Search

This paper explores the notion of loneliness as lack of solidarity in relations to Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Israel, and the diaspora. Loneliness as lack of solidarity is defined as lacking someone to identify with and/or lacking someone who is willing to assist while carrying a burden. We describe the mechanism of lack of identification using the concept of epistemic injustice. The paper suggests that art may serve as a way to mitigate this kind of loneliness, and focus on the Freedom Theater, which was operating in Jenin Refugee Camp until recently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poland has faced two waves of migration: the first was of irregular asylum seekers, which led to the humanitarian crisis on the eastern EU–Belarusian border since 2021; the second was of Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion. Although there are noticeable differences between these situations, and between the different reactions of the Polish authorities, it is possible to juxtapose them in terms of the right to health. The normative content of refugee and human rights law is the starting point for reconstructing the meaning of the terms 'refugee' and 'right to health'. A refugee is a person who needs international protection because of a well‐founded fear of harm, which is not limited to persecution as defined by the Refugee Convention but also includes situations of international and non‐international armed conflict. The right to health, which includes, inter alia, entitlements to a 'system of health protection' and 'underlying determinations of health', is reconstructed on the basis of human rights law and refugee and migration law. There are no legal and moral grounds to grant the right to health differentially to different groups of refugees. Nondiscriminatory health policy requires that refugees have the same access to health care as nationals, although their specific health needs resulting from past experiences and refugee situation require special treatment, that is, an appropriate refugee health policy. The broad understanding of the underlying determinants of health demonstrates the importance of overall migration policy for refugees' health, which can jeopardise the fragile good of refugee health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immigration status and related policies have a significant impact on health outcomes. Yet major national health surveys currently provide little or no information about immigration status, rendering subgroups of noncitizens largely invisible. Even measures of citizenship, nativity, country of birth, and years in the United States, which provide critical information about immigration history, are not consistently included in national data sets. The main objections to asking directly about immigration status are that (1) such questions are too stigmatizing, risking lower response rates and inaccurate responses; and (2) answering the questions may expose respondents to possible immigration or criminal consequences. Our analysis shows that these objections are unfounded or can be mitigated. National health surveys have evolved over the past decades to include questions about mental health, substance use, sexual orientation, and gender identity—topics once assumed to be too stigmatizing to ask about, with possible negative legal consequences. We argue that the time has come to obtain more detailed information about immigration status as well as to consistently include the measures of immigration history mentioned so that we can better evaluate the health consequences of immigrant-related policy choices. (Am J Public Health. 2025;115(1):75–82. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307867) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globalization supported by advances in transformation technology has encouraged the mobility of the world's population to visit other countries in turn. In the destination country, these people are known as foreigners. The mobility of these foreigners is motivated by various reasons, such as business, research, tourism, study, and various other reasons. Indonesia is one of the countries involved in the global chessboard, of course it must be ready for the various consequences that arise, especially related to the entry and exit of foreigners in the territory of Indonesia. The authority of the Police in supervising, securing, and taking action against foreigners in Indonesia has fluctuated between being present and non-existent, resulting in legal uncertainty regarding involvement the Police. Theoretically, the regulation of authority the Police in supervising, securing, and taking action against foreigners in Indonesia, there is a dissynchronization between the 2011 Immigration Law and the 1945 Constitution of Republic Indonesia and its implementing regulations, as well as disharmony between the 2011 Immigration Law and the Police Law, and the Criminal Procedure Code, so that in its implementation it results in apathy or passivity in supervising, securing, and taking action against foreigners in Indonesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Essay seeks to encourage Christians – especially those working communities who identify with or are perceived as evangelical – who speak and advocate for greater humanity in immigration to engage more deeply with the interconnectedness of racial justice and immigration law and policy today. Framing a self-consciously Christian approach to immigration to include concerns about racial justice raises challenges related to the fraught nature of both immigration and racial discourse during an era of deep politicization and polarization. But positive practical effects might also follow from such engagement, such as enhancing Christian communities’ ability to ameliorate the harms imposed by contemporary immigration enforcement on people of color, bringing Christians into greater proximity with the concerns animating movements for immigrant and racial justice, and theological enrichment around faith-based discourse regarding immigration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on an original, interview-based case study of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and a synthesis of six decades of social science literature, this Article offers a theory of physical violence in the administrative state that challenges foundational assumptions about administrative law. Approximately one-fifth of federal employees work for administrative agencies that police, fight wars, enforce immigration law, or incarcerate people-in other words, agencies that use force to execute the laws. These agencies are saturated with administrative law that obligates frontline administrators to confer due process, give notice, behave nonarbitrarily, and comply with law. Yet this law often fails to constrain administrators, with unauthorized violence as the result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between race and labour has been analyzed from different theoretical perspectives. Some have focused on the connection between race and the extraction of surplus from people of colour, Black people in particular Others have integrated race within the context of capitalism as a world system or have focused on race as a category of exploitation that defines both feudalism and capitalism that is essential for the survival of capitalism. This paper argues that, to understand the relation between race and labour, race must be understood as legal status. Race is a set of legal rights given to or withheld from workers because