scholarly journals American Immigration Microfederalism

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-200
Author(s):  
Tuan N. Samahon
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Law ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Integration Policy ◽  
Federal Programs ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Independent State ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Migration Crisis

Immigration power is thought to be a federal power in the United States, but the States and their localities play key roles in filling congressional immigration policy gaps. When confronted with a major migration crisis, these microfederal jurisdictions in a multi-layered federal system respond differently to the policy gaps. A healthy tolerance for microfederal policies promotes this experimentation and voter preference maximisation. A countervailing interest in uniformity, among other values, tempers the case for microfederalism by suggesting temporal or other limitations may be justified. States and localities have experimented with microfederal policies concerning migrants that touch on migration and integration policy. Restrictionist jurisdictions have promoted policies that discourage migration and integration. Their strategies include: formal cooperation with federal immigration enforcement when restrictionist in policy orientation; adoption of independent state-law measures to supplement federal immigration enforcement; and litigation to attempt to force or realign federal executive enforcement priorities on migration and integration. Sanctuary jurisdictions adopt inverse strategies. They may decline to participate in voluntary federal programs; refuse to access available federal immigration status information; deny federal requests to cooperate with federal detainer requests; provide access to State and local services to all comers, without regard to legal status; and, like restrictionist jurisdictions, litigate to attempt to force or realign the federal government’s enforcement priorities to favour migration and integration. Inevitably, conflict between federal and state administration results in litigation. The federal government attempts to assert its primacy in those matters touching on alien regulation. During the Trump administration, this effort has included the likely unconstitutional Executive Order 13768, but also the threat of affirmative federal pre-emption litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions. Provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act may provide Trump with a basis for arguing that federal law expressly or impliedly pre-oempts conflicting state law.

The Criminalization of Immigration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Chacón
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Criminal Legal System

The regulation of immigration in the United States is a civil law matter, and the deportation and exclusion of immigrants from the United States are matters adjudicated in civil, administrative courts operated by the federal government. But migration in the United States is increasingly managed not through the civil law system, but through the criminal legal system, and not just at the federal level, but at all levels of government. The most obvious example of the management of migration through the criminal law in the United States occurs through the federal prosecution of immigration crimes. In the 2010s, federal prosecutions of immigration crimes reached all-time record highs, as immigration offenses became the most commonly prosecuted federal criminal offenses. But it is not just the federal government, using federal criminal prosecutions, that has moved criminal law and criminal law enforcement agents to the center of immigration enforcement in the United States. The federal government relies on state and local police to serve as front-line agents in the identification of noncitizens potentially subject to removal. Everyone arrested by state and local law enforcement for any reason has their fingerprints run through federal law databases, and this has become the leading screening mechanism through which the federal government identifies individuals to target for removal. Federal law also relies on state law convictions as one of the primary means through which federal immigration enforcement officials determine which noncitizens to remove. This means that state legislatures and state and local governments have the power to shape both their criminal laws and their discretionary enforcement choices to either enhance or mitigate the scope of federal immigration enforcement in their jurisdictions. The problems of racial inequity in the U.S. criminal legal system are both exacerbated by and fuel the centrality of immigration enforcement to the nation’s law enforcement agenda. Racial profiling is broadly tolerated by law in the context of immigration enforcement, making it easy for officials at the state and federal level to justify the targeting of the Latinx population for heightened surveillance on the theory (often incorrect) that they are unlawfully present. At the same time, the overpolicing of Black communities ensures that Black immigrants as well as Latinx immigrants are disproportionately identified as priorities for removal. Immigration enforcement is frequently written out of the story of racial inequality in U.S. policing, but the criminalization of migration is a central architectural feature of this inequitable system.

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A United States Perspective

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 29-85
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Kelly ◽  
David D. Kadue ◽  
Robert J. Mignin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Law ◽  
Hostile Environment ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Sexual Harassment Law

Sexual harassment litigation has increased significantly within the United States. It is a cause of action that was created by the judiciary to enable an employee to work in an atmosphere free from a sexually hostile environment. Some parameters of U.S. sexual harassment law are still unclear, but the law now applies to men and women, and the burden of proof has gradually been eased. Under judge-made law, an employer will always be liable when harassment culminates in a tangible employment detriment. The employer is also automatically liable when a supervisor creates a hostile environment, unless the employer can prove that it has taken reasonable steps to prevent or correct harassment and that the employee unreasonably failed to use the employer's anti-harassment procedures. Employers are also liable for harassment perpetrated by supervisors, co-workers and non-employees if the employer is negligent in failing to prevent or correct harassment. Employers are thus well advised to formulate and enforce an anti-harassment workplace policy that allows a complainant to have a thorough, impartial and prompt investigation of any allegation of harassment. Complainants can elect to use federal-law and state-law remedies for sexual harassment/discrimination. The state law, unlike the federal, may allow unlimited tort-like damages. A complainant may also allege common law causes of action such as infliction of emotional distress.

