DOCSLIB.ORG

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/25/2021 11:30:34AM Via Free Access

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Index acculturation 156, 184, 188 Asiatic Barred Zone vii, 57, 70, 96, Act of Union 26 122, 125, 127, 130, 165 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves assimilate 8, 53, 55, 98, 100, 106, 166, 34 174–5, 184, 188 African-Americans 97, 166–9, 174–5 asylum-seekers 2, 79, 182 Africans 171, 177 agriculture 4–5, 57 Bayard-Zhang Treaty 50, 56 Alien and Sedition Laws 35 bias incidents 8 Alien Contract Labor Act 50–51 birthright citizenship vii, 16 Alien Enemies Act 34 Blockley Almshouse 36 Alien Friends Act 34 border walls vii Alien Registration Act 67–8 Bracero Program 67 aliens 5, 7, 35, 48, 81, 134 British Commonwealth 155 Amerasian Immigration Act 80–81 British Crown 27–8 American colonies 25, 28, 33, 180–81 Burlingame-Seward Treaty 16–17, 34, American Community Study (ACS) 2 49 American culture viii, 3, 16, 22, 98–100, 163, 165–6, 174–6, 178–9, Cable Act 67 184–5, 187–8 California state legislature 57 see also U.S. culture California Supreme Court 54 American Party 36–7 Carriage of Passenger Act 34 see also Know-Nothing Party Catholics 36 American public 8, 11, 81 Charity Hospital 36 American Revolution 26–7 cheap land 22, 25 American society 1, 8–9, 11, 13–14, 188 Chew Heong 16 American Trends Panel Survey 8, 11 Chew Heong v. US 50 Americanism 6 Chinese Exclusion Act 3–4, 16, 48, 50, Americans vii–viii, 4, 10, 53, 68, 186 54–6, 60, 64, 122–3, 125, 133–4, amnesty 8, 79 181, 183 Anarchist Exclusion Act 50–51 Chinese Exclusion Case 3–4, 7 anchor babies vii see also Ping, Chae Chan anti-Asian sentiment 125 Chinese immigration 55–7, 60, 70, 125, Anti-Coolie Law of 1862 34, 64 127, 181 Armed Forces Immigration and anti-Chinese sentiment 49, 54, Adjustment Act 80–81 56 Armed Forces Naturalization Act and Chinese immigrants 41, 48, 80–81 55 Asian Exclusion 53 and Chinese laborers 3, 37, 41, 48–9, Asian-Pacific Triangle 70 54–6, 156 Asians 97, 122, 166, 169, 171, 173, and Chinese laundries 55 176–7 Church of England 22 199 Roger White - 9781786435286 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/25/2021 11:30:34AM via free access M4433 - WHITE_9781786435279_t.indd 199 26/01/2018 15:02 200 Immigration policy and the shaping of U.S. culture citizenship 16, 33, 41, 56, 156, 165, economic opportunity 106, 178 180–81 economic prosperity 4, 26 City of New York municipal almshouse Edict of Nantes 25 35 Emergency Quota Act 2, 7, 65–7, 110, civil rights 16, 81 122, 125, 127, 130, 133, 181, 183 Civil War 22, 52 emigrate 25–7, 51, 56–7, 127, 160, Cleveland, Grover 3 180 Cold War 155, 160 English Catholics 22 Colonial America 22–3, 25–6, 28, 43, English Civil War 22 45 English Parliament 26–7 Colonial Era 1, 21–2, 28, 49, 180 English settlements 25 colonies 4, 22, 25–8, 33, 42, 154, 180 English settlers 25 Columbian Exchange 21, 180, 184 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Commissioner of Labor Statistics 58 Entry Reform Act 80 common border 106–7, 113 environmental issues 144 common language 106–7, 113 Equal Nationality Act 67 Conservative Political Action European immigration 5, 97 Conference (CPAC) 8 Europeans 3, 13, 21, 26, 70–71, 82, 96 contract laborers 51, 55 Evening Pajaronian 5–6 convicts 27, 48 Executive Order 9066 67 Coolidge, Calvin 66 Executive Order 13769 10–11 criminals 8, 26–7, 33, 35–6, 48, 181 Executive Order 13780 11 Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act 67 Expatriation Act 50, 156 cubic air ordinance 55 cultural assimilation 98, 176–7 family or communal obligations 147 cultural change 147, 185, 188 family values 144 cultural differences 100, 111, 134, 139, fertility rates 147 144, 147–8, 158, 161, 166, 175, 188 Filipino immigration 5, 7 cultural dimensions 137–40, 142–5, and anti-Filipino demonstrations 6 148–51, 158–9, 183–4 and anti-Filipino sentiment 5–6 cultural distance 123, 134, 137–9, and Filipino farm workers 5 143–4, 148–52, 154–61, 165–6, and Filipino Repatriation Act 67 176–7, 183–4 and Filipino workers 4–5 cultural evolution 1, 16, 165, 174 Fillmore, Millard 37 food, music, and the arts 11, 187 Deferred Action for Childhood forced laborers 4, 48, 181 Arrivals (DACA) 80 foreign brides 70 Democrats 11, 13, 82 foreign direct investment (FDI) 104, Department of Commerce and Labor 186 51 foreign-born population 11–15, 60, deportation 10, 35, 48, 56, 81 65–6, 73, 75, 77–8, 81, 103, 130, Dillingham Commission 50–51, 156 166, 170–74, 187 direct cost of migration 106 see also immigrants