CLASS RECAP & SUMMARY FOR OCTOBER 27, 2009

-Paper overview and deadline
-Mandatory Blog Entries Due next week no later than November 3, 2009 by 4:15 p.m. (to earn particpation credit)
-Coming to America (cont'd); Deportation Policy in America (Cont'd)
-Guest Speaker Farah Choudhury and her autistic son, Umair.



Nicole P. said...

As we have learned, the history of US immigration policy is the product of politics and economics, and thus often arbitrary. We have analyzed the laws such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1924 Johnson-Reed Immigration Act, and most recently IIRIRA and NSEERS, and have hence found them draconian. But is there light at end of the tunnel for immigrants traveling to the U.S. today?

After listening to Farah Choudry’s story today, I saw a glimmer of hope. After all, according to Ngai, Umair would not have even been considered for entry into the US in the late 1800s, a time when immigration law was least restrictive in all its history : 1875 law still banned mentally disabled, diseased, or “insane” persons (Ngai 59). Maybe America has progressed. Not only was it remarkable that Umair was granted asylum for autism when there are no immigrant visas; moreover, his mother and brother were granted asylum when they were not necessarily in any foreseen danger as healthy individuals in Pakistani society. Clearly, the judge of the immigration courts showed a great sense of compassion and exercised his or her power as generously as current law allowed. This case gave me great hope for the future of immigration reform until I discovered that it did not set precedent.

I often feel this catch 22 when discussing immigration news. Just today, 100 Democrats sent a letter to President Obama calling for immigration overhaul. Rep. Guitierrez’s bill on immigration reform will be revealed within a month; the issue of immigration is expected to take the limelight in March.

Such small steps towards transformation can give us glimmers of hope. Unfortunately, the past has taught us that they may only be fool’s gold. After all, immigration was the hot topic in 2006—the “healthcare debate of 2009”—but the debate then did not yield results, only a reinforcement of the status quo. Will this happen again in March 2010? With local elections occurring in April, it unfortunately is a likely result. But what would happen if we re-imagined immigration? If we ended deportation? If we recognized immigrants as visible and vital contributors to American society and economy? We can only hope to find out.

Joey said...

I agree with Nicole that our immigration system is in a sad state. Draconian laws and policies set forth by a bunch of men eager to appease the ignorant majority. Much of what happens in Washington seems to take us backwards, to times when things were even worse for immigrants coming to the US, instead of taking us forward to a new era of inclusion and acceptance of people who want to improve their lives.
Farrah Choudry's story offered some hope that there are still good people in the world (and that some of them even work for the government!). But, as Nicole said, it did not set any precedent and so cannot really help anyone else who is in a similar situation.
The unfortunate fact is that Professor Helt is right: immigration policy is a product of politics and economics, and not at all about humanity. People who come to the US fleeing obstacles in their home countries are faced with even larger obstacles when they arrive. Getting through the extensive immigration process requires immense amounts of time, money, and patience, and even then may not produce the desired result: US citizenship. And even if it does end in a green card, the people still have to live with the shadow of the federal government and the specter of ICE over them. Don't appear to put one toe out of line or you might be sent packing, to return to a place where you haven't lived in decades and where you know no one.
We can only try to be optimistic about Rep. Gutierrez's bill. Nicole is probably right that the elections in April will keep the bill from gaining any ground, but let's hope that we're wrong.

1:57 PM

Cassandra said...
I really enjoyed Farrah’s visit to our class. I found it incredibly inspiring that she continues to advocate for an improved immigration system despite her difficult circumstances. I think it is a testament to the immigrant spirit and there is no doubt in my mind that not only does she deserve to be in this country but she is a great asset to our society.
As I was listening to the NPR report about Farrah’s case I found it difficult to agree with one of the commentator’s opinions that Umair’s asylum cannot be considered a precedent-setting case. I think it is wrong to not acknowledge that laws are evolutionary by nature. The Choudry’s case reminded me of another case, Matter of Kasinga (1996), where a Togolese teenager fleeing Female Genital Mutilation and forced marriage was denied asylum partly because gender was not accepted as grounds for seeking asylum in the U.S. The BIA ended up reversing the IJ’s decision and Kassindja was eventually granted asylum. Like Farrah Choudry, Kassindja went on to become a powerful advocate for immigration reform. Although the Matter of Kasinga ruled that gender could qualify as grounds for seeking asylum, the BIA stated that the case should not be seen as a precedent for future cases. Despite this, today gender is a widely accepted as a ground for seeking asylum. This gives me hope that in the future perhaps mental disabilities will also be accepted across the immigration system as a means to seek asylum despite the fact that some do not believe it should be.
The Choudry’s case also got me thinking about the flaws in the immigration system itself. There are various irregularities and broadly defined laws that are purposely left vague so they can be interpreted on a case by case basis. For example asylum law broadly defines the term ‘persecution’ and what constitutes persecution in asylum cases. ‘Membership in a particular social group’ is also broadly defined and as a result has evolved drastically in the past 15 years (now including gender). The immigration system is flawed in this aspect as laws are becoming increasingly difficult for IJ’s to interpret in the face a changing immigration population.

3:56 PM

Ana Caridad said...
Last week I attended a Conference in which various individuals who have attempted to enter the United States illegaly shared their experiences. Amongst these were Men from Honduras and El Salvador who have suffered severe injuries, and have been maimed by the trains on their journey through the Mexican territory.
As we have discussed in class the US has a broken immigration system, and we usually focus on the issues illegal aliens face in the United States, forgetting the journeys and the hardships they had to put up with on their way to attain the "American Dream".
For thousands of illegal immigrants from Central America, the long journey to the U.S. starts in Mexico's Southern border, on the groaning back of a freight train they call The Beast. The journey from the border between Mexico and Guatemala, and the Southern borden of the United States is approximately 1,400 miles. Many of the travelers who take the train are children. . More than 90,000 unaccompanied minors were apprehended by authorities at the Southwestern border in 2007. The freight train is known as the beast for it has killed thousands on its passing. Immigrants must often bribe private guards and police stationed along the tracks. Many stowaways are too tired to hold on to the train and fall, losing limbs.
Jorge Guevara, a 21-year-old Salvadoran, who participated in the Conference, said he first rode the train to the U.S.-Mexico border in 2001 and saw 20 people crushed, and probably killed, when cars derailed. He fled and never found out what happened.
Since President Felipe Calderon took office two years ago, Mexico has added more soldiers and federal police on its border with Guatemala and more immigration and military checkpoints thoughout the south.

Recently HBO Documentaries brought the issue to light in it's documentary "Which Way Home", that follows several unaccompanied child migrants as they journey through Mexico en route to the U.S. on a freight train called "The Beast." Putting a human face on the immigration issue, director Rebecca Cammisa reveals some of the reasons kids resort to drastic and dangerous measures, among them: bringing an end to long-term separation from their parents; escaping life on the streets; lack of jobs or educational opportunities at home; and hopes of a better life north of the border.

2:55 PM

Map said...
I am reading a lot about how flawed, out-dated and draconian the immigration system is, and this is undoubtedly true. However, I feel that in order to achieve reform one needs to not only define how unfair or wrong something is, but to offer reasons why and further, a solution. In this regard, I think Nicole’s comment, “But what would happen if we re-imagined immigration…If we recognized immigrants as visible and vital contributors to American society and economy?” is very important. The answer is invariably politics and economics.
What would happen if we re-imagined immigration? According to the political reasoning, I think the answer to this question would invariably be considerations of limited resources and the ways in which citizens and those who are undocumented should not have to compete for them as one supposedly, inherently has a right to them and the other does not. Secondly, many terrorist attacks are directed at the western world, of which the US is a part. If there were more lax or no immigration laws terrorism would be more widespread.
With these arguments out of the way the question still remains are immigrants without documentation a hindrance to economic prosperity? It would seem this is a fallacious argument as it is proven that undocumented immigrants are as much a source of economic stimulus as anyone in the US. Further, a person who owns a car or pays bus fair, buys food at the grocery store, pays taxes etc. is far more valuable to a failing economy than one who is policed, detained, imprisoned, and transported back to their country of origin. Why is it that the US insists on turning the former into the latter?
Upon even the slightest examination it would seem clear that it is not so much a matter of politics and economics as the economic portion of this argument is not based in facts. The answer is clearly an issue of politics, but what politics does this refer to? The fear of terrorism? This could be solved by policing and monitoring, though not detaining all immigration. What then? Once again it comes back to fear of the unknown or more accurately, the draconian laws and views clung to by the patriarchal collective of people who have long held the power in American society. This is the reason that there needs to be an immigration overhaul but it should start by providing facts about immigration instead of cleaning to stale fears of the “other.”

5:01 PM

Oliver Judd said...

Greetings fellow immigration bloggers! I find it difficult not to repeat what others have already said regarding immigration history, policy, and Farah. I will therefore detail my personal beliefs on immigration and immigration policy.

As an immigrant myself, I can see why people come to America and why they want to stay here. It truly is the land of opportunity. But this poses the question of who gets to share in that opportunity and on a more practical note, how many people can we fit in this country before it becomes too crowded for that opportunity to exist any more? This is the very real question of immigration and should influence policy more politics and economics should.

It is my belief everyone has the right to come to America. If you can prove that you will be a productive member of society, then you have a right to share in that dream. After all, that is what America is all about: happiness built on the back of hard work. So why should those who can prove that they will work hard not share in that dream? That is what immigration policy should focus on. Because in the end, if we aren't fighting to extend the American Dream to as many people as possible we are doing an injustice to the founding fathers and the ideals this country was founded on.

11:19 AM

Erin said...
I think that Joey makes a good point when she discusses the fact that immigration policy and deportation may force people to return to places that they no longer consider their home, where they no longer consider themselves part of the culture.

The issue of being a hyphenated American does not depend on one's legal status, but none the less has huge implications. When people discuss the issue of undocumented immigrants, there are those that advocate for mass deportation. But what are the social implications of this policy? Beyond forcing people to return to economically or socially unstable areas, deportation displaces people from a culture that they may now consider their own.