of loosely defined and arbitrarily selected physical characteristics. By assigning different rights to workers based on race, their labour is racialized, and race becomes an important element to the functioning of capitalism because it defines the value of labour. As legal status, race is defined and enforced by the state. In addition, this paper analyses the development of US naturalization and immigration law from 1790 to 1964, selected as an example of the process of racialization of labour. Specifically, it discusses the process of racialization of labour by connecting it to the concept of Westphalian sovereignty and the differentiation between natural and political rights. It concludes that, between 1790 and 1965, race supported the development and stability of US capitalism through the development of three distinct highly racialized labour markets: the Northeast, mostly defined by the racialization of European workers along a scale of whiteness; the West, determined by the racialization of Asian and, later, Latino workers; and the South, characterized by the racialization of African Americans and selected southern European workers, Italians in particular, and, later, Latino workers. These three markets operated in symbiosis with each other and featured different forms of racialization of labour, as defined by different forms of enforcement of race as legal status, ranging from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 on the West Coast to the Jim Crow System that emerged in the southern states after the Compromise of 1877 and the Immigration Act of 1924 that dramatically limited immigration from southern and Eastern Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The visa application process is laden with discretion and reinforced by consular nonreviewability--an extensive form of judicial deference. Until recently, courts recognized a small exception to consular nonreviewability. Under this exception, courts engaged in limited review of a consular officer's decision when visa denials implicated the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens. The Court curtailed this exception in United States Department of State v. Muñoz, anointing consular officers with nearly complete power over visa decisions. This deference jeopardizes the integrity and fairness of the immigration system, leaving visa applicants and their U.S. citizen sponsors at the mercy of consular officers. This not only fosters an arbitrary visa system but also conflicts with broader immigration system and administrative law trends. This Note traces the accidental history of consular nonreviewability--from its racially motivated origins to its full-fledged indoctrination in Muñoz. This Note proposes an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act: Consular officers should be required to provide factual and timely explanations for visa denials. Such a requirement would inject greater fairness into the visa application process and better align it with broader immigration law--without sacrificing the values underpinning consular nonreviewability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States (US), children's 'best interest' principles are central to child welfare policy, but their incorporation into immigration laws is less robust. Drawing on data from international and domestic policies, interviews with legal professionals and legal guidelines, we compare how Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) and asylum – the main forms of immigration relief for undocumented youths in the US – align with children's best interest principles. SIJS, while promising, undermines family integrity by imposing rigid child‐rearing standards that may penalize immigrant families. Asylum upholds family integrity, but the application process involves intense interviews and strict evidentiary standards that harm youths' well‐being. Given asylum's high denial rates, the process often results in trauma without much promise of the permanency asylum can offer. Consequently, both SIJS and asylum fall short of protecting children's rights and best interests. We argue that how legal systems manage youths significantly affects youths' well‐being and their access to rights and benefits. The impact of legal processes on youths should be paramount to best interest policies and practices. We conclude with policy recommendations for SIJS and asylum that better promote children's best interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study explored the predictive relationship among international student trauma responses, visa status anxiety, and perceived institutional support. Researchers also sought to understand the relationship between help seeking behaviors and trauma exposure responses. Participants: International students (n = 172) from U.S. colleges and universities enrolled since March 2020. Methods: Data were collected via an electronic survey administered during the fall 2020 academic term. Results: The model was found to be significant, explaining 67% of the variance of student trauma responses. Anxiety surrounding students' ability to stay in the U.S. was found to be the greatest contributor to the model. Additionally, particular clusters of trauma symptomatology were significantly correlated with help seeking from specific individuals within student networks. Finally, students reported moderate levels of mental health help seeking behaviors, with friends and family being the most likely sources sought out for help. Conclusions: Despite focus on students' health and wellness concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, visa policy uncertainty was a primary driver of self-reported trauma symptomatology at the onset of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In "Article 8 ECHR, Family Reunification and the UK's Supreme Court: Family Matters?" by Wray, the complex relationship between Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and family reunification in the UK is explored. Wray critically analyzes the UK Supreme Court's interpretation of human rights in immigration cases, particularly focusing on the best interests of children affected by immigration law. The book delves into the evolving nature of jurisprudence surrounding immigration and human rights, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in safeguarding fundamental liberties, especially in cases involving family reunification. [Extracted from the article]

The editorial discusses the impact of borders on migration, imperialism, and tragic deaths, particularly in the context of European policies and colonial legacies. It highlights the violence and suffering experienced by migrants, especially those crossing the English Channel in small boats. The text also delves into the intersection of immigration, terrorism, and border control, emphasizing the structural inequalities and exploitation faced by undocumented migrants. Additionally, it contrasts the media coverage and public response to migrant deaths with those of affluent individuals involved in luxury yacht disasters, underscoring the disparities in attention and empathy. [Extracted from the article]