discrimination viii, 1–4, 11, 26, 49, 68 French Protestants 25 diseases 5, 21, 51, 180–81 displaced persons 70 G.I. Fiancees Act 67 Displaced Persons Act 67 Geary Act 50, 56, 120, 181 diversity visa program 79 gender roles 142–4, 147–8 Dunkers 25 General Court of Massachusetts 27 Dutch East India Company 22 geodesic distance 104, 106–13 Roger White - 9781786435286 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/25/2021 11:30:34AM via free access M4433 - WHITE_9781786435279_t.indd 200 26/01/2018 15:02 Index 201 German immigrants 41, 73 Hofstede measure of cultural distance globalization 178 138, 143, 150, 156–8 GLOBE measure of cultural distance and Individualism vs. Collectivism 138, 151, 158, 166 (IDV) 139–40, 142–4, 149–50, and Assertiveness (ASSERT) 143, 157 145–6, 152 and Masculinity vs. Femininity and Gender Egalitarianism (GEND- (MAS) 140, 142–3, 149–50, 157 EGL) 143, 145–6, 152 and Power Distance Index (PDI) and In-group Collectivism (INGP- 139–40, 142, 144, 149–50, 157 COL) 144–6, 152 and Uncertainty Avoidance Index and Institutional Collectivism (UAI) 140, 142–4, 149–50, 157 (INST-COL) 144–6, 152 see also Hofstede, Geert and Power Distance (POWDIST) Homestead Act 34 144–6, 152 homosexuals 147 and Uncertainty Avoidance (UNC- AVD) 144–6, 151–2 Illegal Immigration Reform and see also Project GLOBE Immigrant Responsibility Act 80 Gold Rush 41, 49, 123 immigrant inflow 1–2, 37, 58, 64–5, Grant, Ulysses S. 4 68, 82, 87, 95–7, 103, 107, 110, gravity model 15, 104, 114, 120–21, 113–14, 117, 121–7, 130–33, 176, 123, 182–3 181–2, 187 Great Depression 5, 68, 71 immigrants vii–viii, 1–5, 7–16, 21, Great Irish Famine 40 25–8, 33, 35–8, 40–41, 48–9, 51–5, Great Irish Migration 40 57–8, 60–61, 63–6, 68, 71, 73, 79, Great Migration 22, 60 80–82, 87, 90, 94, 96–8, 100, 1 Gresham-Yang Treaty 50, 56 03–4, 106–7, 110–11, 113–15, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 104, 117–18, 120–27, 130–34, 137, 108–12, 115–16, 118 155–7, 159, 165–6, 169, 171–2, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per 174–6, 178–88 capita 104, 106–7, 110, 113–14, and anti-immigrant acts 4 117, 119–20 and anti-immigrant feelings 5 and anti-immigrant isolationist habits 138 position 186 Hart-Celler Act 1–2, 16, 67, 79–82, 87, and anti-immigrant ordinances 55 97, 104, 100, 110, 121–3, 131–3, and anti-immigrant rhetoric 8 137, 139, 155–7, 159, 165–6, 179, and anti-immigrant sentiment 4, 182–5 37, 55 hate crimes 8 and anti-immigrant views 8 hate incidents 8 and anti-immigrant violence 17 Heaven 147 see also foreign-born population Hebrew 47 Immigration Act of 1864 34, 37, 64 Henderson v. the Mayor of the City of Immigration Act of 1882 48, 50 New York 49–50 Immigration Act of 1891 50, 181 Hindu 58 Immigration Act of 1903 51 Hispanics 8, 10–11, 13, 97, 166–77 Immigration Act of 1907 50–51 Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act Immigration Act of 1917 vii, 50, 57, 80–81 66, 68, 122, 125, 127, 133 Hofstede, Geert 138, 183 Immigration Act of 1918 50 see also Hofstede measure of Immigration Act of 1924 66 cultural distance Immigration Act of 1965 79, 179 Roger White - 9781786435286 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/25/2021 11:30:34AM via free access M4433 - WHITE_9781786435279_t.indd 201 26/01/2018 15:02 202 Immigration policy and the shaping of U.S. culture Immigration Act of 1990 79–80, 122, Jewish immigrants 22 132–3 jobs 5–6, 10, 148 Immigration and Nationality Act of Johnson-Reed Act 7, 66–8, 73, 78, 122, 1976 80–81 125, 130, 133, 181 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 79 Kennedy, John F. 71, 73 Immigration Reform and Control Act Know-Nothing Party 36–7 (IRCA) 79–80 see also American Party immigration restrictions 58, 156, 166 income inequality vii Labor Appropriation Act 67 Indian immigrants 58 laborers 41, 49, 57, 127 indigenous peoples 16 license fee 55 indirect cost of migration 106 Literacy Act vii Indochina Migration and Refugee literacy test 125 Assistance Act 80–81 infrastructure 48 Magnuson Act 67, 70, 134 Inglehart, Ronald 138 marital status 98 see also Inglehart measure of Maryland Colony 22 cultural distance Massachusetts Bay Colony 22 see also World Value Survey McCarran-Walter Act 1, 67, 70–71, Inglehart measure of cultural distance 110, 122, 125, 127, 131–3, 181, 183 138, 144, 147, 154, 160, 166, 176 Mennonites 25 and Survival vs. Self-expression Mexican Farm Labor Agreement 67 Values (SSE) 144–9, 153–5 Mexican immigrants 13 and Traditional vs.
Recommended publications
  • IMMIGRATION LAW BASICS How Does the United States Immigration System Work?