An important example of this, I think, is that of undocumented youth in the United States. These are kids that, having crossed the border with their parents illegally when they were extremely young, have spent their entire lives in the United States. In Plyler vs. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that undocumented minors had the right to a fee k-12 education. So, these children have grown up, literate in English, but probably not their first language that they speak at home, more immersed and a part of American culture than the culture of their "country of origin."

When these children are deported, they return to a situation worse than when they left because they are returned to a country and a culture they know very little about.

While I think it is true that immigration policy can never be as humanitarian as we would like it to, such situations still merit our attention and the attention of the courts. If we are to have a just immigration policy, it must consider the impacts upon those that it most profoundly affects - the immigrants.

12:24 PM
Kasia said...
I agree with all the comments made so far. I attended an Immigration conference during which we discussed immigration issues that we are faced with today. From the conference, things we have learned in class and other sources I've come to some conclusions. Statistics show that over, 59% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats support some sort of immigration reform currently, which means there are a lot of people supporting the cause. I think that when stepping forward with immigration reform we need to have clear goals in order to write truly effective legislation and the following are what i think are the most important goals. First, any legislation must have a national and humane approach to immigration. It must protect both citizens and migrants, needs to reflect national values, needs to protect the family. We must increase the number of visa's for migrants. We should remove the bars to admission we have in place now because they are ineffective and generally not considered by migrants who make the choice to remain in the US undocumented. We need to facilitate the adjustment of status for undocumented workers instead of making the process more difficult and convoluted. We need detention reform because the current system is costly, ineffective, humiliating and borders on human rights violations. Lastly, we need to eliminate the concept of "aggravated felonies" which currently evokes a permanent bar on becoming a citizen regardless of permanent status. I think that if we keep in mind all those things we can truly find a solution to our 'broken system" and move forward with a system which can benefit everyone.

2:02 PM

Madeline Louise said...

I agree with the comments that have been posted about the need for reform. However, I feel as though there will be a lot of resistance from a confused public. When we talk about allowing medical visas a big fear in the minds of the public is that these immigrants are going to get healthcare for free and they will be the ones paying for it. Also the ever apparent media will have no trouble finding horror stories to broadcast. An example is in the Time magazine passed around in class there was another man in the article with Umair, a schizophrenic man who attacked and killed someone (a believe a family member but I’m not 100% sure) he is now trying to receive asylum because he will be facing persecution within his own country. The article was comparing Umair and all other immigrants seeking safety and health treatment in the United States with a killer. I think that it is excellent that Farah’s story got so much attention so that some of the public that is confused as to why some people immigrate to the United States can also become more compassionate and hopefully more open to the idea of immigration reform.

2:45 PM

Jessica said...
We have learned this semester that immigration policy is a creature of politics and economics, and this has left us with a system that we can all agree is broken.

I agree with Kasia about the kinds of reforms that are needed; we as a society need to leave racism (and its political implications) out of policymaking and adapt a realistic and pragmatic approach to reform. Things like fences along the Mexican border and quotas have no place in a modern society.

While this may seem too idealistic, I agree with some of the comments above that such reforms are possible. There will probably always be a radical minority that opposes pragmatic policy reform in favor of racist fear-mongering, but the truth is that it makes the most sense (economically, politically, socially, and morally) to implement comprehensive reforms like those outlined by Kasia. Our society can't afford to let this issue get any worse.

3:19 PM

Alanna said...
I think we can all agree that the US immigration system is broken and that immigrants are unfairly targeted in the US today. Although the specific flaws of the system are innumerable, I think the clearest and most significant problem is the fact that the government agency charged with handling immigration operates on an adversarial basis and not on an advocacy basis. Essentially, I think that the post-9/11 restructuring of the immigration system which abolished the INS and replaced it with the DHS is utterly ridiculous and non-sensical. It is perhaps analogous to a situation where the Department of Education is put under the control of a law enforcement agency simply because of a few school shootings or because of gang activity and violence within public schools. As with this example, a few isolated security threats does not mean that immigration should be placed under the control of agencies ill-equipped to represent the interests of immigrants. Although, I don't disagree that DHS should work together with the department of immigration to help secure national security interests, I think that objectively speaking, immigrants need and deserve a government body that is capable and willing to work in their interests. Subjectively speaking, the current arrangement makes even less sense given that the US is a nation built on immigrants. In fact, many of the loudest opponents of immigration are second or third generation immigrants themselves.

However, what is most disheartening about this current arrangement is the fact that it illustrates that anti-immigrant sentiment is not only a product of an "ignorant minority" of Americans, but is also the mindset of a collection of educated, powerful elites responsible for putting immigration under the guise of national security. In so doing, they have tragically asserted a government position that all immigrants are assumed to be enemies until proven otherwise. In this sense, it seems as though our own government is sanctioning if not promoting the xenophobic attitudes that plague American society today.

Finally, given the current "broken" state of our immigration system, could the money we spend be better spent targeting problems in the countries from which many immigrants flee? Perhaps the US could serve as a better ally for immigrants by working more closely with the UN to establish more humanitarian missions and aid to refugees and asylum-seekers. Perhaps the solution is working to give immigrants less of a need or incentive to come the US rather than working so hard to keep them out. Although this is undoubtedly easier said than done, the US government must do something to become more of an advocate for immigrants and less of an adversary.

CLASS RECAP FOR TUESDAY OCTOBER 20, 2009


-DEPORTATION POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES

-THE IDEA OF JUST VS. UNJUST DEPORTATION

"[D]eportation is . . . exile, a dreadful punishment, abandoned by the common consent of all civilized peoples. . . . That our reasonable efforts to rid ourselves of unassimilable immigrants should in execution be attended by such a cruel and barbarous result would be a national reproach."

--Judge Learned Hand, 1929

COURT OVERVIEW
IMMIGRATION COURT AND THE NEW YORK TIMES HANDOUT
US DOJ
EOIR- WHAT DOES IT STAND FOR?
OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
INVESTIGATIONS
DEPORTATION
NGAI'S "ILLEGAL ALIENS"

Joey wrote in response to a recent comment:

Joey Harmon said...
Wow. I think that rant is one of the more ignorant that I have heard in a long time. It's important to get "facts" from sources other than Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
What should all of the people who have been living here "illegally" do? Should they all be sent back to their countries of origin en masse because they don't have a piece of paper? And if one of these people without that ever-important piece of paper gets sick, should we just let them die because "it's not our problem"? It's absurd to even think like that. These are not practical solutions. Our immigration system is BROKEN and sending people away from the US is not going to fix the system. E-verify is not going to fix it. People need to stop thinking that's it's just an economic issue or just a political issue or just an issue about one group of people and realize that these are real human beings we're talking about here, not just numbers or statistics. They deserve the chance to live a better life and to give their children a better life ("Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"). The US is a country of immigrants, built and made strong by immigrants. What has changed? Is it that the face of these immigrants has changed and our old xenophobic roots have come back? Do we only want immigrants if their skin is the right color or if they speak the right language (i.e. of European/Germanic descent and language)?
Basing immigration policy on fear, politics, or economics without practical, feasible solutions is just going to create more problems. And don't you think shipping out all of the "illegal" immigrants or just letting them all die without healthcare on Main Street USA will be expensive, not to mention morally bankrupt?

CLASS RECAP FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 29, 2009

-MIDTERM EXAM

-GRADES WILL BE EMAILED TO STUDENTS BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE MIDTERM BREAK

-Continue Reading assignment on Syllabus, Ngai, Chapters 1-2, Deportation Policy and the Making of Illegal Aliens.
-Read handout "WHY WE FIGHT"
-Read handout "THIRD AND SEVENTH CIRCUITS CONDEMS PATTERN OF ERROR IN IMMIGRATION COURTS"

NOTE: CLASSES WILL NOT BE HELD NEXT WEEK (MIDTERM BREAK)

NOTE: OUR NEXT CLASS WILL MEET AT THE CHICAGO IMMIGRATION COURT, 55 East Monroe Street, 19th Floor. 9 a.m.

Since this Blog is dedicated to you and all others who wish to engage in a respectful debate, I'm posting the comment below made on your site. Please comment on it if you wish.

Britanicus said,

The bombardment of American voters at the doors of Congress must be heard, to make E-Verify a permanent illegal immigrant enforcement tool? It's incredulous that we are winning small wars against our lawmakers beneficiaries--the special interest lobby. LEGISLATORS ARE FINALLY HEARING OUR ANGRY VOICES. Rep. Joe Wilson C-SC opened the eyes of millions of Americans, who are been left unaware of the cloaked--AMNESTY--committees that is going to rip the fabric of every voters life apart. Any detail in the national media has been subdues or intentionally omitted, as with the crowds of Tea Party opponents. Sen. Harry Reid could be stretching his neck out for the headsman in his re-election campaign, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They both have used their political influence in trying to overturn E-Verify. Pro-Illegal alien lawmakers could table it, under the "Sunset Provision" on September 30?

President Obama's direction towards an unmentionable path to citizenship for all those who broke our law is abhorrent. After the controversial eruption in the Session of Congress, they surely must be aware that imposing immigration reform on the people could break them? Americans taxpayers are already supporting business welfare? Corporate entities want these destitute people here to exploit, but don't want to pay for their health care, schooling or towards the massive numbers surviving in prison. They leave that to the fading middle class taxpayers who carry the tax burden? Over a decade has passed since illegal people started coming here in droves and with little or no laws, to blockade their arrival we are now talking over 20 million. Nor does it stop there? Owing to the clarion call of Amnesty ringing out in the slums and ghetto's of foreign criminals, sick, elderly and those without means, from all over the world will descend on us. IT MEANS OVERPOPULATION?

Bad as it may be now, who is going to subsidize the new arrivals? Not the business cartels that’s for sure? Once again taxpayers will be heavily taxed to pay for the new shipment of poor, uneducated from every region. How can we expect to have any government public option for our own people, when our gates remain wide open for "Anchor Babies" and the illegal millions expecting a free handout? A nurse in a Nevada hospital indicated they have a row of beds of illegal immigrants on dialysis, which was costing weekly $18.000 dollars for each treatment. Tell me who pays for that? The US government pays a small portion; the rest is acquired from the hospital or taxpayer.


