United States Immigration Law Research Articles

Book Review: Robert W. Heimburger, God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics; Matthew Kaemingk, with a foreword by James K.A. Smith, Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear

Book Review: Robert W. Heimburger, <i>God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics</i>; Matthew Kaemingk, with a foreword by James K.A. Smith, <i>Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear</i>

Nazi Germany's Race Laws, the United States, and American Indians

Most Americans and lawyers would probably be shocked to learn that in the early 1930s Nazi Germany’s scholars, lawyers, and party officials were carefully studying United States race laws and Federal law. As part of comparative system, Germans were accustomed to researching the laws and legal systems of other countries to find insights and models. In the 1930s, they were researching how to legally discriminate against Jews and they found their models in United States law. This article expands on preexisting research into how Adolf Hitler, Nazi party officials, and Nazi scholars studied in the process of drafting the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. This article adds to this subject by closely examining how the Nazis also studied and relied on Federal Law. Hitler and many Germans were relatively well-informed about issues and history, and U.S. anti-miscegenation laws, involuntary sterilization laws, citizenship practices, and the Jim Crow laws in general. In fact, in Mein Kampf, Hitler mentioned U.S. laws and policies and noted that the United States was racial model for Europe and that it was “the one state” in the world that was creating the kind of racist society the Nazi regime wanted to establish. Obviously, Nazi scholars followed his lead and they researched and wrote numerous articles and books on race laws. This article also addresses how Germans and Nazis analogized the American Frontier and Manifest Destiny, and the treatment of nations and peoples, to the Nazi plans to invade the East to serve the longstanding German policy of Lebensraum and colonization of the East. In regards Federal Law, Heinrich Krieger and other German/Nazi scholars undertook serious and prolonged studies of the subject. They considered Indian to be a racial law and to be unique extra-constitutional situation. They concluded that Indians had been discriminated against for centuries in North America based on race and blood. Consequently, Nazi Germany would be well justified doing the same to Jews and other minorities. In September 1935, Adolf Hitler announced the culmination of the Third Reich’s research into laws and Federal Law in its efforts to racially discriminate against the Jews. The Nuremberg Laws stripped German Jews of their citizenship and their rights and started Germany on the road to the Holocaust. The Laws criminalized marriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans. There was only one country in the world the Nazis could find that criminalized inter-racial marriage - the United States. In fact, forty-one of the states had anti-miscegenation statutes. The Nazis also studied the numerous state Jim Crow laws and the United States immigration and naturalization laws and policies from 1790-1924. In addition, the United States conquest of nations, ethnic cleansing, and colonization of the Frontier West provided fodder and analogies for the Nazi invasion and colonization of the German East. This article perhaps raises more questions than it answers about Federal Law and its impact on Hitler and Nazi Germany. In the end though, how intriguing, yet at the same time how profoundly disturbing, that and Federal Law played some role, or any role, in the Nazi formulation of Jewish policies and laws.

God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics. By Robert W. Heimburger

God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics. By Robert W. Heimburger

Immigration law: a theological response

This article presents the fruits of a dialogue between Christian ethics and immigration law found in the author’s recent book God and the Illegal Alien: United States immigration law and a theology of politics (Cambridge University Press, 2018). That dialogue highlights the importance of the people of God as a migrant people and the destiny of the nations as coming together in the blood of Christ. The dialogue also highlights a church posture towards government that the control of immigration is to be undertaken only in a limited way that keeps in mind the purpose of migration controls to protect human life and no more. Finally, the dialogue highlights the importance of asking ‘Who is my neighbour?’, pointing Christians to recognize those foreigners who have shown them mercy. This dialogue began with US law, but a parallel dialogue with British law produces conclusions about living as a migrant church in the United Kingdom, about calling the Home Office to govern immigration humbly, and about recognizing love received from migrant neighbours.

How united states immigration laws enable modern slavery

How united states immigration laws enable modern slavery

God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics by Robert W.Heimburger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), xx + 238 pp.