This article examines the complex relationship between investment visas and tax residency within the context of increasing global mobility. As cross-border investments and the movement of high-net-worth individuals continue to grow, the process of determining tax residency has become more complicated and nuanced. The study investigates how countries use investment visa programs as strategic tools to attract capital, often by offering favorable tax regimes that blur traditional tax jurisdictional boundaries. While these programs are effective in drawing economic resources, they also raise ethical concerns and create opportunities for tax avoidance, thereby challenging the integrity of global tax systems. By analyzing current legal frameworks, the article seeks to clarify the complexities of tax residency in today's world. It addresses the challenges arising from the intersection of investment-driven immigration and tax law, emphasizing the difficulties in establishing clear tax obligations and residency status when individuals and their assets are dispersed across multiple juri sdictions. The ethical issues associated with these investment programs are also scrutinized, particularly the commercialization of citizenship and the risks of facilitating tax evasion. The article calls for a reevaluation of existing tax residency criteria, advocating for updates that reflect the realities of global mobility while ensuring legal certainty and fairness. Ultimately, the conclusions highlight the need for a more cohesive international framework to address the challenges and opportunities arising from the dynamic interplay between investment visas and tax residency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global movement of people in the context of strict immigration laws and policies places significant numbers of people in insecure migration status worldwide. Insecure status leaves people without recourse to legal, governmental or social protection from violence and abuse. This review synthesized qualitative studies that reported how migrants associated physical and physically enforced sexual violence they experienced with their insecure migration status. Methods: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis of 31 studies published between 1 January 2000 and 31 May 2023, with data from Europe, North America, East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Our thematic synthesis produced 14 inductive descriptive codes, four descriptive themes and three analytical themes. Results: We generated robust qualitative evidence showing that women experienced sexual violence while in transit or without status in a host state, and that they associated that violence with their insecure migration status. This was the case across the various geographic routes and destination countries. We found evidence that women associated intimate partner violence with lacking (legal) access to support because of their insecure migration status. We found evidence that women connected their unwillingness to leave violent circumstances, and therefore their prolonged or repeated exposure to violence, with a fear of immigration removal produced by their insecure migration status. Conclusion: To protect people in insecure migration status from experiencing violence that they associated with their migration status, it's necessary to ensure that the reporting of violence does not lead to immigration enforcement consequences for the victim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractResearch on foreign nationals’ crime and victimization outcomes heavily relies on binary “immigration status” measures that fail to account for the legal parameters of U.S. citizenship and immigration laws. This study demonstrates the potential misclassification of foreign-born U.S. citizens, the sanitization of foreign nationals’ heterogeneity, and the masking effect the use of binary measures has on outcomes compared to legally informed proxy statuses. Using the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiological Surveys data, this study compares lifetime measures of witnessing violence and sexual victimization outcomes between birthright citizens and five proxy “statuses” as well as intra-group comparisons across foreign nationals. Three weighted multiple logistic regression models were estimated per outcome. The results reveal that using a dichotomized “U.S.-born/foreign-born” measure masks substantive differences in the outcomes. Subanalyses of foreign nationals also suggest that intragroup differences are concealed. The methodological, theoretical, and policy implications of this work are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of COVID-19 restrictions and the shift to online teaching has contributed to a growing interest in distance learning across social work education. The authors of this paper are from the Open University, which has over 50 years of experience in distance learning and over the past 30 years e-learning through blended and fully online methods. The paper shares insights from teaching a social work law module to nearly 400 students across the UK. This paper addresses the challenges of integrating social work values and human rights into teaching asylum and immigration law amidst a UK legal discourse that often creates a ‘hostile environment’ for people with precarious immigration status. It explores teaching from a social justice perspective in the context of restrictive domestic laws. Highlighting the co-production of learning materials with civil society groups through videos and podcasts, the paper emphasizes the importance of including practitioner and migrant, asylum seeker or refugee voices to enrich content. Insights into the practicalities of incorporating these elements into e-learning, along with reflections on the challenges and opportunities, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1917 US Immigration Law marks a significant turning point in migration governance as a whole. More specifically regarding deportation, it shifted from a means of border control to become a post-entry tool of social oversight. Scholars stress that this transition was not sudden and developed gradually during the pre-war decades, yet they overlook how deportation was carried out during the war years immediately preceding the reform. This article discusses how the First World War disrupted deportations to Europe, the pressures this set on migration governance and the solutions the immigration authorities came up with. Apart from legal and humanitarian aspects, the article draws attention to the logistical and financial considerations shaping formal deportation policies and how these were put into practice. It does so from the perspective of an important but much neglected go-between in migration governance: the transatlantic shipping companies. Before 1917 they carried most of the legal, logistical and financial responsibility for executing deportations. In the article I argue that under the new law, shipping companies continued to function as an essential actor in immigration enforcement. Yet, by granting more leeway to the immigration authorities to carry out deportations independently, the law marked a crucial turning point in reducing the responsibility of transport companies for migration governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Against the backdrop of the rise in child migrants across the world, this study advances understanding of the transformative potential of centralizing children's stories and experiences through multi-sensory materials, producing accessible and creative ways to disrupt, counter, and draw critical attention to the impact and legacy of displacement. Focusing on two controversial historic migration/refugee schemes, Kindertransport and Windrush, this study integrates haptics with vision and audition, presenting contemporary children as co-producers/researchers, experts and "experiencers", with former children's objects, stories, memories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American