I want a single payer system for homeless veterans, seniors, single mothers with children and poor American families. But I refuse to pay for everybody who climbs, crawls under the fence or bluffs the Federal officer at shipping ports and airports of entry. It's not our responsibility. DON'T WAIT! PESTER YOUR SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY AT 202-224-3121? Find true facts by GOOGLING NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH & IMMIGRATION COUNTERS

3:35 PM

CLASS RECAP AND SUMMARY FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2009

I. Conclusion of Avalon and discussion.
II. Midterm Review
III. The Documtary Patriot Acts, getting "Tossed-Out" of America and the NSEERS "Special Registration" Progam.

MIDTERM REVIEW

You will have the entire period to answer the exam.

The midterm exam will consist of 2-3 questions to answer. You will have the option of choosing from two questions in separate sets.

During the semester, we first discussed that there really is not common sensical—even rational, way to answer the question, “Why are the immigration laws and policy made that way?” Unlike criminal law and policy, for example, where you have generations of precedent, common sense foundations for the way things are done a certain way for example, immigration law and policy is a creature of what?

Politics and economics.

-We also discussed the three reasons why one comes to America? What are they? People come to America for one of 3 reasons or a combination of them:
(1) Generally, to reunite themselves with family members; for financial reasons, or
(3) because they fear persecution in their home country or are stateless and are persona non grata (not wanted). Or a combination of all three.

--that being said, procedurally speaking, generally there are FOUR (4) ways, with a few exceptions that we have discussed in class, that one can come to the United States permanently. Can anyone tell me what they are?? These are called VISAS, or IVs for short:

(1) via Job sponsor;
(2) via Family Sponsor:
(3) via Political Asylum;
(4) via The Visa lottery;

• What are the elements for a job sponsor?
• What are the elements for a family sponsor?
• What is political asylum How can one stay in America permanently thru political asylum?
• What is the visa lottery system?

Most people come to American via the family-based green card method. Job sponsor is second in line.

-We also discussed the temporary ways to come to America legally? Those are called NIVs or NON-immigrant visas.
--There are temporary in nature and the road never leads to a green card. How many visas are there?
--Since they all begin with the first letter of the Alphabet, how many NIVs can there possible be then? 26 (or so--for the purposes of this course).
--So there’s approximately 26 nonimmigrant visas (or so) in the US! We also discussed the Frog and the Lilly Pad example and how the NIV visa system is very similar to that.
We Also covered some of the “THE EXCEPTIONS” the generally (4) ways of coming to America permanently: Amnesty Programs and Cancellation of Removal. Please know what each of these two are be able to provide an example of each.

(Victor C., my case in Florida, or any example in Daniels)

-We discussed that people from all over the world come there through these ways. But we also discussed that some people don’t come here with the express invitation and consent of the US government. They come here illegally. Or they overstay their visas and become "illegal" or "unlawfully present". And then there are those who are not citizens in the US, and commit certain crimes here. Some already have lawful status here (such as "green card" holders or lawful permanent residents ("LPRs").

-There are various bureaus within the US Department of Justice which oversee all of these different types of ways people come to America, their benefits and enforcement of the immigration laws here. And what is the Department's name that handles all of this? The "DHS" or Department of Homeland Security.

-The DHS was created as a direct result of the events occurring soon after 9/11, where for the first name, IMMIGRATION and TERRORISM were seen really for the first time, as causally connected, whether true or untrue.

-What are the DHS Branches?

-USCIS;
-ICE;
-CBP; (Customs and Border Patrol)

-You may also be given a hypothetical fact pattern question on the exam, possibly on current controversial issue like heathcare reform and immigration. Well-known, contemporary individuals who seem very much like historical figures cited in Daniels may appear in your fact pattern (i.e., "modern-day nativists"). Be prepared to compare them with those discussed in Daniels' Guarding the Golden Door...

We discussed that like the debate between O’Reilly and Geraldo Rivera, many issues may get distorted or clouded. Despite heated, often emotional debates over immigration, it is important to parse through irrelevant issues, often red hearings, and reach a conclusion that is supported in existing law and policy. The law and policy that we have discussed this semester. So if you are asked about an undocumented person who needs healthcare, for example, you know that we have discussed that Heathcare reform proposals do not include "illegal" aliens—so remember that this would certainly not be a relevant point if asked whether health care would affect undocumented persons in the US or not. You may optionally used the “IRAC” method of answering the question for any fact pattern question you see on the exam.

As for Patriot Acts, the material on NSEERS will be covered, but not the information on Enes Hadzovic anything mentioned in the syllabus but not discussed in class or on the blogspot. Know what it is and the lessons we have learned from this unfortuate page in our immigration history and our "war on terror" Know all chapters GUARDING THE GOLDEN DOOR, and HIS PANIC, expecially topics discussed in class from assigned in the syllabus.

OK. Good luck with your preparations and Ill see you next week. If you have any questions, please email me.

--Christopher Helt, Esq.

CLASS RECAP AND SUMMARY FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

-Class Meeting at La Unica today at 4:15 p.m.

-Questions on Avalon film
-One question from Avalon study guide will be on the mid-term exam
-IRAC method of answering test questions
-We have covered thus far the four ways of coming to America permanently and one of the two exceptions. This afternoon we will discuss one of the other ways (the other exception to the four general ways: Amnesty programs.
-Meet Victor C. In what ways does Victor's story bring to life the issues discussed in Geraldo's His Panic that you have read thus far?
-As Geraldo Rivera's asks us in Chapter 10 of his book, "Do Hispanics and other Immigrants steal our jobs?" What does our author say?

Class Recap and Summary for Tuesday SEPTEMEBER 8, 2009

STUDY GUIDE HANDOUT for film, AVALON
-Recap from last week-Obama's talk to students: "Take responsibility for your education. Go to class and listen."
-Daniels, The Golden Doors Closes and Opens, 1882-1965; The Beginnings of Immigration Retriction, 1882-1917; Statistics: Between 1860 abd 1920, a period when almost every aspect of American life was transformedm tge incidence of immigrants in the American population was remarkly stable: in seven successive censuses, about one American in seven was foreign born, the actual percentages varying only between 13.2 and 14.7 percent.

-What did the Founding Fathers know about immigration?

-The Dualistic Attidude;
-Nativism, "their 3 complaints" as discussed in Daniels, and Geraldo Rivera's HIS PANIC
-The Know-Nothings;
-Chinese immigration, the Gold Rush and the Railroad;
-American labor concerns in the 1880s and today.
-Daniel's view of early immigration and the film Avalon: some similarities.

NEXT WEEK'S CLASS WILL BE HELD AT the same time, but at LA UNICA RESTAURANT 1515 West Devon Avenue (chicago, Il).

Class Recap & Summary for September 1, 2009
LAST WEEK we continued our discussion of the Four (4) ways in which one may stay permanently (and lawfully) in the United States, noting some of important "exceptions": the previous amnesty or "legalization" law, passed during the Reagan administration, in which an individual (similar to the Bracero program mentioned in Daniels) who had been illegally and continuously present in the United States from January 1982 or before could legalize their status and obtain their green card (formally known as "lawful permanent residency"). The second method is called cancellation of removal (for non-permenant residents). This later method can only be done via an immigration judge. One has to be placed in removal ("deportation") proceedings. There is no "application process" with USCIS.

-We also viewed the heated debate shown on YouTube between Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly. What does Geraldo say about his debate with O'Reilly in his book?

-We discussed the currrent statistics on health care and illegal immigration;
-We discussed the fact that dispite divergence of opinions on the immigration debate, everyone agrees that the current immigration system we have in place is BROKEN.

We also discussed that since 9/11, in March of 2003 the former Immigration & Naturalization Service or "INS" was "abolished" (very strong words, don't you think?). Legacy INS was replaced by the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS has three Bureaus: (1) United States Citizenship & Immigration Services ("USCIS"); (2) Immigration & Customs Enforcement ("ICE"); and (3) Customs & Border Patrol ("CBP"). Links to the three (3) respective DHS bureaus are to the right of this blogspot...

Nicole has made an interesting comment about an event on November 6, 2009 at Navy Pier. One of the topics, assimilation and immigration--will be a major theme (and test material!!) in our film Avalon, next week. Her comments are below:

"Tonight in class(and probably more in classes to come), we learned and discussed just how difficult it may be to obtain a greencard.On a somewhat different note, there will be an event touching upon the difficulties that many immigrants face even after gaining citizenship: Zócalo in Chicago, "What Does Immigrant Integration Mean Now?" on Nov. 6th.

Visit the website below for more information and to make your reservation:
http://zocalopublicsquare.org/upcoming.php?event_id=334


-Last week's important points to consider...
-Health care reform and immigration
-Three reasons why one "comes to America"
-the Geraldo v. O'Reilly heated debate: what, if anything, does it symbolize about the divided opinions on our "broken" immigration system.

Welcome to the immigrationstudies.org 2009 fall semester Blogsite! Here students of Special Topics: Immigration Policy (SOC) 370, INTS 398, ASIA 397, University faculty, and others interested in this subject can express their views on the great American immigration debate or enhance communication on their course. Some of your comments may be the subject of my lectures. If you have not already done so, please register on blogger.com. This will allow you to post comments on this blogsite! Please also take part in our informal survey about immigrants and health care reform, to the right of this site.

I also welcome students and faculty to provide commentary, news and/or other information on a particular immigration subject. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to this topic and I welcome immigration-related information. While this blog is primarily textual, I encourage focus on immigration-related photographs (photoblogs), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting) as well.

We are a nation of immigrants and it is important to express constructive viewpoints on this great issue. You are now part of the Great American Debate on Immigration!
For the immigration policy class, please first register ON BLOGGER.COM and review comments made my me and your classmates.


--Christopher Helt, Esq. Lecturer, Loyola University of Chicago.


