New SSRN Immigration Publications

Here is the latest immigration publications from the Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com):

“Women’s Unequal Citizenship at the Border: Lessons from Three Nonfiction Films about the Women of Juárez” in GENDER EQUALITY: DIMENSIONS OF WOMEN’S EQUAL CITIZENSHIP (Linda C. McClain, Johanna L. Grossman, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2009) by REGINA AUSTIN, University of Pennsylvania Law School.  ABSTRACT:  There is no better illustration of the impact of borders on women’s equal citizenship than the three documentaries reviewed in this essay. All three deal with the femicides that befell the young women of Ciudad Juárez, Mexico between 1993 and 2005. Juarez is just across the border from El Paso, Texas. Performing the Border (1999) stimulates the viewer’s imagination regarding the ephemeral nature of borders and their impact on the citizenship of women who live at the intersection of local, regional, national and international legal regimes. Señorita Extraviada (2001) is an intimate portrait of the victims which illustrates why the private grief of their survivors should have been a cause for public national mourning. Finally, Battle of the Crosses (2005), the work of social scientists, offers a panoramic description of the complicated social terrain on which the Juárez femicides occurred and their meaning was fought over. Together, the films suggest how borders are constructed and “performed” through law and law enforcement in ways that jeopardize women’s rights as citizens. The films also show how women in turn challenge law and law enforcement to transcend the limitations of social, political, and economic borders and assert their right to equal citizenship. Confronted with state intransigence in the face of the murders of dozens of young females, the women of Juárez used their traditional female roles as a springboard to political engagement. Overcoming the debilitating effect of class and ethnic marginality, patriarchal mass violence, and governmental corruption and lack of accountability, the women turned back the state’s effort to belittle the murders as private matters and the victims as deserving of their fate. The documentaries together provide a vivid case study that proves the importance of understanding the synthetic quality of borders and their relationship to women’s equal citizenship in a globalizing world where borders can pop up anywhere and at anytime.

“INA – 242(g): The Government’s Attempt to Bar Immigration-Related Damages Claims” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 119 SAMEER AHMED.  ABSTRACT:  Ever since the jurisdiction-stripping provision was enacted in 1996, federal courts have struggled over whether – 242(g) prohibits damages claims. On the one hand, the Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits have precluded damages claims under – 242(g), holding that the conduct alleged arose from the three actions mentioned in the provision: to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. On the other hand, the Tenth Circuit, and district courts in the Second, Sixth, and Fourth Circuits have rejected the applicability of – 242(g), construing the provision narrowly and permitting the claims in order to avoid “grave constitutional issues.” This Comment argues that the government’s reading of – 242(g), supported by some federal courts, not only contravenes Congressional intent, but also contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (“AADC”) to interpret the provision narrowly. Because – 242(g) does not bar constitutional and legal challenges to non-discretionary government action as well as challenges collateral to removal proceedings, courts must have jurisdiction to hear monetary damages claims brought by foreign nationals against immigration enforcement agents.

KJ