New Immigration Articles from SSRN

Here are some new immigration articles from the Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com):

“The Unspoken Voices of Indigenous Women in Immigration Raids” KARLA MARI MCKANDERS, University of Tennessee College of Law.  ABSTRACT:  The voices of the most vulnerable populations often point towards social constructs in dire need of systemic change. The treatment of immigrant women in workplace raids exemplifies this concept. Over the last couple of years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, has executed several workplace raids to deport undocumented immigrants who are unauthorized to work in this country. When discussing workplace raids, most news articles focus on the mass deportation of men, this paper will take a different perspective, and examine indigenous immigrant Guatemalan women’s stories in migrating to the United States, seeking employment with large factories, and their interactions with the immigration system. In May 2008, in Postville, Iowa, the largest raid in this country’s history occurred where 389 immigrants were arrested. Approximately, 76 of the immigrants detained in the raid were women. Similarly, in April 2008, approximately 300 immigrants were arrested in the Pilgrim’s Pride Poultry raid nationwide. In both cases the women were released pending their deportation proceedings on humanitarian grounds to care for children or because they were pregnant. This paper will explore how race, class and gender intersect to create the conditions under which indigenous Guatemalan women of color migrate to the United States, their work, and their unique experiences with the immigration system. As the intersection theory highlights the need to account for multiple grounds of identity when considering how the social world is constructed, this paper will use this theory to critically analyze the ways in which our legal system addresses undocumented women workers. The paper will proceed in four parts. The first section details how migratory laborers are forced to work in an underground system that fails to recognize their humanity and their work. The section will detail how immigration raids affect undocumented immigrant employees and the towns in which they work. The second section tells the story of a Mam Mayan indigenous woman from Guatemala who was detained in the Pilgrim’s Pride immigration raid. Her story illustrates firsthand how intersectionality theory can serve as a lens to examine how different legal and social constructs contribute to women’s subordination. The third section examines intersectionality theory’s applicability to immigration law. This section presents a detailed analysis of how ethnicity, immigration status, gender, and class intersect to subordinate indigenous Guatemalan women. The last section addresses how intersectionality theory can be used to dissolve the multiple layers of subordination within the immigration system. The goal is to critique the concept of citizenship that has been predicated upon exclusion of minorities, women and the poor and how the immigration system functions to perpetuate subordination within the system.  PROFESSOR McKANDERS CONTINUES TO BE PROLIFIC AND WRITE CUTTING EDGE SCHLARSHIP ON FASCINATING IMMIGRATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES.

“Canada’s Refugee Determination System and the International Norm of Independence” Refuge, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2010 GERALD HECKMAN, University of Manitoba.  ABSTRACT:  Refugee protection decisions engage migrants’ fundamental life, liberty and security of the person interests. As a result, refugee protection claimants enjoy institutional and procedural rights under conventional international law. These include the right to a fair adjudication of their protection claims by an independent tribunal. To be independent, a tribunal must meet the formal guarantees of security of tenure, financial security and administrative independence and must actually be independent, in appearance and practice, from the executive and legislature, particularly in the appointments process. Refugee protection decisions must be made by first instance adjudicative bodies that either fully comply with the requirements of tribunal independence or whose decisions are subject to subsequent review by a tribunal that meets these requirements and has sufficient jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute. The Canadian refugee protection system fails, in certain respects, to meet international standards of independence. The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board’s Refugee Protection Division enjoys statutory, objective badges of independence and appears to operate independently of the executive. However, the independence of Canadian officials engaged in eligibility determinations and in pre-removal risk assessments is very much in question because they have a closer relationship to executive law enforcement functions.

“Preemptive Strike: The Battle for Control Over Immigration Policy – An Examination of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits Split Over Federal and State Authority in Regulating Immigration” JORDAN JODRE, Hofstra University – School of Law.  ABSTRACT:  From its inception, the United States has had a difficult and dichotomous relationship with immigration and the subsequent questions of citizenry and legality that it renders. Today has proven to be no different. Parties both for and against the expansion or exclusion of the United States’ current immigration policy continue to battle one another to a stalemate during every election cycle, impeding the other’s abilities to enact change. It is this perpetual inaction by the federal government that has led numerous state governments, in their individual capacities, to enact legislation intended to either supplement or enhance current federal statutes and regulations related to immigration. This paper focuses primarily on the recent conflicting opinions issued by the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, determining whether state legislatures are preempted from imposing their own illegal immigration penalties by revoking the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens as employees. This split between the Ninth and Tenth Circuits remains an untenable point of contention and must be resolved. The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision later this coming year, but this paper will demonstrate that the Ninth Circuit was correct to conclude that states may impose separate civil sanctions upon employers who violate immigration statutes, and in doing so will not hinder, supersede, or preempt federal sovereignty.  THE SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS TODAY IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT CASE RAISING THE ISSUE OF FEDERAL PREEMEPTION OF AN ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW.

KJ