United States’ Options for Receiving Cross-Border Climate Migrants

Climate Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 232-258
Author(s):  
Katrina M. Wyman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Law ◽  
Displaced Persons ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Safe Haven ◽  
Legislative Change ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
History Of ◽  
Domestic Law

Although the current political climate in the United States is not especially receptive to welcoming displaced persons, the country has a history of oscillating between greater and lesser openness to immigration. This article seeks to establish that there are meaningful options for the United States to provide a refuge for climate migrants under existing us immigration law, contrary to suggestions in the literature that legislative change would be necessary for the country to provide a safe haven for such migrants. The article highlights three legal options that the United States could use to assist climate migrants from other countries under existing domestic law. In addition, it identifies recent precedents in the use of these options that could be helpful in adapting them to assist climate migrants.

History of POW Treatment in the United States

2017 ◽  
pp. 31-56
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Korean War ◽  
The United States ◽  
Revolutionary War ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
The Core ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
History Of ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter details the history of U.S. POW treatment from the Revolutionary War through the Korean War to demonstrate the consistent importance bestowed upon the use of humane methods. Particular attention is paid to the application of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. policy, military doctrine, and domestic law, as these international legal statutes have come to represent the core of international humanitarian law. Chapter 2 shows that while the United States struggled at times to adapt to new and unforeseen scenarios, it always worked to address these ambiguities from the perspective of reinforcing, rather than challenging, the norm of humane treatment.

scholarly journals The Odyssey of the J-2: Forty-Three Years of Trying Not to Go Home Again

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen W. Yale-Loehr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
State Department ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Law ◽  
Strong Argument ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Legal Opinions ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of

18 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal (2003-04)Naomi Schorr, and Stephen W. Yale-LoehrWe wrote this article to address one question: Should a J-2 nonimmigrant exchange visitor be subject to the two-year foreign residence requirement of section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) if the J-1 principal is so subject? In trying to answer that question, the authors confronted additional issues that seem to have gone unresolved for close to half a century. If a J nonimmigrant is subject, be it J-1 or J-2, where can he fulfill the foreign residence requirement: in the country of his nationality or the country of his last residence? Does he have a choice? Where does a J-2 fulfill? In her J-1 spouse's country of nationality or last residence or her own? Can she combine periods that she spends in both? And how can she fulfill it? Do any periods of stay in the foreign residence count, or must there be a certain quality to periods spent in the foreign country? If a J-1 fulfills the two-year rule overseas but the J-2 remains in the United States, is the J-2 still subject? If so, why? And finally, who gets to decide if the alien is even subject in the first place?The article is intended to serve several purposes: (1) to lead to an understanding of how J-2 nonimmigrants became subject to the foreign residence requirement; (2) to sort out where and how the two-year obligation may be fulfilled; and (3) to provide the legal rationale and justification for a new regulatory scheme that would render the J-2 exempt from the two-year foreign residence requirement. Our research found that there is very little in the legislative history and nothing in the INA that compels the conclusion that a J-2 is subject to the two-year foreign residence requirement. In fact, a strong argument exists that the J-2 is clearly not subject. For these reasons, we recommend that the State Department and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) change their current interpretations to exempt J-2s from the two-year foreign residence requirement.We decided to write this article after listening to the remarks of a senior State Department official at a recent immigration law conference. That official was very clear in his view that the foreign residence requirement should not be imposed on J-2 nonimmigrants.This article looks at the legal premises and processes we engage in, examines the legislative history of the exchange visitor program, reviews the questions about J-2s that have been raised in liaison meetings between the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the Department of State and the United States Information Agency (USIA), provides excerpts from some of the statements about fulfillment issues that have been made by representatives of those governmental agencies at a variety of AILA conferences since 1998, and analyzes case law, legal opinions, and relevant regulations. In so doing, it necessarily takes a long, hard look not just at the J-2 classification, but also the status to which it appends, the J-1.

scholarly journals Irrelevant, overlooked, or lost? Trends in 20 years of uncited and low cited K-12 online learning articles

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Arnesen ◽  
Shea Walters ◽  
Michael K. Barbour ◽  
Jered Borup
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Online Learning ◽  
Technology Management ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Narrow Focus ◽  
Community Technology ◽  
History Of ◽  
K 12 ◽  
History Classes