Accountability in Collaborative Federal Programs—Multidimensional and Multilevel Performance Measures Needed: The Case of Wildland Fire Prevention

2021 ◽  
pp. 027507402110503
Author(s):  
Charles R. Wise
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measures ◽  
Wildland Fire ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Collaborative Networks ◽  
Fire Prevention ◽  
Federal Programs ◽  
Private Sector Organizations ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Local Agencies

Collaborative programs among Federal agencies, state and local agencies, and private sector organizations are often prescribed to address difficult interdisciplinary and intersectoral problems. Accountability for these efforts is difficult to achieve and has frequently proved elusive. This research explores the nature of the accountability dilemma in collaborative programs and analyzes and illustrates them in the context of wildland fire prevention in the United States. It suggests a multilevel–multimeasurement approach is key to achieving a fuller picture of accountability in collaborative networks.

Introduction: New Perspectives on Public Health Policy

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
James Mohr
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Programs ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
International Perspectives ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Local Agencies

The makers of public health policy face enormous challenges in the twenty-first century. In the past, their field has been imprecisely defined, deeply conflicted, poorly organized, and constantly changing. Lines of responsibility within the field are blurred at best, and groups with similar goals sometimes find themselves at cross-purposes. In the United States, state and local agencies interact with each other, with federal programs, and with powerful private interests. Many decisions that profoundly affect the health of the public are made for reasons largely unrelated to public health per se. Since the human and financial stakes involved in public health policies are immense, these challenges are, to say the least, serious issues. Underlying this volume is the belief that historical analyses and international perspectives can help policymakers understand, and hopefully begin to address, some of those old challenges in new ways.

scholarly journals THE INFLUENCE OF WESTERN CULTURE ON THE FORMATION OF CARPATHIAN UKRAINE IN THE NOVEL «SUN FROM THE WEST» BY ULAS SAMCHUK

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-64
Author(s):  
Alexander Podvyshennyi
Keyword(s):  
Western Culture ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Imperialism ◽  
Western World ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Integration Policy ◽  
The West ◽  
Independent State

The relevance of this article is due to the fact that in recent decades Ulas Samchuk is rapidly returning to the Ukrainian literary discourse. In view of the European integration policy of the Ukrainian State, more and more attention is paid to the methods of cultural imperialism, imagology, comparative studies, Occidental philosophy, etc., which we used in this text. In our study, considerable attention is also paid to the influence of Western culture and politics on the formation of the national idea of the Ukrainian nation – the formation of the Ukrainian Conciliar Independent State. We learned that a significant role in the development of the ethnopsychological charisma of the Hutsuls was played by Ukrainians from exile, who during the interwar period inhabited Czechoslovakia, Poland, France and the United States, and with the beginning of events began to return home. The novel-report «Sun from the West» (1949) provides invaluable material on the basis of which we can trace in a clear chronological sequence the change of worldview paradigm of Ukrainians from silent observers to active, fully conscious citizens who set the task of forming a political nation. its integration into the Western world. Nevertheless, Ulas Samchuk draws the reader's attention to the fact that the Ukrainian people have not yet been able to become a nation, given the events in Carpathian Ukraine. He lacked the will to fight, national dignity and self-awareness, education, spirituality and culture. That is why many European grandees did not seriously assess the ambitions of the young Ukrainian state to claim independence and did not allow the Ukrainian Government to defend its positions on an equal footing. The main reason for such a political crisis was, in fact, the lack of a well-supplied army that could protect its borders. Further research should be devoted to the memoirs and diaries of Ulas Samchuk, in which he continues to reflect on the place and role of Ukraine in building a new world order in the context of the conflict of Western and Eastern civilizations.

scholarly journals Territorial Exceptionalism and the American Welfare State

2021 ◽  
pp. 1639
Author(s):  
Andrew Hammond
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Food Assistance ◽  
Federal Spending ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Federal Food