immigration law is a domain where ordinary constitutional rules have never applied. At least, that is the conventional wisdom. Immigration law's exceptionalism is widely believed to flow directly from the Supreme Court's invention, in the late nineteenth century, of the so-called plenary power doctrine. On the standard account, that doctrine has long insulated immigration policies from constitutional scrutiny. The plenary power doctrine is thought to permit everything from President Trump's Muslim ban to the indefinite detention of migrants at the border. But the reigning historical account of immigration exceptionalism is wrong. Revisiting the field's canonical cases, this Article reveals that the plenary power doctrine lawyers and judges argue over today was not created in a series of late nineteenth-century cases. Far from being exceptional, those cases applied the then-standard framework linking due process and the separation of powers. By failing to understand that nineteenth-century immigration law was ordinary public law, scholars and jurists have, for decades, badly misunderstood immigration law's foundational cases. We have also overlooked the role that immigration law played in the development of modern public law. At the turn of the twentieth century, immigration law evolved apace with the rest of public law as both underwent a dramatic transformation. In some cases, immigration law even led the revolution, driving the development of the legal regime we now call "administrative law." Immigration exceptionalism is thus a recent invention. Indeed, it might be more accurate to say that the immigration plenary power doctrine was invented in the Roberts Court rather than in the late nineteenth century. Once we locate immigration exceptionalism in its proper moment, we can better appreciate immigration law's centrality to the development of American public law. We can also assemble new arguments against the modern exceptionalism that is responsible for the very worst parts of immigration law today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Note explores the intersection of American immigration law, gender dynamics, and access to higher education through federal student aid, focusing on Indian women who immigrate on an H-4 visa and suffer from domestic abuse at the hands of their H-1B sponsor. Specifically, this Note investigates how widening access to higher education through the expansion of qualifications for student federal aid can serve as a transformative tool in enabling these individuals to escape. With H-4 visa holders facing legal limitations, financial dependency on their H-1B spouses, and cultural barriers, this Note advocates for policy reform that extends federal student aid eligibility to H-4 visa holders. This nuanced policy reform is one of many necessary in dismantling the underlying coverture aspect of the H-1B/H-4 program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reflecting on the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Immigration Act, this brief essay suggests that the idea of "US American Empire" forms the telos of the last one hundred years of US immigration policy. Whether in the twentieth or the twenty-first centuries, or under Republican or Democratic leadership, US lawmakers have sought to restrict immigration to those who were deemed most "assimilable." Such moves are not only about preserving or instituting a particular racial character of the United States but ensuring a particular role for the United States globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An established literature demonstrates that formerly imprisoned people experience barriers to finding work. However, no research has analyzed how noncitizens experience socioeconomic reintegration following imprisonment. Additionally, while we know many immigrants find work in co-ethnic labor markets, we know little about how these networks respond to individuals with a criminal record. I analyze 321 longitudinal, semi-structured interviews collected between 2013–2016 from 121 noncitizens who were detained by U.S. immigration authorities for six months or longer and then released back into their communities on bond. Results reveal a complex set of socioeconomic reintegration experiences that are shaped by ethnic, legal, generational, and gender stratification in immigrant integration outcomes more broadly. These findings have important implications as immigration laws have become increasingly punitive and intertwined with criminal laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taken together these essays reveal both synergies and contradictions between and within immigration and welfare policies. Several common themes emerge. Firstly, while access to the welfare state is an important signifier of membership, in practice claiming certain state benefits is accompanied by suspicion, surveillance and stigma. The good citizen is a worker citizen. Secondly, the importance of the welfare state in putting the nation into the nation-state: the normative national community imagined as the rightful subject of welfare states is racialised and classed. Thirdly, deservingness functions in both welfare states and immigration regimes to prioritise victimhood rather than rights and redistribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the intersection of criminal and immigration law, particularly the responsibilities of criminal defense attorneys when advising non-citizen clients. Topics include understanding the Padilla v. Kentucky decision, categorizing non-citizen defendants based on their immigration status, and the legal consequences of various criminal offenses on deportation and lawful status.

Safety net organizations in rural regions face structural barriers to providing services. Organizations that serve rural Latino communities may face additional barriers related to restrictive immigration policies and anti‐immigrant climates. This study examines the impacts of restrictive immigration policies on safety net organizations that provide critical services to Latinos in rural areas to elucidate the mechanisms by which immigration policies influence Latino health. We conducted a qualitative analysis of 20 in‐depth interviews with safety net organizations providing legal, nutritional, healthcare, labor, educational, and advocacy services to Latinos in rural California. Rural Latino‐serving safety net organizations face immigration‐related funding restrictions and anti‐immigrant climates. Under restrictive immigration policies, rural safety net organizations are forced to extend beyond their organizational missions to circumvent immigration‐related funding restrictions and address anti‐immigrant climates to deliver their services. Staff working in these organizations are at the frontlines of anti‐immigrant climates and experienced an emotional toll from their work. States should address anti‐immigrant climates and increase funding to support organizations who serve Latinos in rural regions. To ensure that rural safety net organizations meet their mission, immigration‐related eligibility requirements from safety net services should be removed. In addition, funders should allocate resources towards mental health services to address the impacts of anti‐immigrant climates on staff who serve in rural Latino communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Access to health services for asylum seekers is legally restricted in Germany. The law is subject to interpretation, therefore the chance of receiving care is not equally distributed among asylum seekers. What