In this study, we analyzed a subset of uncited or low cited articles from the data reported in Arnesen, Hveem, Short, West, and Barbour  (2019), who examined the trends in K-12 online learning articles from 1994 to 2016. We identified 62 articles that had 5 or fewer citations, and analyzed them for trends in authorship, publication outlets, dates of publication, and topics that could help explain their low citation numbers. We also analyzed topics to see what contribution they might have made and can still make to the field of K-12 online learning. We found that the majority of these articles had been published in many different, less well-known journals.  We also found that these articles may have attracted fewer readers because they addressed topics that seemed to have a narrow focus, often outside of the United States. The articles were also authored by  both well-known researchers in the field as well as a number of one-time authors. What we did not find were articles that were uninteresting, poorly researched, or irrelevant. Many of the articles described and discussed programs that grappled with and overcame some of the same challenges online learning still faces today: issues of interaction, community, technology, management, etc. Some of the early articles gave interesting insights into the history of K-12 online learning, especially as it involved rural learners and programs. Others addressed less mainstream but still interesting topics such as librarians in online learning, cross-border AP history classes, policies that helped or hindered the growth of online learning, and practical considerations of cost and access.

Prison History

Criminology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Schmalleger ◽  
Cassandra Atkin-Plunk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Economic Changes ◽  
Social Transformations ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
History Of ◽  
Prison Systems ◽  
Historical Accounts

Prisons in the United States and Western European nations have a rich history, with the use of confinement as a form of punishment dating back to medieval times. Throughout the centuries, scholars and penal reformers have widely documented reform efforts and the shift in punishment philosophies. This shift resulted in corporal punishment methods being abandoned and replaced with incarceration. During the 17th and 18th centuries, the confinement of criminals in prisons expanded across the United States and Europe. As the use of prisons as punishment became common practice, penal innovations throughout continental Europe influenced the development of competing prison discipline systems in the United States. The opposing systems in the United States in turn promoted a change in penal practices across Europe. The state of early prison systems has been well documented, from first-hand accounts of abysmal conditions in early European prisons to historical examinations of physical prison structures. Scholars have conducted case studies of historical penal institutions as well as examined the history of women in prison, which paints a vivid picture of prisons throughout history. Historians and scholars also place great emphasis on reform efforts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where authors cite social transformations, ideological shifts, economic changes, and political events that resulted in the widespread use of incarceration that continues in the early 21st century. The 1970s is arguably the most pivotal decade in the recent history of prisons, where the United States witnessed a sweeping change in the political climate. This change resulted in a transformation of penal and sentencing policies, which ultimately resulted in mass incarceration practices in the United States, and to a lesser extent in Europe. A substantial amount of scholarly research on trends in the correctional population emerged in the 1990s and 2000s. The consequences of the unprecedented increase in incarceration have also been examined, particularly with regard to the large-scale incarceration of minorities. Overall, the numerous historical accounts of prison development and penal practices throughout time will help researchers and students alike gain a comprehensive understanding of the history of prisons in the United States and Europe.

The Proclaiming of treaties in the United States

1936 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-79
Author(s):  
Henby Reiff
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Agreement ◽  
British Government ◽  
Usual Form ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of ◽  
To Come ◽  
Domestic Law

The recent case of Factor v. Laubenheimer raised several interesting questions with regard to the date of effectiveness of the extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain, signed at London, December 22,1931, and the effect, if any, of the President’s proclamation of the treaty upon its status as law of the land of the United States. Article 18 of the treaty provided that it was to “come into force ten days after its publication, in conformity with the forms prescribed by the laws of the high contracting parties.” Ratifications were exchanged at London, August 4,1932; the President issued a proclamation in the usual form containing the treaty, as of the date August 9,1932; but the British Government withheld the issuance of an Order-in-Council containing the treaty, apparently to avoid affecting the result in the Factor Case. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the treaty was in force, but the Supreme Court, without going into the merits of the contention, followed the State Department, which appeared not to have recognized the treaty as in force in either country. The court, after examining the terms of the 1931 agreement found that even if it had come into effect as contended it would not have abated the pending proceedings. In several previous cases incidentally involving Presidential proclamations of treaties, the court has also been able to dispose of the principal issues raised without pronouncing upon the status and effect of such proclamations. On some future occasion, perhaps, the court may find it necessary to rule squarely upon the relation of the President’s proclamation of an international agreement to its status in domestic law. The present discussion is devoted to an examination of that relation, which includes the date of effectiveness of a treaty; the history of the use of the proclamation; and the effect of the proclamation upon the status of the treaty as law of the land.