Federal law excludes millions of American citizens from crucial public benefits simply because they live in the United States territories. If the Social Security Administration determines a low-income individual has a disability, that person can move to another state and continue to receive benefits. But if that person moves to, say, Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands, that person loses their right to federal aid. Similarly with SNAP (food stamps), federal spending rises with increased demand—whether because of a recession, a pandemic, or a climate disaster. But unlike the rest of the United States, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa receive a limited amount of federal food assistance, regardless of need. That’s why, after Hurricane Maria, despite additional congressional action, over a million Puerto Rican residents lost food assistance. And with Medicaid, federal law caps medical assistance for each of these five territories, a limit that does not exist for the fifty states or the District of Columbia. This Article draws much-needed attention to these discrepancies in legal status and social protection. It surveys the eligibility rules and financing structure of disability benefits, food assistance, and health insurance for low-income Americans in the states and the territories. A comprehensive account of these practices provokes questions about the tiers of citizenship built by a fragmented and devolved American state. Part I invokes the scholarship on social citizenship, the idea that an individual cannot meaningfully participate in society without some modicum of economic security. Part I then explores the tension between that normative commitment and one of the defining features of the American welfare state—federalism. It then elaborates the exceptional legal status of Americans who live in U.S. territories. Part II provides a comprehensive overview of federal food, medical, and disability assistance and, in doing so, demonstrates how the American territories inhabit a different and, in many ways, dilapidated corner of the American welfare state. Part III begins with an analysis of ongoing cases in federal court that challenge this facial discrimination. It then canvasses legislation introduced in Congress that would make significant progress in putting territorial Americans on par with Americans in the fifty states. To conclude, Part IV brings the states back in, using the earlier discussion of territories as an invitation to imagine an American welfare state built on a foundation other than a racial order.

scholarly journals State and Local Immigration Regulation in the United States before 1882

1958 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Klebaner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Local Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Federal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Passenger Traffic ◽  
Immigration Legislation ◽  
Immigration Regulation ◽  
State And Local

The absence of significant federal regulation in the area of immigration legislation until 1882 no more denotes a laissez-faire approach in this area than in many other aspects of American economic life. For many generations Congress had left the task of regulating the immigrant stream to the states and localities. The first general federal law (1882) is best understood in the context of antecedent activity on the local level. Eventually most of the seaboard states, including many without an important passenger traffic, enacted statutes dealing with immigration. Table I presents a brief outline of their essential features.

Home Rule in New York State

1925 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-706
Author(s):  
Joseph McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
New York State ◽  
The United States ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
York State ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State And Local

Home rule in the United States has for many years been confined to the states west of the Mississippi. As late as 1920 Ohio and Michigan were the only eastern states giving their cities autonomy. Since that date, however, there has appeared a tendency in the larger urban industrial states to treat cities more generously. New York in 1923 and Pennsylvania in 1924 have now joined the ranks of home-rule states. But many of the largest states, for example, Illinois, still give no such power to their municipalities, while in Massachusetts it can still be said that cities have the same legal status as “an infant, an idiot or a lunatic.”The addition of New York to this group has just been rendered certain. On September 2, the court of appeals of the state rendered a unanimous decision declaring the home-rule amendment to have been validly adopted. This ended two months of uncertainty caused by the decision of the appellate division of the supreme court in New York City that the home-rule amendment was not validly a part of the constitution and that all state and local legislation passed under its aegis was void.

Legal Pluralism in the West

2021 ◽  
pp. 97-128
Author(s):  
Brian Z. Tamanaha
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Modern State ◽  
Jewish Law ◽  
State Law ◽  
The West ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Indigenous Law

This chapter counters the widely held view in the West that the state exercises a monopoly over law. Romani (Gypsy) communities across Europe have lived in accordance with their own law for a thousand years. Indigenous law and tribunals exist in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and the United States, in various relationships with state law. In a number of Western countries, Jewish law and Muslim law and institutions interact with state law as well as exist apart from state law. All of these examples involve the continuation of community legal orders (customary and religious) that long predate the modern state and have continued in different forms, adjusting to and surviving the extension and penetration of state law. In many of these contexts, state law has tried to suppress, denigrate, or ignore these bodies of community law, denying their legal status, but despite of this treatment they continue to exist and are considered law by adherents.

scholarly journals Criminal Law & Migration Control: Recent History & Future Possibilities

Daedalus ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 151 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-134
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Chacón
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigration Enforcement ◽  
Immigration Reform ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Migration Control ◽  
Local Officials ◽  
State And Local ◽  
And Control

Abstract Immigration enforcement in the United States has undergone a revolutionary transformation over the past three decades. Once episodic, border-focused, and generally confined to the efforts of a relatively small federal agency, immigration enforcement is now exceedingly well-funded and integrated deeply into the everyday policing of the interior United States. Not only are federal immigration agents more numerous and ubiquitous in the interior, but immigration enforcement has been integrated into the policing practices of state and local officials who once saw their purview as largely distinct from that of federal immigration enforcement agents. This essay briefly explains these developments, from shortly before the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 through the present day, and assesses their consequences. It includes a brief discussion of the ways states and localities have responded to federal enforcement trends, whether through amplification or constraint.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document