services are provided to whom is ultimately decided by health professionals and government employees. The respective prioritization processes and criteria are not transparent. We sought to understand how legal restrictions are translated into daily practices and how this affects the health system. We aimed to outline the complex process of cost coverage for health services for asylum seekers and provide insights into common decision-making criteria. Methods: We conducted an ethnographic exploration of routines in two outpatient clinics in two federal states over the course of three months, doing participant and non-participant observation. Additionally, we interviewed 21 professionals of health care and government organizations, and documented 110 applications for cost coverage of medical services and their outcome. In addition to qualitative data analysis and documentation, we apply a system-theoretical perspective to our findings. Results: To perform legal restrictions a cross-sectoral prioritization process of medical services has been implemented, involving health care and government institutions. This changes professional practices, responsibilities and (power) relations. Involved actors find themselves at the intersection of several, oftentimes conflicting priorities, since "doing it right" might be seen differently from a legal, medical, economic, or political perspective. The system-theoretical analysis reveals that while actors have to bring different rationales into workable arrangements this part of the medical system transforms, giving rise to a sub-system that incorporates migration political rationales. Conclusions: Health care restrictions for asylum seekers are implemented through an organizational linking of care provision and government administration, resulting in a bureaucratization of practice. Power structures at this intersection of health and migration policy, that are uncommon in other parts of the health system are thereby normalized. Outpatient clinics provide low-threshold access to health services, but paradoxically they may unintentionally stabilize health inequities, if prioritization criteria and power dynamics are not made transparent. Health professionals should openly reflect on conflicting rationales. Training, research and professional associations need to empower them to stay true to professional ethical principles and international conventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the relationship between the categorization of migrants under U.S. immigration laws and how Central American migrant youth understand and make decisions about their journeys through Mexico on their way to the U.S. Drawing from four years of ethnographic research in Mexico and Central America, this article shows how youth migrants learn about different legal classifications of migrants under U.S. immigration laws while transiting through Mexico and assess how such categories take (or do not take) into account their experiences during the migration journey. These assessments transform the migrant youths’ journeys – they change their routes through Mexico, and families split before crossing to the U.S. – and make them less likely to denounce or call attention to the violence they suffer in Mexico. This article ultimately shows how U.S. immigration law has an externalized effect that transforms migrants’ journeys well before migrants ever reach the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

U.S. immigration law has always been a place for Americans to enact their many prejudices. Often, it edifies norms that exclude and subordinate noncitizens due to their race, gender, or socioeconomic status. As a result, immigration law and policy create great human suffering through actions such as separating families, excluding refugees, and detaining noncitizens. In response, scholars are engaging in a distinctive method of interrogating immigration law. We call this analytic method Critical Immigration Legal Theory ("CILT"). Derived from critical race theory and other similar theories, CILT critiques facially colorblind immigration laws to expose their subordination of immigrants based on race and other historically oppressed identities, while challenging the fixed legal categories of alienage and citizenship by defining new ways of belonging. It also uses anti-essentialism to contest the negative stereotypes of immigrants as undesirable outsiders as well as the positive stereotypes of deserving immigrants and "model minorities" that encourage respectability politics. Further, CILT has a central praxis dimension that aspires to transform immigration law and its treatment of noncitizens by aligning with immigrant rights movements that are mobilizing for social change and legal transformation. Our goal is to recognize the trend of CILT methodology within immigration law scholarship as a means of contestation, resistance, and praxis. CILT has emerged out of the growing cadre and diversity of immigration law scholars and the increasingly blurred lines between law scholar, lawyer, and activist. Their lived experiences--personal and professional--inform their perspectives on the systems of power that subjugate the noncitizens with whom they collaborate. By describing current CILT approaches, we hope to begin a conversation for others to connect, weigh in, and build on our description. We conclude by considering the implications of CILT, from the potential for backlash to how it changes the way that immigration law scholars teach and work with students, clients, and communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critical Immigration Legal Theory by Kathleen Kim, Kevin Lapp, and Jennifer J. Lee identifies Critical Immigration Legal Theory ("CILT") as a distinct body of immigration scholarship bringing critical legal analysis to bear on U.S. immigration law and policy. CILT analyzes how immigration law and policy function to subordinate noncitizens of color, women, LGBTQIA+ persons, and others. As this Essay discusses, Critical Legal Immigration Theory represents a significant contribution to our understanding of immigration law scholarship and, importantly, is part of a growing body of critical scholarship analyzing the subordination of vulnerable noncitizens. In mapping the field, the authors blaze a trail for future Critical Immigration Legal Theory scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clarifying the extent to which existing legal regimes afford protection to climate migrants must be part of an effective and coordinated response to climate change. This Note argues that climate refugees, a group which it narrowly defines as those who meet the requirements of the 1951 Refugee Convention because they have experienced climate change-induced harm amounting to persecution, should qualify for asylum under U.S. immigration law. To establish an initial asylum claim, climate refugees must demonstrate persecution on account of one of the Refugee Convention's five protected grounds. Either membership in a particular social group or nationality could be an appropriate basis. In the context of climate change, the accumulation of slow- and rapid-onset harm inflicted by high-emitting actors in the Global North, against which climate refugees' governments are unable or unwilling to protect them, should constitute persecution. Actual or constructive knowledge of the relationship between high-emitting activities, climate change, and damage to climate-vulnerable populations should establish a nexus between persecution and the protected ground. Successfully meeting these criteria