The French Connection: An Uncertain Factor in Soviet Relations with Western Europe

1985 ◽  
Vol 481 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIE MENDRAS
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Bilateral Relations ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Socialist Government ◽  
Uncertain Factor ◽  
History Of

France's long relationship with the Soviet Union has varied according to the political climate. The crucial factors in the French-Soviet relationship are the state of U.S.-Soviet affairs and Moscow's objectives in Western Europe. Mendras reviews the history of French-Soviet relations from the de Gaulle years. By the early 1970s, she argues, détente with the United States and the recognition of postwar borders in central Europe reduced the instrumentality and priority of France in Soviet policy. In the 1980s, as their relations with the United States deteriorated, the Soviets took a renewed interest in France. But the Socialist government in Paris, more critical of the USSR than were its predecessors, has developed a policy that the Soviets denigrate as “Europeanist” and “Atlantist” and no longer truly independent. Although recent events have made the French leadership more receptive to the Soviet Union, bilateral relations will remain essentially a diplomatic ritual.

scholarly journals Analyzing Migration Restriction Regimes

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermina Jasso
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Personal Characteristics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Immigration Law ◽  
Foreign Born ◽  
Border Enforcement ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Nation States ◽  
History Of

This paper develops a framework for analyzing migration restriction regimes, and illustrates it with the case of U.S. immigration law and policy. Nation-states regulate the entry of foreign-born persons, and this regulation comprises three elements: the type of restriction, the apparatus of restriction, and the consequences of restriction. Restriction may be based on personal characteristics, numerical ceilings, or both. Personal restriction notices the characteristics of persons, using them as criteria for granting or denying admission. Numerical restriction places numerical ceilings on admissions. The apparatus of restriction may stipulate specific ceilings, whether some groups are exempt from the ceiling and, if so, by what criteria, and whether admission under the ceiling is first-come/first-served or by lottery or instead preferential and, if so, by what criteria. Two unintended consequences follow immediately: unauthorized migration (under both personal and numerical restriction); and visa-number backlogs (under numerical restriction). These in turn generate a range of policy devices: border enforcement, procedures for legalization and deportation, and procedures for clearing backlogs. Indeed, the history of a country's immigration law may be understood as a sequence of measures for first setting up the apparatus of restriction and then altering it in order not only to re-examine provisions of the initial setup but also to address unauthorized migration and visa-number backlogs. Viewing migration through this lens enables assessment of particular legislation and, more broadly, dynamics of a migration restriction regime, subject to world circumstances, including its possible inherent instability. The migration restriction lens also generates new metrics for a country's attractiveness and its innovativeness and creativity. To illustrate, the paper examines the migration restriction regime in the United States since the country's founding. Finally, the paper provides a checklist for a migration restriction setup that doubles as the basis for table shells for summarizing a country's migration restriction regime and its history.

scholarly journals Blue-Green Coalitions: Constraints and Possibilities in the Post 9-11 Political Environment

2004 ◽  
pp. 91-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. Gould ◽  
Tammy L. Lewis ◽  
J. Timmons Roberts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Climate Justice ◽  
Coalition Building ◽  
Political Environment ◽  
Environmental Groups ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
History Of

Workers and environmentalists in the United States have often found themselves on opposite sides of critical issues. Yet at the WTO meeting in Seattle in November 1999, they came together in a historic protest many see as a watershed in the formation of a new blue-green “Seattle Coalition.” However the two camps are again in con?ict over substantive issues, and in the changed political climate of post 9-11, the question arises of the coalition’s durability. The paper ?rst brie? y reviews the history of labor-environment interactions in the United States. It then examines a series of problems and potential areas of promise for the movements: di?culties of coalition-building, expectations of reciprocation, local vs. national connections, and the question of di?ering class cultures and interests. Finally, three areas of potential research and action are suggested: new roles for the mainstream environmental groups, just transition alliances and climate justice alliances. We propose that the environmen-tal justice and environmental health wings of the green movement are more suited to making long-term coalitions with labor than are habitat-oriented green groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document