    IMMIGRATION LAW BASICS How Does the United States Immigration System Work?

    IMMIGRATION LAW BASICS How does the United States immigration system work? Multiple agencies are responsible for the execution of immigration laws. o The Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) was abolished in 2003. o Department of Homeland Security . USCIS . CBP . ICE . Attorney General’s role o Department of Justice . EOIR . Attorney General’s role o Department of State . Consulates . Secretary of State’s role o Department of Labor . Employment‐related immigration Our laws, while historically pro‐immigration, have become increasingly restrictive and punitive with respect to noncitizens – even those with lawful status. ‐ Pro‐immigration history of our country o First 100 Years: 1776‐1875 ‐ Open door policy. o Act to Encourage Immigration of 1864 ‐ Made employment contracts binding in an effort to recruit foreign labor to work in factories during the Civil War. As some states sought to restrict immigration, the Supreme Court declared state laws regulating immigration unconstitutional. ‐ Some early immigration restrictions included: o Act of March 3, 1875: excluded convicts and prostitutes o Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882: excluded persons from China (repealed in 1943) o Immigration Act of 1891: Established the Bureau of Immigration. Provided for medical and general inspection, and excluded people based on contagious diseases, crimes involving moral turpitude and status as a pauper or polygamist ‐ More big changes to the laws in the early to mid 20th century: o 1903 Amendments: excluded epileptics, insane persons, professional beggars, and anarchists. o Immigration Act of 1907: excluded feeble minded persons, unaccompanied children, people with TB, mental or physical defect that might affect their ability to earn a living.
  • National Cultural Differences and Multinational Business