WEEK ONE CLASS MATERIAL COVERED

-Course Overview, our class blogsite and field trip to Immigration Court and LaUnica
-Immigration, the great "American Debate"
-Geraldo vs. O'Reilly: Does this symbolize the divergence of opinion on immigration reform in America?
-Statistics on undocumented aliens and health care reform
-House Bill 3200 and current legislation. Who does it really cover?
-OBAMA & Health Care Reform
-Three reasons why one "comes to America"
-Four Ways to "come to America"
-Blogsite entry assignment by you due next week
-Next Week's Reading Assignment given


READING ASSIGNMENT FOR WEEK ONE

• READ Daniels, Chapters 1 and 2). Daniels pp. 1-9 Coming to America (Cont’d): We are a Nation of Immigrants. The first immigrants. What is an immigrant. Nativist? What is an Alien, Illegal (undocumented) & otherwise.
• READ GERALDO, Chapter 1, “ Proud To Be An American” and Chapter 2, “Probing the Panic”

• Register on Blogger.com. Mandatory Blog Assignment, based on blogsite list of topics and 100-200 word critique, due next week.

• Answer survey on class blogspot.

-Ana said...

Although the United States is a country built on immigrants, and immigration, immigration reforms and policies seemed to have been put on a backburner lately. As a result to the lack of Federal reforms, States are doing what they can to deal with the illegal immigrants showing up in their states, making the matters worse. States like Arizona, that have stricter policies on illegal immigrants, force aliens to move to states with more lenient policies. Putting up walls, and applying harsher policies won’t stop aliens from coming to the States, so rather that implementing policies that endanger de life of many aliens coming into the country, the government should consider viable solutions for the problem, maybe establish temporal work programs to allow immigrants to come to the states legally.

10:11 AM

Cassandra said...

TIME’s, ‘Does This Boy Deserve Asylum?’:
A point that was brought up in this article that I think is important to discuss is the issue of evolving standards of asylum and immigration policy in general. The executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform suggested that, "Our asylum laws cannot account for all the vagaries of human vexation and misfortune." The issue I have with this statement is our laws are meant to account for ‘vagaries of human vexation and misfortune’. Our asylum laws are in place to protect individuals from situations where their own governments cannot protect them or perhaps where their own governments are perpetrating the persecution. I think it is a great injustice to not acknowledge that laws evolve and change along with the times. Ten years ago a woman from Togo who was going to be forced into an arranged marriage where as part of the marriage ritual she would have to undergo female circumcision was not considered to be deserving of asylum in the US. Today these standards have changed and it is irresponsible to say that they cannot again change in the future.
In the case of the autistic boy from Pakistan despite the fact that the argument for asylum based on a disability is relatively new, the individual facts of the case seem to confirm that the boy is eligible for asylum based on his well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the certain communities in Pakistan because of his membership in a particular social group of Pakistanis with mental disorders.

5:18 PM

Oliver said...

After watching a video clip where Geraldo Riviera and Bill "Papa Bear" O'Reilly go to town on each other ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhwwbNA3hjg&feature=fvw ) it raises a very important issue. That is of the politicalization of the illegal immigrant. In this video, a drunk driving tragedy in picked up by FNN and turned into a story concerning illegal immigration. The same vein of reporting is notoriously seen on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight. I feel that part of this because the word "illegal" makes every topic a hot topic. The news not run half as many stories about citizens not paying taxes as they do illegal immigrants not paying taxes. Maybe because their are more illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes but the point is the term is controversial. And controversy sells. So this opens the door to an even greater problem. How much of the immigration debate is just a ploy to get ratings. I am not saying that it is not an issue, but is it so important that Mr. Dobbs must commit almost half of every show to it or is that because it is a controversial topic that people want to "learn" about?

3:39 PM


Matt said...
The video clip Geraldo vs. O’Reilly does touch upon the opinions of those on each side of the debate of immigration reform specifically that of empathy and fear mongering, but it leaves much out and as a result is not so accurate of a symbol of the diverging opinions on immigration.
The far right conservatives of Fox news, perfectly depicted by Bill O’Reilly immediately equates “illegal aliens” as people who are criminals and perhaps more importantly- dangerous. This is a strange and perfect example of the difference between causation and correlation. There is no denying that the young man who caused the accident was in the US illegally, as such he is a criminal. This is what should have been the focus of the argument, to delve into the complexities of and what it means for a person to be in the US illegally. Instead it is as Geraldo said, the use of a tragedy to further a political agenda.
This argument is, as is too often the case, about political agenda (and appearance) instead of the political situation being discussed.

6:13 PM

Nicole said...
Oliver is right in noting the “politicalization” of the illegal immigrant. But it is also important to note the context of when immigrants are most politicized: namely, when they are non-white. After all, I can’t imagine Lou Dobbs or Bill O’Reilly babbling with such hatred (or using up air-time) if a white, English immigrant from the U.K. drove drunk with fatal consequences. Clearly racism fuels talk about the “negative” impact of immigration on national security and identity.

Although the United States should regulate and monitor immigration, it must do so with justice. While I have little knowledge of immigration policy and law, I have heard the personal horror stories of outright injustice from friends and their families from Latin America and the Middle East. Comprehensive reform is desperately needed. This means policy that welcomes immigrants by making them more transparent in our society (for example, allowing the previously mentioned immigrant the opportunity to take driver’s ed course and licensing exams) and providing them with basic human rights, including healthcare and education for young children. However, as the United States struggles economically and politically as a world power, I fear such reform may not be in sight.

6:15 PM

Jessica said...

I agree with everyone who has said that comprehensive immigration policy reform is needed; many of the things that we have talked about and will talk about in class would be non-issues if the immigration system were perfect.
Like Ana said, I think that one of the problems with current policies is that too often the "solution" that is implemented is unrelated to the source of the "problem." Obviously, putting up physical or legal barriers is completely ineffective at dealing with whatever issues are causing people to immigrate in the first place. I think for any sort of reform to be successful, it has to at least attempt to address the factors that result in immigration.

I also think it's important to address the role that racism plays in immigration policy. Like Nicole said, immigration is most often politicized when the immigrant is non-white. However, while immigration policy and racism seem like they have always been closely linked, the nature of racism in the United States has evolved over time. I agree that it's hard to imagine an immigrant from the UK getting caught in the middle of a controversy, there have been periods in US history in which different European ethnic groups have been discriminated against. I think that because race and politics have always been closely linked, it will always be hard to separate certain issues from immigration (I don't mean to sound pessimistic; I definitely think that it should be attempted.)

12:42 PM

Kasia said...

I wasn't sure where to post my blog so I wrote my response to a recent article i read in the economist in my own blog that i signed up for. i assume it can be seen at

http://kasiaimmigrationpolicy.blogspot.com/.

2:15 PM

Alanna said...

I have yet to form an opinion on many facets of the immigration debate, however I do believe that the apparent treatment of many illegal immigrants in our country today is unconscionable. Immigration is undoubtedly an important security issue for the United States, however the poor treatment of immigrants already held in custody fits neither our national security agenda nor our nation's democratic principles. It seems as though we have developed an us vs. them mentality that, with the help of our paranoid and sensationalist media, has allowed the humanity of illegal immigrants to fall through the cracks. In addition, I think that the federal program to identify and deport illegal immigrants held in local jails, which began under the Bush administration and continues today under the Obama administration, might contribute to the paranoia and stereotyping of illegal immigrants as individuals who have "invaded" our country and who commit crimes and threaten our security. Perhaps this sort of immigration control program which singles out criminal illegal immigrants while ignoring non-criminal illegal immigrants helps to villify immigrants and paint a picture in many Americans' minds of the immigrant as the enemy.

3:35 PM

George said...

The topic discussed in the Bill O'Reilly video was obviously unjustified, and merely used to further attack individuals residing in the US illegally. Like Rivera pointed out, had a legal resident committed the crime, the public would not have been notified. Like Oliver pointed out, this repulsive technique by O'Reilly does nothing more than create a scapegoat within a country built upon the backs of immigrants.
Whether anti-immigrant, specifically Latino immigrants, sentiment seen on the show is racially fueled, I do not know, although it does help create a "us versus them" phenomenon. A phenomenon which can be found throughout American immigration history, for example the hardships faced by the Irish when they arrived to the United States during the 19th century.

3:39 PM

To the Students of Immigration Policy (SOC370/INTS 398) Thank you all for being a part of Loyola University's only immigration policy course.













Your footprint will be remembered by me and your fellow students for many years to come and while you mostly likely will forget the precise details learned in class, I hope you will never forget the rudimentary principle that immigration law and policy in the United States is a creature not always of common sense or logic but a creature of _____ and _______. I do not need to fill in the blanks for you...

If you enjoyed the class and wish it to continue, please let us know.

The Final Exam is also posted below and individual grades have been emailed to you.

I would also like to acknowledge the follow students' performance this past semester:

Best BLOG ENTRIES: MICAH
BEST CLASS PARTICIPATION: AIDA
BEST PAPER: DARA & DANIEL D.
BEST FINAL EXAM: DIANA & DANIEL D.

I wish you all the best.

---Christopher W. Helt, Esq.

Loyola University of Chicago
Immigration Policy 370 (INTS 398)
FINAL EXAMINATION
December 9, 2008


INSTRUCTIONS FOR FINAL EXAMINATION. ANSWER ONLY ONE (1) QUESTION WITHIN EACH SET.

N.B. Choose only one question to answer from Sets I, II, and III.

REMEMBER, AS DISCUSSED IN CLASS, THERE IS MUCH INFORMATION TO “FILTER” or SORT OUT IN ANY IMMIGRATION ISSUE—NOT ALL IS RELEVANT AND OFTEN A “RED HERRING” (e.g., the Bill O’REILLY/GERALDO RIVERA DEBATE, TERRORISM AND IMMIGRATION issues). The fact patterns below are formulated that way.

READ EACH ESSAY EXAM QUESTION CAREFULLY. When asked to provide examples, provide examples used in class lectures, our film, class blogsite, and/or the reading materials. USE INK PEN.

YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE PERIOD TO ANSWER THREE (3) EXAM QUESTIONS.

DO NOT ANSWER MORE THAN ONE QUESTION FROM EACH SET.

PART I EXAM QUESTIONS

A. SET # 1:

A.) Who is Nasser Din and Ziaul Hassan? In what context did you learn about them and Why?

1.) who and what were they fighting and why?

2.) Who is Fred Koramatusu and why is he similar to Naseer Din and Ziaul Hassan? What two media sources did we watch in class that were germaine (i.e, associated with or related to) to each?

