development of federal issuance and eligibility standards for state driver’s licenses – in order to explore the ways in which these developments may challenge conventional assumptions about the relationships between state and local governments and their non-U.S. citizen residents. Traditionally, U.S. immigration law has been understood to constrain state and local involvement in the regulation of immigration in part based on the premise that non-U.S. citizens are more likely to face hostility, discrimination, or disadvantage at the hands of state or local institutions than at the hands of the federal government. Certainly, it remains the case that non-U.S. citizens may often be vulnerable to hostility or discrimination by state and local government actors, as a number of recent examples make clear. However, as the federal government itself has become more aggressive in its regulation of immigration status, non-U.S. citizens are seeking and, in some instances, finding greater receptiveness for the protection of rights and liberties in state capitals and local city halls, rather than in Washington. In this context, the traditional assumptions concerning immigration, citizenship, and federalism may be incomplete.

“Silent Victims No More?: Moral Indignation and the Potential for Latino Political Mobilization in Defense of Immigrants” Houston Law Review, Vol. 45, p. 73, 2008 RAQUEL E. ALDANA, William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV

This article examines how and whether immigration issues will influence Latino political electoral and non-electoral participation. The article analyzes data on Latino political participation patterns and predictions on how the current immigration debate may alter these patterns. It also examines social science literature on the factors that influence Latino political participation and the benefits of non-electoral engagement.

KJ