Immigration

  • December 5, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and founding director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law - University Park, Sirine Shebaya, senior staff attorney, Muslim Advocates and , and Abed Ayoub, legal director, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

    *This piece was originally posted on Medium

    What happened at the Supreme Court? On December 4, the Supreme Court issued orders staying the injunctions placed on certain aspects of Ban 3.0 by federal district courts in Hawaii and Maryland. What this means is the third version of the ban can take full effect pending a decision of the Government’s appeal in the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals and pending a decision of the Government’s petition to the Supreme Court to hear the case. Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg would have denied the application giving rise to these orders.

  • December 4, 2017
    Guest Post

    Sudha Setty is a professor of law and associate dean at Western New England University School of Law. Her book, National Security Secrecy: Comparative Effects on Democracy and the Rule of Law, was recently published by Cambridge University Press.

    For decades, the balance of national security power has become progressively unmoored from the basic democratic premise that the power to decide what the government does resides with the people through their representatives. Yet post-September 11 national security-related policies have distorted both of these concepts of democracy: exceptionalism and emergency are consistently invoked in the national security context to justify programs that would otherwise be viewed as outside of the legal, structural, and value constraints that society places on government—like extraordinary rendition, torture, and the targeted killings of Americans overseas. On top of that, the secrecy with which certain programs are conducted inverts the democratic structure of transparency in ways that undermine the effectiveness of our governmental structures and lessens our commitment to a society based on the rule of law.

  • November 27, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and founding director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law - University Park

    *This piece was originally posted on Medium

    Witness Fatiha Elgharib, who has lived in Ohio for more than two decades, serves as primary caregiver to a United States citizen child suffering from Down Syndrome, is married to the breadwinner, and faces imminent deportation on November 27. Fatiha became a target of immigration following her fight and support of her husband during the course of NSEERS –a Muslim registration program enacted after the attacks of 9/11. Fatiha’s story highlights the ongoing residual impact of NSEERS and raises important questions about the legitimacy of using a now defunct and ill-conceived policy to generate new deportations.

  • November 13, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Debbie Smith, Associate General Counsel for Immigration Law, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

    Even as the newest Muslim ban works its way through the courts, President Trump has initiated another assault against immigrants by terminating a program providing humanitarian relief to immigrants fleeing civil war and natural disasters. Despite 30 years of Democratic and Republican administrations’ recognition of the importance of continuing this protection, unless Congress intervenes or the administration changes its mind, it is about to end.

    Last Monday, the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 2,500 Nicaraguans and left in limbo the fate of 57,000 Hondurans who have lived and worked legally in the United States for decades. On Thanksgiving Day, DHS will decide the destiny of 50,000 Haitians who fled the earthquake that decimated their island. In January, DHS will consider whether 200,000 Salvadorans living in the U.S., many for over 20 years, can remain. By the end of 2018, the approximately 350,000 hardworking current TPS beneficiaries will be forced into the shadows and subject to expulsion from the U.S.

  • October 26, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Amy Myrick, Staff Attorney for Judicial Strategy, Center for Reproductive Rights 

    It had to happen: an administration seeking to remake the Constitution into a rubber stamp for rights violations found the place where abortion and immigration converge.  In a federally contracted shelter in Texas, an unaccompanied 17-year-old immigrant who did not want to be pregnant waited over a month while federal officials relentlessly blocked her from receiving an abortion.  Jane Doe was forced to endure what ultimately became a grueling spectacle and multiple court hearings before she could access what has long been a protected constitutional right in the United States.

    The government’s argument in this recent case, Garza v. Hargan, is glaringly unconstitutional. Under a line of cases starting with Roe v. Wade (1973), and ending with Whole Woman’s Heath v. Hellerstedt (2016), it’s settled law that the Constitution protects the right to access abortion, and the government cannot place a “substantial obstacle” in the path of a woman - adult or minor - seeking to exercise that right.  Whether claiming to advance the government’s preference for childbirth or its view of what is in a pregnant minor’s “best interests,” or both, the government has no authority to unilaterally block a woman’s access to abortion.  But in the Garza case, the government did just that.