3.) What law affected each individual? Were the laws affecting each individual upheld (i.e., lawful or “constitutional”)? How so?
(please cite two (2) laws for full credit or more if you like).

4.) Why is the adage, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” apropos here? If not, why not? Please include a discussion of Chapter 3, We are All Suspects Now, in your analysis.

OR
B. SET # 2:

(1) (a) Who is Fred Koramatsu, (b) who are/were the NISEI and what immigration policy/law affected Koramatsu (name the exact law)?
(2) What happened to him? Why?
(3) What event in our nation’s past affected him?
(4) What did Fred Koramatsu and the Guantanamo Detainees have in common, if anything?
(5) Why did he have the final say in laws/policies affecting similar persons like him?

PART II EXAM QUESTIONS

YOU MAY USE THE “IRAC” METHOD TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU LIKE. Full Credit will be given either way for a complete answer, but you must identify the issues and note comparisons with material covered in class.

FACTS

Somewhere in the Gulf of Aden. Tuesday morning, December 9, 2008. The SS Namor, a 656 passenger luxury cruise liner (owned by the Norwegian Government) and considered one of the world's most luxurious cruise liners, is headed for its eventual destination, port-of-Miami, capping its three continent, six country port-of-call.
Passengers on board the Namor range in social class and status, but include Oscar-nominated actress Brangelina Polie, her six adopted children from Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam and India, (all United States Citizens by Brangelina's adoptive immigrant petitions (IVs) derivative US citizen status) and her heartthrob husband, Aad Jitt, also a conditional lawful permanent resident (a temporary “green card” holder).

Four-months earlier, August 26, 2008. Hollywood, California. Jitt immigrated to the U.S on a P-1 (entertainer's visa) for his first major motion film in 1991
(Thelma & Louise). He later married actress Anniffer Jiniston, (the couple was
known affectionately in Hollywood as “JJ” who filed for a change of status to a lawful permanent resident (“green card” holder) for him. Because of the widespread
media attention given to the wedding (the wedding photographs were sold to People
Magazine for a whopping 1.2 million dollars), United States Immigration &
Citizen Services (USCIS) processed Brangelina's I-130 visa petition a little
faster than it normally does: It approved the petition in one day (and absent
an interview). The marriage, unfortunately, later resulted in a divorce (having
been consummated) lasting less than the requisite 2 years to consider it to
be a “bona fide” marriage for immigration purposes. As such, Jitt recently received a knock on his door at his Malibu residence from ICE agents, personally handing him a notice from USCIS revoking his conditionally approved residency status (his “green card”) and issuing him a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) before an immigration judge as he now was placed in removal (“deportation”) proceedings awaiting a hearing before immigration judge Judy Rothchild, chief immigration judge at the Hollywood , CA. immigration court.

At the first court hearing (known as “master calendar”), Jitt appeared before Judge Rothchild, with his attorney, Hollywood Holt. Holt denied all allegations and demanded a speedy trial (though he knows that Jitt needs as much time as possible to support his deportation defense).

At immigration court, the government insisted that the supposed relationship and subsequent marriage of the “JJs” was a sham marriage solely for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits (and done only so Aad could continue his film career in the United States). As evidence of this, the government argued that no children resulted from the marriage and the couple rarely lived together. The ICE attorney stated mater of factly, “this is a textbook case of a paper marriage—the respondent [Jitt] was in it [the marriage] for a green card, your honor.”

The most damming evidence produced by the government were phone records and text messages of Jitt and Brangelina during the filming Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Hold vehemently objected to their admission, but with a packed courtroom of reporters inside, Judge Judy sustained all of Hollywood's objections admonishing him: “You've been practicing long enough counselor to know this is ALL relevant evidence against your client!”

The government also brought in shocking paparazzi photographs of Brangelina and Jitt taken at a remote Caribbean nude beach [depicting both committing unspeakable –and unprintable-- adultered acts]. There was no doubt that Brangelia and Jitt were carnally involved while Jitt was still married! Jitt's official green card
had not even arrived in the mail. One could hear a pin drop as the enlarged
photographs of Brangelina and Jitt were tendered to the judge. There was no
denying the affair now, but does that make Jitt guilty of immigration fraud?
Should he be deported on that basis as the government now contends? He was
clearly out of status (thus an “illegal alien”), as USCIS revoked his I-130, and
he could not file another one. Or could he?

This evidence above was admitted against Jitt, and it was now clear that there was some serious hanky panky going on between Brangelina and Jitt, all while he was still married to Annifer. The judge then found Jitt removable (“deportable”) as charged, as the marriage was less than two years old and under the law Jitt needed to show the marriage wasn’t a sham. Jitt could be deported simply because the marriage did not last two years and thus the conditions to remove his temporary residency were not meet. Attorney Holt knew of the affair, and knew there were only
four ways Jitt could stay here permanently [absent some limited exceptions]: (1)
the visa lottery; (2) an asylum claim; (3) a job sponsor; and/or (3) a family
(visa) petition.

“Hollywood” Holt had a novel idea, however. He would plead that Jitt certainly was removable (deportable) as the two-year requirement was not met, knowing he would lose that argument, but if he avoided the fraud charges, a later marriage
between Brangelia and Jitt would allow him stay here, obtain his permanent greed card (lawful permanent residency) and Jitt would not be deported to his native country, Missouropa (a former soviet bloc country). Missouropa has no political strife, civil war or any other political turmoil and is considered a peaceful, Thespian society (90% of its population are actors). Due to the recent worldwide economic spiral and Missouropa being denied EU status, however, its chief currency, the Guild, is virtually worthless.

If Brangelina, however, could file another family-based visa petition (an I-130
petition) for Jitt once they are married, the Judge could grant him a
continuance while the visa peititon was pending with USCIS. Jitt then would not
be deported. That was the plan of attack or defense for this case, Holt
decided.

This time, Holt also knew USCIS wouldn't approve a subsequent visa petitioner between the two in a timely fashion (as the first one), especially
since the government now was alleging fraud. But he nevertheless needed to buy time for his client. The case was ultimately continued until 2012 for status.

With the court hearing now more than 3 years away, Brangelina and Jitt enjoy taking a break from acting, having both worked on the recent US Presidential Campaign ,
and donating much money and time to causes they believe in: World hunger,
continued Katrina relief, and immigration reform. They both decide to take a cruise on the SS Namor. The children come with them.

Time on the cruise ship also allows Brangelina and Jitt quality time with their
family and a welcomed respite from the paparazzi, as the luxury cruise liner
screens its travelers very carefully. Every passenger on board in accounted
for and a thorough background check is made to ensure no guests are
photographers or anyone else from the media for that matter.

QUESTIONS (PLEASE CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

(A) (1) Can Jitt stay in the United States legally? (2) How so? (3) identify all the issues present in this fact pattern; (4) What procedure must he pursue, as we have learned in Class? (4) what are some of the problems he faces? (5) what audiovisual segment did we watch in class which parallels Jitt’s story and what are the similarities in that piece with Jitt’s predicament?

OR

(B) Using Ngai’s discussion of Just vs. Unjust Deportation, discuss (1) why AAD JITT SHOULD BE DEPORTED OR NOT? (2) Cite specific examples used in class similar to Jitt’s predicament in our discussion of just vs. unjust deportations in society. (3) why do court delays (or continuances) help immigrants like Jitt? (4) Who else did we see in class that was in need of a long court continuance and why? Please specify by name.


PART III EXAM QUESTIONS

Gulf of Aden. December 9, 2009. Traveling the crystal clear, sea green waters of the Gulf of Aden, a body of water just South of the Red Sea, is the SS Namor.
The ocean waters touch the shores of both Somalia to the West and the Saudi
Arabian Peninsula to the North. The nautical course traveled by the SS Namor is
both majestic and biblical, but also efficient. Both industrial tankards,
fishing ships, scrap heaps and tourist vessels alike traverse this course.

The gulf’s treacherous waters are home to dangerous “man-eating” species, human and otherwise. Below the water’s surface live deadly man-eating piranhas; above the water live another life threatening creature: Pirates. Yes, just like Blackbeard and his crew from centuries past lurk the modern day equivalent, who cruise theses waters in search of defenseless prey.

These modern-day buccaneers, who seemingly have ported through a time warp, originate from the war-torn lawless country of Somalia. Somalia, a predominately Muslim country, once was a majestic and proud land, today is defined by severe civil strife, clan-based murders, genocide, and anarchy. These pirates, like the piranhas deep below, must feed on their prey to survive: Famine and fear of starvation motivate the pirates. They are both fearless and vicious and have nothing to lose.

Composed chiefly from scrap metal heaps and rope, the small rag-tag boats or “skiffs” are diminutive in comparison to large vessels like the Namor. As the skiff approaches the ship, its captain, believing it to be stranded refugees and seeing a white distress flag waving, navigates towards the boat. Thus today the Pirates have found their victim: the SS Namor. Once the Namor is alongside the skiff, a burlap bag is removed, revealing a grenade launcher, and an anti-tank missile launcher, all remnants of U.S. troop intervention in Mogadishu in the early 1990s. Five-men and one woman, brandishing aka-47 automatic machine guns, one with a shoulder-strapped grenade launcer, board the ship. The Namor is commandeered by the Pirates in less than 10 minutes.

At least 50 passengers then are murdered on the deck of the Namor, when one of the Pirates’ shoulder rocket launchers accidentally fires. One of the passengers killed instantly from the blast is the famous actor, AAD JITT. His wife Brangelina Polie and their USC children are floors below and are not injured. The captain is also murdered and with no knowledge of the ships navigational system, the attempted hijackers are forced to surrender to German and U.S. maritime military vessels.

The Namor eventually arrives to the U.S., docking at the port-of-Miami in flames. With smoke billowing throughout the morning Miami sky, passengers are carried off of the ship, many on med-vac stretchers.

One of the individuals carried off the ship is Idel Hussain (pronounced EE-DEL), the only female accompanied with the Pirates.

After it is discovered that she was not an official passenger she is detained, placed in the Miami Detention Center, and interrogated by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).

