Live From MSU: Immigration Law in 2030

Su, Ashar, Sharpless, Kalhan, Chacón

What better way to start a Saturday morning than with thinking about immigration law in 2030!

Jennifer Chacón (Irvine), panel moderator, kicked things off by asking what a post-immigration-reform world would look like.

Sameer Ashar (Irvine) did not accept the premise of Jennifer’s question. (I’ve watched every episode of The West Wing, this is always good move.) He notes that the sources of power that shape immigration law, to date, have generally been lawyer-and state-centric. But this ignores “movement based power” coming out of communities. Asahr (passionately) argues that it is critical to include non-lawyer activists in the development of immigration law.

Rick Su (Buffalo) notes that the “unintended consequences” of 1996 immigration reform (287g, among others) have largely driven immigration activism and scholarship for the last 20 years. So, what things are flying under the radar in the S.744? He notes interesting developments like the creation of border task forces that would involve local communities. He also finds potential pitfalls including even stronger anti-sanctuary provisions. Rick says things will “sneak there way in” because, as in 1996, they’ll be seen as unimportant. And they will then be the drivers or activism in years to come.

Becky Sharpless (Miami) sees that our efforts post immigration reform will focus on those who are left out – what she calls the “super undocumented.” And she wants to use all of the tools available to make the group as small as possible. She’s particularly concerned about the focus on “good immigrants” and what that means for those with criminal records, including violent crimes. If we focus only on “respectable” immigrants, we close off paths for the next wave. A message about process and fairness – universal values that resonate – would be better.

Anil Kalhan (Drexel) pointed out that, even if immigration reform happens, control of line officers and effective adjudication will remain problems to be solved. It’s a question of the lack of legitimacy, a U.S. v. Texas driver, that will continue to be a problem.

Anil then asked the panel about the vulnerability of lawful status and how it could be made more durable.

Jennifer noted that current immigration reform proposals offer either a very lengthy legalization process or no path to citizenship at all. And this will leave folks vulnerable to arbitrary actions. Race, class, disability, and immigration status are important factors in the levels of vulnerability individuals experience. Beyond citizenship, what makes people powerful? That’s an important question we need to tackle.

Rick is worried about creating another legalization status and the potential spill-over effect it might have. That is, if we require some to go through a very lengthy path to citizenship, might that lead to asking why everyone shouldn’t go down that path.

Jennifer next asked how immigration reform might reshape governance?

Anil thinks to some extent reconfiguration has already taken place. He talked about the government’s role in gathering, aggregating, and sharing data regarding noncitizens and citizens alike.

Sameer noted that “electronic whips” already control workers (e.g. electronic monitoring to limit breaks). Migrants are willing to submit to control in order to get better outcomes (e.g. DACA registration so they can work lawfully). But the government’s “population control” methods may have consequences, and they may particularly effect those who engage in collective action.

Rick wants a bottom-up approach on governance that empowers immigrant communities. He notes that immigrants today are frequently concentrated in the suburbs, and that’s a problem because political mobilization is harder in that context. This will require new ways of thinking about mobilization.

Jennifer offered one final question: what role can or should international law have in molding or shaping domestic immigration policies? 

Becky sees promise for movement lawyering in how much human rights discourse resonates with young people today. She pointed us to several amazingly expansive definitions of refugees, including those fleeing “events seriously disturbing pubic order” and “generalized violence.” She also highlighted international cases about the deportation of violent criminals. These examples give us “a sense of what is possible.”

Rick spoke about the importance of cities – and theorized whether cities might become the model of immigrant friendly communities where we’ll look for future migration norms.

I’m officially moderately hopeful.

-KitJ