    National Cultural Differences and Multinational Business

    Globalization Note Series Pankaj Ghemawat and Sebastian Reiche National Cultural Differences and Multinational Business The eminent Dutch psychologist, management researcher, and culture expert Geert Hofstede, early in his career, interviewed unsuccessfully for an engineering job with an American company. Later, he wrote of typical cross-cultural misunderstandings that crop up when American managers interview Dutch recruits and vice versa: “American applicants, to Dutch eyes, oversell themselves. Their CVs are worded in superlatives…during the interview they try to behave assertively, promising things they are very unlikely to realize…Dutch applicants in American eyes undersell themselves. They write modest and usually short CVs, counting on the interviewer to find out by asking how good they really are…they are very careful not to be seen as braggarts and not to make promises they are not absolutely sure they can fulfill. American interviewers know how to interpret American CVs and interviews and they tend to discount the information provided. Dutch interviewers, accustomed to Dutch applicants, tend to upgrade the information. To an uninitiated American interviewer an uninitiated Dutch applicant comes across as a sucker. To an uninitiated Dutch interviewer an uninitiated American applicant comes across as a braggart.”1 Cultural differences, while difficult to observe and measure, are obviously very important. Failure to appreciate and account for them can lead to embarrassing blunders, strain relationships, and drag down business performance. And the effects of culture persist even in life-and-death situations. Consider the example of Korean Air’s high incidence of plane crashes between 1970 and 2000. As an analysis of conversations recorded in the black boxes of the crashed planes revealed, the co-pilots and flight engineers in all-Korean cockpits were too deferential to their captains.
  • Congressional Record—Senate S3451

    Congressional Record—Senate S3451

    May 26, 2011 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S3451 SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS Mink, the first Asian-American Congress- (2) encourages the celebration during woman, and Norman Y. Mineta, the first Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month of Asian-American member of a presidential the significant contributions Asian-Ameri- SENATE RESOLUTION 200—RECOG- cabinet, have made significant strides in the cans and Pacific Islanders have made to the NIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF political and military realms; United States; and THE DESIGNATION OF THE Whereas the Presidential Cabinet of the (3) recognizes that the Asian-American and Obama Administration includes a record 3 Pacific Islander community strengthens and MONTH OF MAY AS ASIAN/PA- Asian-Americans, including Secretary of En- enhances the rich diversity of the United CIFIC AMERICAN HERITAGE ergy Steven Chu, Secretary of Commerce States. MONTH Gary Locke, and Secretary of Veterans Af- f Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, fairs Eric Shinseki; Whereas in 2011, the Congressional Asian SENATE RESOLUTION 201—EX- Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. Pacific American Caucus, a bicameral cau- PRESSING THE REGRET OF THE REID of Nevada) submitted the fol- cus of Members of Congress advocating on SENATE FOR THE PASSAGE OF lowing resolution; which was referred behalf of Asian-Americans and Pacific Is- DISCRIMINATORY LAWS to the Committee on the Judiciary: landers, includes 30 Members of Congress; AGAINST THE CHINESE IN AMER- S. RES. 200 Whereas Asian-Americans and Pacific Is- ICA, INCLUDING THE CHINESE Whereas each May, the people of the landers have made history by assuming of- EXCLUSION ACT fice in a number of new and historically sig- United States join together to pay tribute to Mr.
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States