After a “credible fear interview” by ICE, it was learned that Idel was 16-years-old and forced to sail on the skiff with the other pirates, one of whom she claimed to be her husband. She also stated that in Somalia, it is common for young woman to undergo a horrendous procedure. She also told ICE officers something horribly shocking—a story that not one ICE officer believed at the time: Idel claim that she (as well as most all woman in Somalia) were subjected to a form of genital mutilation which only females were subjected. Idel was forced to undergo this horrific procedure, she claims, when she was about 11 years old.

She went on to discuss this in detail: commonly referred to as infibulation and in Somalia, called "Pharaonic circumcision"), she claimed Eighty percent (80%) of all genital procedures for women and girls consist of this form which is the most harmful form. Of the remainder, the less radical or Type I (commonly referred to as clitoridectomy and in called "sunna" by Idel) is practiced mainly in the coastal towns of Mogadishu and Kismayu. The procedures leave a lifetime of physical suffering for the women. She described many Somalis mistakenly view this procedure as a religious obligation. The concept of family honor is also involved. It is carried out to ensure virginity. Because virginity of daughters and family honor are related, it is believed that the family’s honor will also remain intact if the daughters are subjected to this procedure. Women who have not undergone this procedure, Idel described, may be thought of as having “loose morals”. A girl who has not undergone it will result in less bridewealth for her father and brothers. Either way, Idel claims she had no choice in the matter. She also claimed she had to accompany her husband aboard the skiff or she would be killed by her husband.
Felling sympathy for Idel, she was further asked by ICE officers if she feared the government upon returning to Somalia. She stated that there is no government in Somalia and thus there is no government to fear.

PART III. EXAM QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS (PLEASE CHOOSE ONE ONLY)

A.) The Pirates survive and are taken into custody by ICE. Once fingerprinted, it is learned that two of the men had been admitted to the Untied States previously with visitor visas. One admitted to successfully commandeering a cargo ship in between his visits to the U.S. If biometrics had been used, (ie if the Somalia government had agreed to share its fingerprints to U.S. intelligence) clearly, one of the pirates would have not been on board resulting in the death of at least one American (and Aad Jitt). (1) Make a case, for or against why biometrics should be used for immigration enforcement. Include in your analysis a definition of biometrics. What did our guest speaker from the FBI believe and why? (2) Do we need to be more vigilant as to who enters the United States on a temporary basis or not? (3) should we fingerprint all visitors (non-immigrants or NIV visa holders) who come to the United States? Why or why not? (4) What liberties/privacy interests are involved, if any?

OR

B.) (1) Is there a basis for asylum here? By whom? (2) Provide the definition of political asylum as discussed in class, in Ngai or both. (3) What are the five (5) bases of asylum--what must it be on account of? Please name the five. (4) What asylum case did we see from class (which guest speaker?) similar here? (5) What would the asylum case here be “on account of” (i.e, which one of the five (5) above would it fall under? and why? (6) What policy issues may be present which may serve as a hurdle to obtaining safe haven here in the United States? (7) Finally, what are Idel’s chances and what conditions would she be subject to if she pursues an asylum case in the U.S., based on what we discussed in class and the 60 Minutes piece we watched on detention of immigrants?

MODEL EXAM ANSWERS
1B) Fred Koramatsu was a naturalized citizen of Japanese decent. Mr. Koramatsu was detained under Executive Order 9066, which was enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, following the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Basically, Koramatsu was detained for occupying a Military Zone, by the Secretary of War, and he was placed in a Japanese Interment Camp. Mr. Koramatsu was/is referred to as an NISEI, which is in Nagai and our class discussions an A2 or a second generation American Born citizen of Japanese decent. As stated earlier, Mr. Koramatsu (Now will be referred to as Mr. K.) was detained under executive or 9066, which gave the Secretary of War, absolute power to detain persons of Japanese decent in Interment Camps because of the beginning of WWII. Mr. K fought his detainment, in the Internment Camp, all the way to the Supreme Court. The case can be found in any law research database for reference. Furthermore, Mr. K. challenged his detainment as being unconstitutional. While Mr. K. lost his case before the high court, the court cited that his detention in violation of 9066 was lawful because he was being detained for the criminal violation of occupying a military zone; however, the court never fully addressed the constitutionality of native born Americans of Japanese decent being detained in these camps, but they articulated, in their opinion, that the detainment of American citizens was, at the very least, was Constitutionally Suspect, but this was not the issue before the court at the time. However, in my opinion, in our day and age, and with the evolution of our jurisprudence, had Mr. K challenged his detainment in our current society and before this court, he may win, but that is only a brief opinion. Mr. K was detained because of the attacks on Pearl Harbor. At this point in time, all people of Japanese decent were considered to be suspect as a result of the attack. The government did not know what Japanese Americans would sympathize with the Empire of Japan. So, every member of Japanese decent was detained and relocated to Internment Camps. The commonalities of Mr. K. and the detainees at Gitmo are similar in a sense. While was able to use the appellate process, Mr. K did not receive due process of law in his exclusion and relocation to an internment camp. The same can be said for the detainees at Gitmo. Some are American citizens, but yet, because they have been labeled as Enemy Combatants, in the War on Terror, they have been denied Due Process of Law, one of our fundamental foundations in this country. Thus, Mr. K. had the final say, when he filed an Amicus Brief * (A Friend of the Court Brief), on the behalf of the detainees in Gitmo. I may be paraphrasing, but, he did not want the government to make the same mistakes it made during WWII by denying Due Process of Law to American Citizens, once again. However, as a matter of fact, I believe Mr. K held that as long as people were detained on US Soil, which Gitmo technically is US soil because it is a Military Installation; all persons detained here were entitled to some Due Process of Law.



2A)


Issue: Whether or not Jitt can remain in the United States lawfully as a permanent US resident?


Rule: Marriages lasting less than two years do not constitute a bona fide marriage; therefore the petition for permanent status is denied.


Analysis: The general Rule, in this case, is stated very clearly. In order for a marriage to be valid, in the eyes of immigration, it must last a period of at lest two years. This is not the case. The Petitioner entered the US on an entertainer’s visa, which was converted to an application for Permanent Status following a marriage. The marriage resulted in a divorce, which does not meet the threshold of the two year minimum. Moreover, the Petitioner contends his marriage was not a sham; however, clearly, the evidence points to that fact. The couple rarely resided together, the relationship bore no children, and the Petitioner carried on an affair, while married, with another woman. As we proceed, do we think that adultery amounts to Moral Turpitude? I think so, because the Petitioner was married at the time of his affair. However, it is the year of 2008 and the case has been continued until 2012, and his current relationship can result in another marriage. The conclusion will support my finding.


Conclusion: The facts here are very clear. Jitt was married to woman while carrying on an affair during his marriage. His first marriage has resulted in a divorce, which does not meet the threshold of a 2 year minimum to obtain a Green Card/Lawful Permanent Status for a family sponsorship. Thus, the Petitioner, Mr. Jitt is eligible for deportation, and the deportation is just under the law. He rarely lived with his spouse, bore no children during his marriage, and carried on an affair with another woman. Adultery is certainly an offense of Moral Turpitude in our society. While we can entertain the issue of a job sponsor, there are certainly an ample amount of actors, certainly capable, of playing in roles that Jitt would be sponsored for. Therefore, the deportation against Jitt remains just. His native homeland is a peaceful nation with no political strife, civil war, or other political turmoil; however, the country and its currency are worthless. We will concede that Jitt is certainly well off financially due to his blockbuster roles, and his economic financial viability does not only reside in Missouropa. Thus, his deportation does not meet the threshold of persecution under financial distress because his wealth is global. Also, an asylum claim is out of the question because there are no relevant facts that point to a well founded fear of persecution. Therefore, under the objective factual analysis, the deportation would be approved; however, and this is a hypothetical, if Jitt was to marry again, and file another petition for permanent status, and meet the threshold of the two year requirement, his petition may be approved. But we do not deal in hypothetical, and given the fact that, currently, there is no change in marriage status, Jitt will be deported for the aforementioned reasons.


3B) Yes, there is a basis for a claim of Asylum. Idel could wage a claim of Asylum. Asylum must be based in a well founded fear of persecution due to the association of political Ideology, membership in a social group, race, gender, and nationality. While there is no government to fear because of the current status in Somalia, there is a state of lawlessness, which any state of nation has an obligation to preserve the right of law. Idel has been basically castrated by her parents against her will, which rises to a level of persecution. Meaning, she would be a member of a social group, which is uncircumcised and therefore persecuted in this country. Not to mention, this procedure seems to be a bit barbaric in a Westernized Ideology, thus resulting in a level of persecution because of the membership in a social group. Further, it appears, while customary, she was forced into a sense of indentured servitude because her refusal to board the vessel without her husband was met with severe consequence, death. In my opinion, this also rises to the level of persecution because there is no government to protect her from this way of life. Therefore, on the basis of the aforementioned facts, Idel would be granted Asylum because of her well founded fear of persecution due to the government of Somalia, which theoretically is non-existent but there is a government structure of some sort, inability to protect her. Also, she was not given any choices as to her membership in any social group; this also appears to meet the threshold of persecution because the government cannot control the group

This week marks our last class meeting and our final exam review session. I am grateful to you all for allowing me to be a part of your Loyola experience and I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. let me also say that your participation in the Great American Immigration Debate on this blogspot served as the additional reading material for this course (and maybe the most important!). Thank you for all of your entries and comments during the semester...

I look forward to seeing you (and reading about you in the future) in the future. Below is the study guide for the final Exam which will take place DECEMBER 9, 2008. YOU WILL HAVE THE ENTIRE PERIOD TO TAKE THE FINAL EXAM.

--Christopher Helt, Esq.

IMMIGRATION POLICY (SOC 370/INTS 398) FINAL EXAM STUDY GUIDE

THE FINAL EXAM COUNTS FOR 20% (or 20 points of your overall grade). It will be in essay format and require you not only to know the subject matter covered in class but you must be able to apply it.

You may use the IRAC method of answering the essay questions for one or all of the exam questions, depending on what is asked and your preference. I will be available by email or telephone before the exam for you. I can also meet with you if you have any last minute questions, depending on our schedule (I will be in town this week and next).

Everything we covered in class is fair game for an essay question on the final. There will be three questions to answer, from a choice of two or three. You will have the entire period to answer the exam. To keep everyone honest, their will be essay questions related to the reading material, especially since there was not an enormous amount of reading material assigned the second half of the semester.