Modern TheologyVolume 35, Issue 1 p. 193-195 Book Review God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics by Robert W. Heimburger ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), xx + 238 pp. Justin P. Ashworth, Corresponding Author Justin P. Ashworth justin.p.ashworth@gmail.com Department of Theology, Azusa Pacific University, 901 E. Alosta Avenue, Azusa, CA, 91702 USA Email: justin.p.ashworth@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this author Justin P. Ashworth, Corresponding Author Justin P. Ashworth justin.p.ashworth@gmail.com Department of Theology, Azusa Pacific University, 901 E. Alosta Avenue, Azusa, CA, 91702 USA Email: justin.p.ashworth@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/moth.12468Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume35, Issue1Special Issue: Themed Issue: Philosophy & Theology in Germany, 1918-1933January 2019Pages 193-195 RelatedInformation

Robert W. Heimburger, God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics

Robert W. Heimburger, <i>God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics</i>

God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics. By Robert W. Heimburger

God and the Illegal Alien: United States Immigration Law and a Theology of Politics. <i>By Robert W. Heimburger</i>

Origin culture and domestic violence against Bangladeshi immigrant women in Southern California

People from around the world migrate to the United States (US) in search of a better life. However, this migration sometimes increases vulnerability to domestic violence among immigrant women. This study investigates the underlying mechanism of domestic violence against immigrant women. Using a mixed method approach including survey and ethnographic stories about domestic violence among Bangladeshi immigrants in Southern California, this study recognizes how immigrants’ origin culture of male-dominated family in Bangladesh and the US immigration laws together create a condition conducive to violence against women. It identifies the immigrants’ continued adherence to the original patriarchal family organization as the main contributor of continued and increased vulnerability of Bangladeshi immigrant women. Emphasizing individual’s rights in the US, the paper suggests necessary measure for the state, community organizations and individuals to address the problem, and reduce these women’s vulnerability.

The Right of People with Disabilities to Asylum and Protection from Deportation on the Grounds of Persecution or Torture Related to Their Disability

In 2000, I wrote an article entitled The Right to Asylum for People with Disabilities, 73 TEMPLE L. REV. 1117 (2000), with a former law student. In this article, we discussed a recent case, Matter of Ricardo de Santiago-Carrillo, in which the BIA was asked to decide if a man with schizophrenia from Mexico was entitled to withholding of deportation and asylum because of the persecution he would face if he was returned to Mexico and placed in a state-run psychiatric institution for people with no income or family. This was the first case that raised the question of whether a person with a disability could qualify for asylum based on membership in the “particular social group” of people with disabilities and who face persecution on that basis. Mr. de Santiago-Carrillo did not ultimately prevail in his claim (because of reasons unrelated to his disability). However, his case opened the door for other clients with disabilities who would face persecution if returned to their homelands. Indeed, since the de Santiago-Carrillo case was decided, more than 50 cases have raised related claims for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. This brief article provides an overview of these cases. (A more detailed analysis of these cases and theories related to the protection of immigrants with disabilities is the subject of my forthcoming longer law review article.) In addition to providing an overview of these cases, I argue that denying deportation relief to people claiming persecution on the basis of their disability violates not only our own national agenda of achieving equality and dignity for people with disabilities, as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, but also the 1967 Optional Protocol on Refugees to which the US acceded in 1968, and which requires the US to refuse to return to his or her homeland any person who faces a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of a particular social group, among other categories. Reports by Disability Rights International and other human rights organizations around the world continue to reveal the atrocities to which people with disabilities are subjected, particularly in state-run institutions. Future cases based on this growing body of evidence of mistreatment of people with disabilities, particularly in institutions, may hold promise for people in the US seeking protection from deportation. Accordingly, immigration lawyers representing people with disabilities should continue to raise their clients’ disability as a ground for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under CAT, and for humanitarian relief. Moreover, even in the absence of ratification by the US of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (which 177 countries have ratified, but not the US), our own domestic laws guarantee certain procedural protections to immigrants with disabilities, including their right to accommodations in judicial proceedings, as well as their right to competency evaluations and to counsel. These procedural rights should help to raise awareness about the plight as well as available legal protections for people with disabilities under United States immigration and asylum laws.