establishes a well-founded fear of future persecution, which the U.S. government may rebut. To overcome such a refutation, climate refugees should argue for humanitarian asylum based on their fear of experiencing "other serious harm" if repatriated, which provides an opportunity to introduce the full range of evidence of climate change-related harm. While most climate migrants will not meet the criteria for climate asylum, those who qualify should benefit from this established form of protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The criminal and immigration systems in the United States have increasingly overlapped, adversely affecting noncitizens even distantly involved in criminal activity. Individuals without legal status who have engaged significantly with a criminal organization can cooperate with law enforcement in exchange for formal immigration benefits. There are no formal protections, however, for individuals residing in the country without legal status who have engaged in minor criminal activity--so minor that charges are not brought against them--even when they cooperate with law enforcement to provide information on the larger criminal scheme. This seemingly contravenes the goals of criminal and immigration law by failing to protect vulnerable accomplices who have not been charged with wrongdoing. This Note proposes shielding such susceptible populations by expanding immigration protections. In the criminal sphere, charged individuals who lack the ability to render the substantial assistance needed for formal cooperation can still be eligible for a "safety valve" if, in good faith, they provide details on the activities that they partook in. Recipients of safety-valve protections receive sentences below the defined statutory minimums for the crimes they have committed. They do not obtain as much of a reduction in sentencing as formal cooperators or informants do but still benefit from engaging honestly with law enforcement. This Note proposes mirroring such a protection--a lesser version of the S visa modeled after the safety valve--into the immigration context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Regulation that develops the Law on Immigration is one of the legal instruments that regulates the operation and organization of the public administration in relation to immigration issues. This regulation is currently being modified and will experience a profound transformation. Recently, the draft reform has been published to be submitted to public hearing and information in order to gather the opinion of the citizens. On this occasion and using the contributions developed by the Movimiento por la Paz -MPDL-, a few observations on the main sections of this project from a human rights-based approach will be done. The comments will be focused on some of the issues in which the regulation is most harmful to the interests and rights of the migrant population. Specifically, humanitarian visas as a mechanism to stop migrant deaths, safe reporting mechanisms for undocumented migrants and, finally, forms of regularization for displaced children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an era where migration and asylum are becoming more securitized, this article argues that unruly action by asylum seekers contributes to decolonization through challenging stratified citizenship and hierarchical immigration laws. I argue through a case of members of the Zimbabwe Vigil in London that diasporas challenge the system within their countries of settlement, enhancing self‐determination, and speak back to their homelands by demanding rights where excluded. The article draws from 20 key informant interviews conducted with members of the Zimbabwe Vigil in London and their partners on the ground in Harare, Zimbabwe. Through speaking back to the homeland, these individuals play a role in challenging coloniality within the homeland and thus are agents of decolonization. Ultimately, the article answers calls by scholars to expand and challenge the way we have conceptualized diaspora in addition to the literature on diaspora lobbying, engagement and decolonization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The case of Mary Masako Akimoto illuminates how carceral systems based on immigrant criminalisation, known as crimmigration, intersected with gendered notions of decent and indecent work in 1930s America. Mary Akimoto was deported from the USA in compliance with US anti‐sex trafficking law for the crime of selling sex in a brothel (indecent work). Yet, as part of her rehabilitation or as a requirement of her release in the months and years that followed her initial arrest, she regularly found herself in coerced labour situations engaging in vocations gendered as decent work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the contemporary global context, the challenge of integrating immigrants into host societies has gained prominence. This paper delves into the perceptions and experiences of Afghan immigrants in Iran regarding immigration policies and laws. Employing a constructivist grounded theory methodology, the study aims to uncover participants' interpretations and the meanings attributed to immigration policies and laws. Grounded theory analysis, involving initial, focused, and theoretical coding, was employed to collect data. The results reveal that current immigration laws and policies in Iran have led to economic disparities, limited educational opportunities, social isolation, and identity challenges for Afghan immigrants. Iran's integration policies lean towards exclusion. Consequently, Afghan immigrants experience a weakened sense of belonging in the country. Therefore, our study suggests the importance of implementing integration theories and policies instead of those promoting disintegration. Such policies not only hinder immigrants' assimilation but also impede the overall progress of the host nation, thus undermining social cohesion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Arab Americans experience higher rates of mental illness and lower rates of treatment compared to the general population. While some factors leading to this disparity have been proposed, data in the literature remains lacking. This study aims to explore the mental health perspectives of Arab Americans living in Southeastern Michigan regarding barriers to mental health treatment, treatment resource preferences and telemental health preferences. Design/methodology/approach: Responses were collected through an anonymous bilingual Qualtrics survey from both Arab and non-Arab participants (n = 294, ages 18+) in Southeastern Michigan. Participants' perceptions regarding mental health barriers, resource preferences and telemental health were assessed. Comparisons were performed between Arabs and non-Arabs, and among Arabs. Findings: Compared to non-Arabs, Arabs were less likely to seek mental health treatment from a therapist or a primary care provider and were more likely to not seek treatment. Arabs were more likely than non-Arabs to list fear of being called crazy by others and cultural barriers. With regards to preferences on telemental health utilization, no significant differences between Arab and non-Arab participants were found. Originality/value: The results provide insights into Arab-American mental health perspectives, especially pertaining to mental health barriers, resources and telemental health preferences, adding a novel perspective on the mental health preferences of Arab-American subgroups, especially regarding gender and age differences. This study highlights the Arab-American