Pay particular attention to the following:

I. DEFINITION OF ASYLUM-be able not only to define it, but know the five bases. Be prepared to cite class lectures and DANIELS, NGAI. Be able to identify a specific fact pattern or scenario similar to what you have heard about from out guest speaker, Farah Choudry, Class Lectures, Audiovisual and blog spot entries. There may be a question on the final exam taken directly from one of your entries or comments.

II. PATRIOT ACTS FILM-who were the individuals portrayed in the film? (Tariq Moti and Mohammad Tariq). See handout given in class (profiling illegal immigrants in the U.S.), Chicago Tribune Article "Tossed out of America" on our class blogspot, the Chicago Lawyer Article "New Era In Immigration Law". (1) What was this law all about, (2) who did it affect, (3) what was its stated purpose, and (3) was it "legal"? (4) Is it still in existence today? Know chapter 3 of Nguyen, and Sadru Noorani and Qadir. How did their lives parallel those depicted in Patriot Acts? Be prepared to provide specific examples in the reading material and the film.

III. KNOW NSEERS ("Special Registration"), the time period why it was implemented and who was affected. Be able to identify similarities in this law with other laws affecting individuals such as the Japanese Internment camps.

1. Japanese Internment Camps refers to the forcible relocation and internment of approximately 110,000 Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans to housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps", in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. Know why and its justification.

2. Know the similarities between 9/11 and another unfortunate incident in our history, on December 7, (1941): PEARL HARBOR. What policy changes were effected and what laws were enacted as a result and why? The terms remember 9/11, and we shall never forget are just about identical to the slogans "remember Pearl harbor"-- (remember the poster passed out in class?) what is their significance?

3. KNOW THE LEGAL BASIS TO PASS ANY IMMIGRATION LAW. YOU MAY BE ASKED TO APPLY THIS TO A CERTAIN FACT PATTERN NOT SEEN BEFORE. You may be asked to use the IRAC method to answer the ESSAY QUESTION (see below). Please be prepared to compare the past with the present:

Whereas the special registration program only involved non US citizens, over 60% of the internees were American citizens. President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast. This is discussed in Ngai and you should be very familiar with the readings or what was covered in class on this topic. Know our class discussions!

IV. CLASS LECTURE ON "aliens" and U.S. Citizens from country "A." Be able to justify why immigration laws are made (yes, there are based on "politics and economics" as we have learned--but how are they upheld as "constitutional"). Again, know the legal basis, fair or unfair (just or unjust) upon which to pass any immigration law in the United States.

III. UNJUST vs. JUST DEPORTATIONS-KNOW HOW THIS AFFECTS immigration law and whether to deport individuals or not from the U.S. See Ngai discussion of this topic. Know handout on Naseer Din and Ziaul Hassan family from our class field trip. Know the role of Immigration Judges and their limited authority, as discussed in class.

IV. Finally, know the "IRAC" method of answering an essay exam questions: (1) ISSUE, (2) RULE, (3) ANALYSIS, (4) CONCLUSION. Why is it used? Why is it important? Know that: Immigration laws are often hidden/justified by current public sentiment, economic motivations: (i.e., NSEERS, Deportations of DIN, Hassan family). Oftentimes there is a lot of unrelated yet inflammatory facts associated with immigration (remember the GERALDO RIVERA vs. BILL O'REILLY DEBATE, i.e., are we letting illegal aliens who are drunk drivers stay here). IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU BE ABLE TO objectively parse away irrelevant facts to get at the real issues. This is the purpose of the IRAC methodology of answer exam questions. If appropriate, cite the 60 Minutes segment about widows left behind due to immigration laws where common sense DO NOT GO HAND IN HAND WITH THE LAW: Many viewers (and lawmakers in Congress) were shocked at this segment. DOES THIS COME AS A SUPRISE TO YOU, based on what you have learned during this semester? These laws may be unfair, but can they be supported legally in our society? WHY? (refer to our friend, FRED KORAMATSU. Did he have the last say after all?).

BE PREPARED TO TIE IN THE PAST WITH ANY HYPOTHETICAL FACT PATTERN GIVEN ON THE FINAL EXAM: If you know this--you will be able to identify and answer any type of essay question asked of you.

Please call email me or make an appointment to see me if you have any questions.

THE ELECTION IS OVER. We have our first class this week (and our last class blog entry assignment) knowing who will lead our nation now and the most obvious question to ask is WILL CHANGE HAPPEN IN IMMIGRATION WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

Although economic concerns reduced immigration issues to nearly a "nonissue" by the time the presidential campaign drew to a close (when last year it was arguably THE most important issue, second only to the war in Iraq), political experts believe it was largely responsible for the record turnout of Latino voters Tuesday, 66% of whom supported Barack Obama.

According to national exit poll results analyzed by the Pew Hispanic Center, only 32% of Latinos voted for John McCain, in spite of his track record as a proponent of immigrant-friendly reforms (remember last years McCain-Kennedy bill, losing 60-64 last June?). That total represents a significant drop from what President Bush received in 2004, receiving between 40% and 44% of the Latino vote that year and 35% in 2000...

But the heated immigration debate that dominated headlines two years ago, when hundreds of thousands marched in cities across the country and demanding CIR (Comprehensive Immigration Reform) may have been the catalyst that sent Latinos to the polls. WAS IT BECAUSE OF THEIR DESIRE TO EFFECT CHANGES IN OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM?

A large number of Latino voters this year were casting ballots for the first time, suggesting that efforts by national and local Latino organizations to encourage legal residents to become U.S. citizens and participate in the political process paid off, AP concludes.

Interestingly, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced right after the election that 1,051,640 people became U.S. citizens between Oct. 1 of last year and Sept. 30, setting a record. we shall soon see whether Most of them who were able to vote--most likely voted for Obama.

The nonpartisan National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials estimates that between 9.6 million and 11 million Hispanics voted in the election, compared to a U.S. Census estimate of 7.6 million in 2004. Latinos comprised 9 percent of all voters this year, compared to 7 percent in 2004, according to Associated Press exit polls.

Nationwide, the AP polls suggested about two-thirds of Latino voters chose Obama over Republican John McCain. About three-fourths of Hispanics under the age of 30 supported Obama.

In Florida, where President Bush won 56% of the Latino vote in 2004, Obama earned 57% of the Hispanic vote to McCain's 42%. Obama won three-fourths of Latino votes in Nevada, and nearly 7 in 10 favored him in New Mexico, where he would have lost without them, according to a recent AP story.

Gone are the significant inroads by Bush among Hispanic voters (Take a look at our blog spot from last year, below). Bush won over many in 2000 by saying he would build a solid relationship with Vicente Fox, then president of Mexico. Their relationship later soured, AP correctly points out.

In 2004, Bush won 40% of the Hispanic vote.

So a more obvious question to ask is: HAVE HISPANIC VOTERS CREATED A NEW ELECTORATE MAP? If so, and immigration may be the most important political issue for Hispanics now, then by simple deduction, majors changes in immigration are coming...



-Christopher Helt, Esq.

Aida said...

To the question « Have Hispanic voters created a new electorate map?” I deeply believe that the answer is yes.

With 14 percent of the U.S. population, the Latino “minority” accounted for over 8% of the electorate in this election. “While I know how powerful a community you are, I also know how powerful you could be on November 4th if you translate your numbers into votes.” says Barack Obama on his web page dedicated to Latinos: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/latinoshome/. During the campaign both Senator McCain and Senator Obama tried hard to get Latinos’ support by making appearances in front of major Hispanic organizations such as The National Council of La Raza or LULAC back in July. The courting of the Latino vote started in the early stages of the primaries. I remember how Bill Richardson’s endorsement -the Hispanic governor from New Mexico- was coveted after he dropped the race in January.

Hispanic voters created a new electorate map not only because of their growing voting population but they literally influenced the candidates’ strategies as well as the outcome in this election. Indeed, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Obama but they also helped him carry “battleground” sates such as Colorado, Nevada, Florida and New Mexico.

For the anecdote, I was with the Obama campaign in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the weekend of Get Out The Vote (GOTV) prior to Election Day. The main activity of GOTV is canvassing: volunteers knock on doors, ask people if they are registered to vote, if they know where their polling location is, offer them a ride to the polls… Local organizers in Milwaukee had a “code” for Hispanic neighborhoods –they were colored purple on a map of the city-. On November 1st, I went with one of the other Chicago interns in one of the Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. As a second-generation immigrant, my friend is fluent is both languages, which made her an incredible asset for the campaign. We had also had campaign literature in both English and Spanish. All this to show how many efforts were made by the campaign to get the Hispanic vote: “The Latino community holds this election in its hands” (Barack Obama at the NCLR annual conference in San Diego).

1:01 PM


Teresa said...

There is a potential for a mass mobilization about immigration change. These individuals who will be the mass, who might happen to be Latino, have an important voice, but I do fear for a grouping of such a diversity of people as one unit comprised of only one race. It is dangerous for politicians to think the only issue Latinos must care about is immigration. I also don’t think it is only Latinos who are concerned about the future of immigration. We are a whole nation of immigrants from all over the world. If properly educated on our history, we all should care. As much as I have hope for Obama and this change and hope dream initiative we currently attempt to have faith in, I really don’t think his immigration policy is all that different than that of McCain. So I am unsure I claim an immigration victory in the election of Obama.

On April 5th, 2006, Barack Obama discussed the debate going on in the Senate about CIR: "It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came into the United States through Ellis Island had proper documentation. Not every one of our grandparents or great-grandparents would have necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually mean something."

Now, as I look up his official views on immigration on his “Blue Print for Change” website his thoughts have seemed to change (except for his thoughts on strengthening the border). With response to “bringing people out of the shadows, “Obama and Biden support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.” So now we tell people to go to the back of the line and jump through more hoops. Didn’t he recently say that all of our grandparents didn’t come here in a way that would have qualified for legal immigration? Did they have to jump through hoops and go to the back of this line because they didn’t qualify for one of the four ways? I am pretty sure the answer is no. My grandparents were embraced and welcomed by the Statue of Liberty into the land of promise as the weak huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Last night, I was shopping in a grocery store on Bryn Mawr. Two Mexican men behind me were buying six packs of Modelo. An angry white woman pushed past them and clearly yelled, “Excuse me.” As she finished paying and was about to walk out the door, the men were apparently in her way again. She yelled, pushed her way out the door, and clearly stated for everyone to hear, “No wonder people don’t like illegal Mexicans!” I felt discouraged and disappointed as I paid for my groceries. We really have a long way to go as a nation with concern to immigration on the small local level and the larger national level.