Passports in the Time of Trump

Passports in the Time of Trump Leti Volpp1 (bio) On Wednesday, January 25, 2017, five days after Donald Trump assumed the office of U.S. President, the public was treated to "Trump's day of shock and awe" (Digby Parton 2017). Trump stated in an interview on ABC news that he believed that "torture works," as media outlets circulated a draft executive order proposing to reopen secret CIA prisons. Rumors swirled that Trump was about to issue a ban closing the border to Muslim immigrants and to refugees. And that day Trump issued the third and fourth executive orders of his administration, Executive Order No. 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," directed at immigration enforcement in the interior, and Executive Order No. 13767, "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements," directed at immigration enforcement at the border. Media coverage of these two executive orders centered on two issues: the punishing of so-called "sanctuary cities," and the ordering of the "immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border" ("Trump Orders" 2017). Announcing these executive orders through a speech to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Trump stated: This is a law enforcement agency. [Applause] But for too long, your offices [and] agents haven't been allowed to properly to do their jobs. You know that, right? Do you know that? Absolutely. But that's all about to change. And I'm very happy about it and you're very happy about it. From here on out, I'm asking all of you to enforce the laws of the United States of America. They will be enforced and enforced strongly. [Applause]. ("Remarks" 2017) Precisely how immigration enforcement was "about to change" was not yet publicly apparent, and the attention paid to these two executive orders was rapidly eclipsed by other events. While Thursday's news was dominated by President Enrique Peña Nieto cancelling a scheduled meeting at the White House in response to Trump's ordering the building of a wall between the [End Page 155] United States and Mexico, by Friday, the nation's focus shifted (Ahmed 2017). That afternoon, flanked by an applauding Vice President Mike Pence and then Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, Trump shut down entry to immigrants and refugees in what has been variously labeled a Muslim ban, a travel ban, and a refugee ban. Trump accomplished this via his third executive order targeting immigrants, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," which he signed shortly after issuing a statement noting January 27 to be International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a choice of timing described as "offensive" and "repulsive" (Koran 2017; Shear and Cooper 2017; Exec. Order No. 13769). "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry" The order invoked the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, stated that "[n] umerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2011," and indicated that it is the policy of the United States "to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes" (Exec. Order No. 13769 §§ 1-2). In order to accomplish this goal, the order suspended the entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants (temporary visitors) from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for a period of ninety days, with an invitation to the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to submit "names of additional countries recommended for similar treatment" (§ 3(f)). At the same time, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program was suspended for 120 days; upon the resumption of that program, refugee claims "made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality" were to be prioritized (§ 5(b)). The Order then indefinitely suspended the entry of any Syrian refugees as "detrimental to the interests of the United States" (§ 5(c)). President Obama's allocation of 110,000 refugees for fiscal year 2017 was cut by more than half, to 50,000, and "any such entry" of refugees was to be suspended "until such time as I determine that additional...

The Effects of Instructors' Transformational Leadership Style; Intercultural Competence; and Multicultural Education to Students' Success in Higher Education

The current trend of refugees from Central America entering the United States through the U.S. and Mexico border since the fiscal year 2014 have continually challenged the United States Immigration Laws and the American educational system.as these young refugees have been continually entering the country seeking for a better life and American education. To care and educate these young immigrants necessitate the implementation of appropriate pedagogical and educational leadership strategies, methods, and approaches to pre-service teachers' and educational administrative training programs to make a positive impact in the lives of these least privileged and culturally different young children and their families. In this light, this paper seeks to highlight the positive effects of transformational leadership, intercultural competence, and multicultural education theories to students' success in higher education. In doing so, I define Transformational Leadership (TL), Intercultural Competence (IC); Multicultural Education (ME) theory in teacher education; and explain TL, IC, and ME as effective appropriate teaching tools in higher education via review of literature pertinent to the effects of TL, IC, and ME to students' success in higher education.

Rising Arizona: The Legacy of the Jim Crow Southwest on Immigration Law and Policy After 100 Years of Statehood

United States immigration law and policy is one the most controversial issues of our day, and perhaps no location has come under more scrutiny for the way it has attempted to deal with the problem of undocumented immigration than the State of Arizona. Though Arizona recently became notorious for its “papers please” law, SB 1070, the American Southwest has long been a bastion of discriminatory race-based law and policy – immigration and otherwise – directed toward Latinos, American Indians, African-Americans, and other non-White racial and ethnic minorities. While largely ignored by both legal and American historians, the so-called “Jim Crow Southwest” nonetheless persisted throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century in both the Arizona Territory and the State of Arizona, forming the basis for, and giving shape to, laws meant to exclude and limit the participation of non-White persons in Southwestern society.The State of Arizona, the last of the forty-eight contiguous States to be admitted to the Union, marked its 100th year of statehood on February 14, 2012. A few months later, on June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Arizona, striking down the majority of Arizona’s aggressive state immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070, as preempted by federal law. This Article discusses recent developments in Arizona immigration law and policy. By providing an overview of the history of race-based exclusion laws and policies in the Arizona Territory and the State of Arizona, it argues that Arizona’s modern anti-immigrant laws and policies are merely the newest incarnation of the State’s long history of discriminatory laws against racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Latinos and American Indians. In attempting to trace the genesis of racial animus toward non-Whites in the Southwest, Part I provides a historical overview of the Arizona Territory in the nineteenth century, including the development of the New Mexico Territory, the Confederate Territory of Arizona, and the impact of slavery and other race-based discrimination and exclusion laws in the Southwest. Part II discusses twentieth century race and immigration based policies in the Jim Crow Southwest that restricted and segregated the civil rights of non-Whites in the areas of marriage, education, and voting. Part III discusses the continuing legacy of the Jim Crow Southwest on the development of modern immigration law and policy in Arizona, and in particular, the aftermath of S.B. 1070’s passage in April 2010, Arizona’s subsequent rise as “ground zero” for state and local enforcement of immigration law in the United States, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Arizona in 2012 and Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona in 2013. Finally, the article concludes by summarizing how the historical evidence presented in this paper rebuts the claim that only in recent years has Arizona begun to “drown[] in a sea of extremism” and become “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry,” and argues that Arizona has a long history of race-based exclusion laws and intolerance toward racial and ethnic minorities that has only now begun to garner attention on the national stage.

