 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Symposium 2006: Immigration Law and Policy
Friday, October 27, 2006
Panel I: Assimilation and Local Control of Immigration
1:30 pm
Moderator: Adam Cox, University of Chicago Law
Howard Chang, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Focusing on residential segregation, Chang argues that the justifications for immigration restrictions based on cultural effects are more limited than commonly supposed.
Michael A. Olivas, University of Houston Law Center
This presentation will consider recent local and state governmental attempts to control immigration and legal/legislative challenges to these efforts.
Peter Schuck, Yale Law School
The presentation will critically examine the long, well-entrenched tradition of plenary federal authority over immigration policy, and will suggest that a larger role for the states deserves more serious consideration than it has received.
Lesley Wexler, Florida State University College of Law
Wexler surveys international treaties dealing with migrant workers, and asks whether and how the operation of these treaties introduces human rights concerns into the law enforcement-focused immigration policy of countries that receive migrant laborers.
Panel II: Criminalization and Immigration Law
3:15 pm
Moderator: Mae Ngai, Columbia University, History
Kevin Johnson, UC Davis School of Law
Johnson contends that national security concerns need not mean closing the borders, assuming that such a policy outcome were possible. An immigration scheme that better comports with the political, social, and economic factors contributing to immigration would be better for national security.
Jennifer Chacon, UC Davis School of Law
The increasing reliance on immigration enforcement mechanisms to achieve the law enforcement goal of punishing "criminal street gang members" carries high social costs that have not been properly considered including: undermining standard criminal procedural protections, encouraging discriminatory laws and law enforcement; and subverting human rights norms in the United States and elsewhere.
Teresa Miller, University at Buffalo Law School—SUNY
Miller explores changes in criminal law and procedure engendered by the criminalization of immigration law.
Hiroshi Motomura, UNC School of Law
Motomura will explore the complex relationship between criminal and immigration law, considering: (1) deportability and inadmissibility based on criminal convictions, (2) criminal penalties for immigration violations, (3) criminal sentences and immigration penalties, (4) criminal proceedings and immigration court, (5) the state/local versus federal roles, (6) systemic goals; (7) the role of governmental discretion; (8) constitutional cultures.
Keynote Speaker
Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
5:00 pm
Keynote Question and Answer Period
5:30 pm
Reception
6:30 pm
Dinner
7:00 pm
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Breakfast
9:00 am
Panel III: Institutional Competency and Control of Immigration
9:30 am
Moderator: Maria Woltjen, University of Chicago Law School
Adam Cox & Eric Posner, University of Chicago Law School
Focusing on the central choice states face between screening immigrants on the basis of pre-entry information or, instead, on the basis of post-entry conduct, Posner and Cox show how models of asymmetric information can help explain the circumstances in which states will prefer either ex ante or ex post screening.
Lenni Benson, New York Law School
Today, there are many voices in Congress, the Department of Justice and the Judiciary who say it is time for a major overhaul of the structure and forms of judicial review. In the late Spring, the immigration reform bill that passed the Senate dropped a dramatic reform proposal in favor of a Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) study. This paper will explore a variety of factors that have contributed to the current judicial review dynamics and suggest a research agenda for the GAO study.
Nancy Morawetz, New York University School of Law
This presentation will examine the overlooked system for judicial review of naturalization denials, and present proposals to shift the powers of the judicial and executive branches in citizenship cases.
Muneer Ahmad, American University: Washington College of Law
This presentation draws upon experiences litigating on behalf of a Canadian teenager detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and considers how the citizenship claims (broadly construed) of detainees have been framed, shaped, and litigated in the course of their detention at Guantanamo.
Panel IV: Labor and Employment Issues in Immigration Law
11:00 am
Moderator: Susan Gzesh, University of Chicago, Human Rights
Cristina Rodriguez, New York University School of Law
Rodriguez’s presentation will consider what it would mean for the processes of assimilation in the United States if we were to adopt a guest worker program as a solution to record rates of unauthorized migration.
Phil Martin, UC Davis: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
In countries that receive migrants, there is trade off between numbers and rights. The demand for migrants depends in part on their cost, which in turn depends on migrant rights. Inequality motivates migration, but migrant conventions and norms call for equality of treatment. This presentation considers the question of the proper balance between numbers and rights as it arises in domestic and international policy.
Belinda Reyes, San Francisco State University
What is the impact of border controls on the probability of migration? Do guest workers programs increase immigrant duration in the United States? Using the Mexican Migration Project Database, Reyes runs a set of models of migration and return to disentangle to effect of U.S. immigration policy on migration behavior.
Mike Wishnie, Yale Law School
Twenty years after the passage of IRCA, Wishnie argues that the employer sanctions regime has accomplished neither of its goals: deterrence of illegal immigration and protection of U.S. labor markets. Sanctions have not only increased workplace discrimination in ways predicted by some critics, but also undermined public safety and homeland security by driving millions of undocumented immigrants and their families into the shadows of civic life. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