population as a nuanced and diverse group, emphasizing the importance of future studies to show a more complete picture of Arab-American mental health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through a complementary framework of laws, policies, and practices, the Biden administration has built upon the immigration agendas of previous United States (US) administrations, restricting the right to seek asylum for those arriving at the southwest border almost entirely. Principally, it has expanded certain laws and policies implemented by the Trump administration – some of which it has vigorously defended in court – and implemented new laws and policies, specifically a final rule entitled 'Circumvention of Lawful Pathways', which limits asylum but for the most exceptional circumstances. As this article demonstrates, these exceptional circumstances have been interpreted and applied by Customs and Border Protection officers in terms even narrower than the final rule permits. The restriction of asylum has been realized through two specific modifications to US immigration law and, by extension, fundamental precepts of international refugee law: the conflation of asylum seekers and migrants as classes of individuals subject to undifferentiated legal processes, and the qualification of asylum based on the mode of arrival, specifically, arrival by land at the southwest border after having travelled through another Central American State – a condition that applies to all land arrivals by non-Mexican nationals. Through an analysis of quantitative data, and a series of qualitative interviews with legal service providers, shelter providers, independent researchers at US ports of entry, and a former senior US Border Patrol agent, the article demonstrates that the implementation of the Biden administration's immigration agenda and the practice of Customs and Border Protection officers forms part of a 'unified immigration agenda' of multiple sequential US administrations, the purpose of which is to restrict access to asylum, create conditions unconducive to spontaneous arrival at the southwest border, and impose extreme hardships on those who seek to enter the US via the southwest border. The Biden administration has continued to pursue this unified immigration agenda by implementing Circumvention of Lawful Pathways, essentially ending the provision of asylum, even for those who are clearly in need of protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The special international regime for Palestinian refugees established by Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention has yet to receive sufficient attention in Turkish asylum literature. Although Turkish law has incorporated Article 1D, neither scholars nor practitioners have pushed for its implementation. This research contends that Palestinians should be recognised as refugees in Turkey. Despite Turkey only granting refugee status to individuals from Europe due to the Convention's geographical limitation, this article argues that an exception should be made for Palestinians. To this end, this article addresses how Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention applies in Turkey by focusing on the interplay between the Convention and Turkish laws and regulations, as well as considering recent case law in other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe. By doing so, it aims to demonstrate that it is possible, though challenging, to improve the legal status of Palestinians in Turkey, mainly through strategic litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2024 US presidential election has sparked discussions about immigration policy. The Republican Party focuses on securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and implementing a large-scale deportation program. They also prioritize merit-based immigration and ending sanctuary cities. The Democratic Party aims to secure the border, fix the broken immigration system, and provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and long-term undocumented individuals. They also want to reform the asylum system, increase border resources, and support cities and states sheltering migrants. President Biden has taken executive actions to address these issues, but comprehensive reforms require congressional action. The text explores various immigration policies and actions taken by the Biden administration, including efforts to deter illegal immigration, combat human trafficking and the illicit fentanyl trade, expand legal immigration pathways, support undocumented individuals, and improve the efficiency of immigration decisions. The administration has implemented measures such as returning unlawful border crossers to their home countries, establishing task forces to combat human smuggling and trafficking, and increasing penalties for offenders. It has also worked to increase legal immigration opportunities, protect DACA recipients, preserve and expand Temporary Protected Status, and streamline immigration processes. The administration aims to address the root causes of migration and collaborate with regional partners to tackle immigration challenges. [Extracted from the article]

While there has been an increase in rhetoric and efforts to block expanding voting rights to noncitizens around the United States, there is a relative lack of academic research examining the ideology, political actors, and strategy behind such efforts. In addressing this gap, we explore anti-immigrant voting rights campaigns as they relate to broader rightwing mobilization and voter suppression efforts. We draw upon the literature on Gramsci's conception of hegemony to document and analyze efforts to use state power to change constitutions and election laws in ways that politically disenfranchise working class people of color in order to institutionalize white minority rule. We explore the nature of this political project and how more conventional rightwing actors dovetail with grassroots extremism by examining both historical and contemporary cases. We show how these networks have employed a mix of legal, administrative, and violent tactics during the turn of the twentieth century as well as in the contemporary period to politically realize a common, exclusionary ideology to shape the electorate and polity. We argue struggles over noncitizen voting rights reflect debate about distinct visions of who properly constitutes "the people," and what is and should be the nature of the American polity: are we a white Anglo Christian republic or a multiracial egalitarian democracy? In so doing, we argue the rise and fall – and reemergence – of noncitizen immigrant voting rights in the U.S. represents a microcosm of the broader "voting wars" embroiling the nation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies of immigration have questioned assumptions about the effectiveness of government controls. In her work on illegal Jewish immigration to the United States, Libby Garland argues that official immigration quotas may not reflect actual numbers of immigrants and critiques historians for being too ready to take immigration laws at face value. Mae Ngai's work on the racialisation of "illegal aliens" in the United States also documents the failure of legislation to curb illegal immigration. Situating her study within this historiography, Sheila Fitzpatrick has re‐examined Australian measures that aimed to limit the entry of Holocaust survivors and concluded that the number of arrivals was substantially higher than previously recognised, in part because migrants and their sponsors found