Reclaiming Justice and Eliminating Inequality through Compassionate Migration: The Relentless Struggle of Migrants Living in the Shadows

This article elaborates on the emerging concept of “compassionate migration” as a counter-hegemonic response to the institutions and systems that criminalize unauthorized immigration, including the assistance provided by those who aid such migrants out of a sense of compassion. In the name of human dignity, it is imperative that those who live in the shadows of United States immigration law and its enforcement system sense that social justice is a tangible possibility, and that they indeed may be able to free themselves from the structures that criminalize them and render them vulnerable to various forms of discrimination and other human rights abuses.

Revocation of Citizenship in the United States

AbstractRogers Brubaker in his 1992 path-breaking study proposes a theory of citizenship as a coherent world view: the French liberal model identifies citizenship as a community based on territoriality; the German ethno-nationalist model bases citizenship on blood-line. Rogers Smith challenged Brubaker and, based on a 1997 study of United States immigration laws, claims that the American concept of citizenship is a non-coherent mix of various principles: liberal, ethno-nationalist and republican at the same time. Both authors inspired a great deal of research, but all studies so far have attempted to adjudicate between the two competing theories by looking at inclusionary practices, at the various ways citizenship is granted in various countries, and their results are inconclusive. This paper reports findings for a study which looked at exclusion. The data on United States laws and legislative debates about the states’ rights to revoke, and citizens’ privilege to renounce, citizenship lends support to Rogers Smith’s arguments regarding inclusion and citizenship, while underlining war as an independent sociological source for the genesis, persistence and dispersion of these bundles or equilibria.

Petitioning for an Alien Relative under the United States Immigration and Citizenship Law

How to Petition for an Alien Relative under the United States Immigration and Citizenship Law.

Uprootedness as (Cruel and Unusual) Punishment

In spite of some protestations to the contrary, some of the practices that the United States immigration law permits are punitive. They are, moreover, terribly severe. If American citizens were to be treated in the ways in which some noncitizens are treated in the United States, they would be victims of cruel and unusual punishment. The paper seeks to show the implausibility of the euphemistic maneuvers that seek to deny this fact, by appealing to arguments put forth by the United States Supreme Court. In particular, the paper argues that the reasons why the United States Supreme Court considers expatriation to be cruel and unusual punishment apply as well to some instances of deportation.

Tightening the United States Immigration Laws in the 21st Century

In this day and age, States in the global community are increasingly becoming dependent on one another due to, amongst other things, the development of trade relationships between companies, growth and merger of domestic businesses into international enterprises, the increase of internet and electronic capabilities throughout the world, the expansion of security alliances, and the growth of free trade blocks among nations.

Women, health, and United States immigration law.

Women, health, and United States immigration law.

Immigration Justice: Beyond Liberal Egalitarian and Communitarian Perspectives

Immigration law resides within a complex web of interconnected political, cultural, and economic realities. Politically the world is organized around nation states, which exercise the legal authority to control their borders. Multiple factors push people into emigrating from their country of origin or pull people toward immigrating to particular countries. Given historic migration patterns and the fluidity of national borders, cultures transcend these boundaries, creating demand for transnational mobility. The global economy coupled with disparate economic opportunities between nations spurs immigration. War, civil unrest, and natural disasters also contribute to the international movement of peoples. In this article, I explore the foundations of a socially just immigration regime. Part one provides an overview of the push–pull factors influencing the decision of individuals and families to migrate. Part two places these decisions within the context of United States immigration law, exploring both the statutory and con-stitutional restrictions on entry into the United States. Part three examines the difficulties inherent in attempts to develop a coherent and just immigration policy out of liberal political theory or the communitarian response. In Part four, I place the immigration justice issue within the framework of Roman Catholic social teaching, concluding that such a framework provides a secure basis for constructing a just immigration jurisprudence. Finally, Part five briefly reflects on the justness of current United States immigration law in light of the theory developed in Part four.