11:59 PM

all of the above said...

I don't have any empirical data to back this up, but re: your question about whether or not the huge immigrant marches of two years ago impacted this election, but I think the answer is definitely yes. A sign that was seen at every immigrant protest I was at and every one I saw in the media were signs that read, "Hoy marchamos, mañana votamos" - "today we march, tomorrow we vote." I think that community organizers in the Latina/o immigrant community here have taken that slogan seriously, and have really done the groundwork that has helped lead to this huge voting shift--both in terms of registering voters and engaging Latinas/os on the issues, making them realize that an Obama vote was really in their best interests.

On the other hand, a commentator being interviewed on NPR the other day (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96735168&ft=1&f=1015) said that a big reason that Latinas/os voted Obama was "bread and butter issues," the economy in particular. Another NPR story talked about how the economic downturn is hurting Latino/a immigrants, both documented and undocumented, particularly badly (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96700517&ft=1&f=1001). Regardless of why they voted for Obama, though, I do think Latinos/as will now be seen as a more important demographic to court in US politics.

As a personal note, I have often wondered why Latinos/as have been as supportive of Republicans as they have been in the past (besides social issues--I know that many Latinos/as are fairly socially conservative). Sure, there are Republicans like McCain who have supported decent immigration reform, but there is that crazy split in the party between people like McCain and Rep. Tom Tancredo, the crazy xenophobic dude who Geraldo talks about in his book. While the Democrats certainly have their own xenophobic elements, they have not been as vocal as the Republicans'.

12:24 AM

Nikki said...

Have hispanic voters created a new electoral map?

Yes. I read in a Chilean news report just before the election that Obama reached out to the hispanic population by pitching a commercial in fluent spanish, urging the population to vote. This commercial is important for two reasons. One, that our border with Mexico is important. I believe that Obama's ability to reach out to the hispanic population helped win the battle ground states like Florida and New mexico.

Another important aspect to this commercial, was that a Chilean news reported it. I think it is important to realize that this election doesn't have implications just for hispanic people in the US, but for hispanic people in other countries, and for that matter, around the world. Obama will be the leader of the US, but also a leader for the world. When I studied abroad in Chile, I was struck by the amount of people who knew about politics in the United States. They were able to name the candidates that were nominated, and those who they sought fit to be our next president. How many of us know the president of Chile? This goes to show, that the decision of this election will continue to effected many other countries.

The media plays a huge role urging people to vote. Especially when South American countries are showing their support for a particular candidate. In the chilean newspaper, not only did they report on Obama's commercial, but Fidel Castro's support for Obama as a candidate. It is not doubt that media coverage like this will spark other hispanic voters to be apart of the politics in the United States.

1:38 AM

Dara said...

I agree that the electorate map is changing. How that will play out in changes to immigration policy will be interesting. While I believe that change is coming, I’m not sure how much and how soon it will come. In Obama’s “Blueprint for Change”, the focus on immigration reform begins and ends with illegal immigration. I have heard him speak about the usual ideas: securing borders, keeping families together and bringing people out of the shadows but not on issues outside of illegal immigration. I believe that the focus on illegal immigration is important but also limits discussions to one part of a much larger problem. Will new policy changes improve the adjustment and processing of immigrants that are out of status or in the deportation process? Will new policy changes review enforcement methods and policy for civil liberty violations? I am not clear and perhaps even a little less hopeful that the new administration will make addressing the broken system and not just the illegal immigration issue a priority. Accomplishing the proposed goals related to illegal immigration without corresponding reform to the system will result in millions of people being added the already backlogged, inefficient and dysfunctional immigration system.

Diana writes,

In response to the question of whether an Obama administration will bring immigration reform, I think it is still to be determined. Yes, Latinos came out in record numbers and voted for him and the logical answer would be that he should bring immigration reform, but I don’t think it is that easy. As a senator, he played both sides of the aisle on the issue.

Also, immigration reform is not the number one issue of Latinos. Their number one issues are similar to the rest of the electorate: the economy, education, and ending the war. However, Latinos, those who are citizens, residents and undocumented have suffered a tremendous anti-immigrant backlash which was fueled by the Republican party. I think it was in response to this backlash that Latinos came out in records numbers for Obama.

We need to see who President-elect Obama surrounds himself with and how he deals with the pressing concern of the economy. As we learned in class, immigration is a creature of politics and economics. It is becoming evident that there are other issues he’ll need to deal with before solving the immigration problem. This could become difficult for the Democratic party in general if the Latino electorate is not happy with the Obama administration when it is time for his re-election.

bosslet said...

I think that the future Obama administration will responsible for an improvement in our current immigration system but I don't think that the change that will be inacted can be considered comporable to the desired 'comprehensive immigration reform.' It appears as though the Obama campaign has chosen it's immigration policy as one of it's 'middling' policies that places their candidate in a more centralized political position to make him more attractive to moderate and more conservative voters. Of course now that the election is over I think that the rhetoric coming out of the future administration will become more and more liberal.


The change that will occur under Obama that looks most promising will likely involve the opportunity for current illegal workers to pay a fine and begin the process of normalizing their status. Unfortunately it also appears as though Obama is seeking to crack down more on workers who are currently without status. This is a clear separation from more liberal and progressive views on immigration. Further funding of the bureaucracy as well as port and border facilities is also a top priority for the Obama administration which would indicate a strong inclination to enforce current laws involving immigration.

1:51 PM
Michael said...

If this year proved to hold a greater turn out of Latino voters than before, what does that say about the issue of immigration? For me, I often hear people speak of Latinos and undocumented immigrants as if they’re one and the same, as if to be Hispanic in the US implies you are here illegally regardless of where you were born or what citizenship you hold. As Geraldo Rivera said in his book when an angry critic told him to go home to wherever he came from, he responded by pointing out that he was born in Harlem, NY. When the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials estimates that between 9.6 million and 11 million Hispanics voted in the election, this goes to show that when we speak of the Hispanic minority in the US, we are not necessarily referring to border hopping illegals as is often portrayed. This great turn out of voters who come from Latino backgrounds (or at least who check off the Hispanic on the voter demographic form) are no less American citizens than those who come from Irish, Italian or even Chinese backgrounds. In my opinion, the fact that American citizens who have Latino heritage and are expressing their political interest in this country proves that the electoral map is changing. I suppose I tend to be an optimist and idealist in situations like these, but I hope to see this participation in a national, united event such as this as a sign of integration. Again ideally speaking, I’d also like to see demographic reform so that by identifying yourself in one way or another wouldn’t also immediately stigmatize you or make you no more than a number for one group or the next. I think citizens of the United States should be able to cast a vote for their preferred candidate without worrying about how it will affect the demographic, census or question their status as an American.

Tania said...

Like most of my classmate I believe that the electoral map is changing or better yet, last week elections proved that it has already change.

During the first semester of this year i was studying abroad in Mexico and I was able to see for myself how most people in Mexico were interested in the elections.

Most people that I talked to wanted obama to win not only because they home for a new immigration reform but mostly becuase of the ecenomy. The Economy was for both mexicans leaving in Mexico and mexicans leaving in the United States one of the most important issues. There is a saying in Mexico that "si a E.U.A le da gripa a Mexico le da pulminia" -if the U.S.A gets a cold than Mexico gets pneumonia' this refers to any financial crisis faced by the U.S.A

3:50 PM

AnnaW said...

Will change happen in immigration with the Obama administration?
It is clear that some change will occur under the Obama administration in terms of immigration reform, but how much and what kind of change is unclear. Obama voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform, voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government, voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security, votes YES on establishing a Guest Worker program, voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship, supported the DREAM Act for the children of illegal immigrants, and voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”; yet he also voted YES on buliding a fence along the Mexican border, and wants there to be a high penalty fee that illegal immigrants have to pay in order to be able to stay and get in the back of the line for citizenship.

Obama is definitely a proponent of stronger border security and wants to require that undocumented workers go to the back of the line so they do not get citizenship before those who applied legally. He believes that illegal persons should not be able to work in the US; therefore, there needs to be a push to crack down on employers who are hiring illegal immigrants and are taking advantage of them.
Obama is pushing for comprehensive immigration reform in a country where the immigration system is broken; it is going to take a while for any of the policies, be they good for immigrants or bad, to be implemented.

3:56 PM

Zubeyir said...

It seems like Diana outlined what I would say about the issues we are discussing. Having said this, I think that we still need to see what Obama will actually do with the immigration policy. We like most others expect that Obama presidency will be relaxing for the immigrant at least in comparison to 8 years of Bush administration which was fostered anti-immigrant sentiments and policies. That, I think, effected the ways many immigrant voted and Latino community is no exception. I have heard that Muslim immigrants had voted for Bush in 2000 election because of his conservative policies regarding issues of family and morality. However, they voted against him in 2004 simply because of the hardships Muslims encountered during his first term of presidency.

However, I don't think that Latino community was only and primarily concerned with immigration policies like Muslim immigrants. Again, this is not to say that they were not concerned with issues of immigration. Issues of immigration is only among many factors that affected voting behaviors of Latino community. I agree with Diana that they mostly voted on the basis of their economic concerns as 8 years of Republican administration fell behind economic prosperity of Clinton administration. Obama's call for change appealed and reached to Latino communities as they wanted to see a more prosperous future. I think that Latino communities, in this regards, show that they are less bounded with ideological issues when it comes to the decision of whom to vote. They mostly voted for Bush in 2004, if I am not wrong, and they turned to Obama in 2008. That, I think, indicates that Latinos will not hang on to Obama no matter what. What matters most is their, like many others', economic well-being. Who ever seems more promising in that regard will get the majority Latino votes unless they show sarcastic anti-immigrant sentiments.

10:53 PM