ways around restrictions. In substantiation, Fitzpatrick drew on the archives of the International Refugee Organization and the Australian Government, and the papers of the country's first Minister for Immigration, Arthur Calwell. This article revisits Fitzpatrick's sources, as well as the records of Jewish organisations she did not consult. It establishes that the Australian government effectively limited Jewish immigration and the estimates of earlier scholars were substantially correct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To determine facility-level factors associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers. Methods. We obtained COVID-19 case counts at 88 ICE detention facilities from May 6, 2020, through June 21, 2021, from the COVID Prison Project. We obtained information about facility population size, facility type (dedicated to immigrants or mixed with other incarcerated populations), and facility operator (public vs private contractor) from third-party sources. We defined the threshold for a COVID-19 outbreak as a cumulative 3-week incidence of 10% or more of the detained population. Results. Sixty-three facilities (72%) had at least 1 outbreak. Facilities with any outbreak were significantly more likely to be privately operated (P <.001), to have larger populations (113 vs 37; P =.002), and to have greater changes in their population size over the study period (‒56% vs −26%; P <.001). Conclusions. Several facility-level factors were associated with the occurrence of COVID-19 outbreaks in ICE facilities. Public Health Implications. Structural and organizational factors that promote respiratory infection spread in ICE facilities must be addressed to protect detainee health. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(9):909–912. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307704) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on aspirations and capabilities models in migration studies, this paper explores the utility of this approach for elucidating long-term integration processes. Aspirations as individual constructions of what one's life should look like in the future are a concept used by scholars to study migrants' motives to migrate. However, neither are aspirations an often applied analytical category, nor a sufficiently examined theoretical subject in the area of long-term migration. This paper addresses this gap and applies the category of aspirations and capabilities to the study of long-term adaptation processes of Polish emigrants of the 1980s in three European countries: Austria, Italy and Sweden. The case study illustrates the aspirations/capabilities model's usability for studying integration processes and proves that aspirations and capabilities should be a subject of inquiry throughout migrants' lives. As a contribution to the debate, an analytical framework along with a schema depicting live long migration processes is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amount of migration and people seeking asylum in the UK is increasing due to people leaving their country as a result of fear of persecution. There is a lack of knowledge regarding migrants’ rights to healthcare and barriers which exist trying to access this, including in the primary care setting. This literature review explored the experience of accessing services in the primary care setting from the viewpoint of asylum seekers and refuges (ASRs) and thematic analysis was conducted. The three themes identified were barriers to accessing primary care for ASRs, increased and inappropriate use of emergency services, and risks to public health. As it is a human right to seek asylum from persecution and receive appropriate healthcare in the host country, it is important that primary care is accessed by this population. This will help to prevent inappropriate attendance in emergency departments and promote seeking help before serious illness ensues. Primary care should provide compassionate and non-judgemental care to encourage a trusting relationship and promote health-seeking behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Courts apply a strong presumption in favor of judicial review of government action. When they apply that presumption, they silently presume that they can determine, as a matter of law, whether such judicial review exists. In fact, however, whether judicial review exists may present a factual question. Consider a catch-22 at the center of immigration jurisdiction doctrine: for certain due process claims, the only review available is review that is unavailable. Some federal courts have read a jurisdictional statute to allow only direct appeals of deportation orders, regardless of what claims are at issue. Appealing without a lawyer is difficult and extremely rare; as a result, judicial review does not exist in fact for due process violations that affect only pro se noncitizens. For example, the government has ignored its obligation to translate the asylum application for non-English speakers. But no one has challenged that violation on appeal because any appeal itself has to be filed in English. Similarly, the government does not provide lawyers for children--even toddlers--in immigration court. But that clear due process violation has never received judicial review because children who need counsel are unable to appeal and raise that claim themselves. In the immigration context, courts should solve these problems by applying the presumption in favor of judicial review to allow jurisdiction in district court where the facts show that the government action would otherwise evade review. But more broadly, these problems point to a problem with jurisdiction-stripping doctrine. Judges and scholars have assumed that determining the extent of jurisdiction-stripping statutes requires answering questions of law. But determining whether Congress has withdrawn jurisdiction often raises questions of fact, just as standing doctrine requires a factual inquiry into the imminence of harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The political and social reaction to the High Court's decision in NZYQ is evidence of a deficit of constitutional culture in Australia: there has been a race to the bottom in public debate. This is against the background of the failed Voice referendum. Possible ways forward are discussed, and France is mentioned as counterpoint on the issue of constitutional culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines transitions between legal statuses as an ongoing negotiated process between undocumented embodiments and legal realities. Rather than viewing legal statuses as mutually exclusive states of existence, I contend that transitioning through statuses leaves behind what I call remnants of illegality – lingering effects of previous legal designations that continue to shape a person’s behavior and worldview even after the person is no longer in that status. Interviews with 20 formerly undocumented/DACA Californians reveal that the remnants of illegality alter participants’ understanding of legal status, everyday behaviors, and understandings of self. Although participants struggle to bridge the gap between their remnants of illegality and legal realities, their stories suggest that they actively work to unlearn these remnants, indicating their potential impermanence. Broadly, these findings propose a new concept for understanding the impacts of illegality and also challenge assumptions about legal status as an idealistic end-goal solution to the condition of illegality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]