    In the Supreme Court of the United States

    No. 17-965 In the S upreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP , PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES , ET AL ., petitioners v. STATE OF HAWAII , ET AL ., respondents On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE EVAN MCMULLIN, ANNE APPLEBAUM, MAX BOOT, LINDA CHAVEZ, ELIOT COHEN, MINDY FINN, JULEANNA GLOVER, NORMAN ORNSTEIN, MICHAEL STEELE, CHARLIE SYKES, AND JERRY TAYLOR IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS R. REEVES ANDERSON JOHN B. BELLINGER , III ARNOLD & PORTER Counsel of Record KAYE SCHOLER LLP ELLIOTT C. MOGUL 370 Seventeenth St. KAITLIN KONKEL Suite 4400 ARNOLD & PORTER Denver, CO 80202 KAYE SCHOLER LLP (303) 863-1000 601 Mass. Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Interest of Amici Curiae .............................................. 1 Introduction and Summary of Argument ................... 2 Argument ..................................................................... 4 I. EO-3 contravenes the prohibition on nationality-based discrimination that Congress, with support from almost all Republicans, adopted in 1965 ................................ 5 A. Congress intended to eliminate “all vestiges of discrimination against any national group” from our immigration system ............................................................... 6 1. Members of both parties, and Republicans in particular, strenuously repudiated the discriminatory policies that predated the 1965 Act ......................... 7 2. The 1965 Act rectified missteps in U.S. immigration policy ............................ 12 3. The principles underlying the 1965 Act are now fundamental to our national identity ........................................ 16 B. EO-3 runs afoul of Congress’s nondiscrimination guarantee ......................... 18 II. The President may not substitute his alternative policy judgments for Congress’s comprehensive statutory immigration scheme ..
  • Power Distance in Mormon Culture

    Power Distance in Mormon Culture

    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2015-03-01 Power Distance in Mormon Culture Sara Isabel Lee Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Communication Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Lee, Sara Isabel, "Power Distance in Mormon Culture" (2015). Theses and Dissertations. 4413. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4413 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Power Distance in Mormon Culture Sara Isabel Lee A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Loy Clark Callahan, Chair Robert Irwin Wakefield Thomas Eugene Robinson School of Communications Brigham Young University March 2015 Copyright © 2015 Sara Isabel Lee All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Power Distance in Mormon Culture Sara Isabel Lee School of Communications, BYU Master of Arts Religion consists of humanity’s beliefs, cultural systems, and worldviews of existence (Geertz, 1973). Its function is not merely a system of symbols that people act according to, but also the establishment of powerful, pervasive motivations in the society. This study intends to analyze the connection of religion and culture by using one of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, power distance (the extent of how power is accepted and expected to be distributed in the society). In this analysis, the researcher investigated the PDI (Power Distance Index) within the Utah Mormon culture.
  • Immigration Act of 1924 from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Immigration Act of 1924 from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Immigration Act of 1924 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68-139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans, mainly Jews fleeing persecution in Poland and Russia, who were immigrating in large numbers starting in the 1890s, as well as prohibiting the immigration President Coolidge signs the of Middle Easterners, East Asians and Indians. According to the U.S. immigration act on the White House Department of State Office of the Historian, "In all its parts, the most basic South Lawn along with appropriation purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of American bills for the Veterans Bureau. John J. homogeneity."[1] Congressional opposition was minimal. Pershing is on the President's right. Contents 1 Provisions 2 History 3 Results 4 See also 5 References 6 Sources 7 External links Provisions The Immigration Act made permanent the basic limitations on immigration into the United States established in 1921 and modified the National Origins Formula established then. In conjunction with the Immigration Act of 1917, it governed American immigration policy until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which revised it completely.
  • The American Dream

    The American Dream

    1 The American Dream That American dream of a better, richer, and happier life for all our citizens of every rank . is the greatest contribution we have yet made to the thought and welfare of the world. —James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America On September 5, 2012, Benita Veliz, an undocumented youth advocate from San Antonio, Texas, took the podium during prime-time coverage of the Democratic National Convention. She made a plea for immigra- tion reform and urged fellow Latinos to reelect President Barack Obama because, she said, “he fought for my community.” Benita was brought to the United States as a child “like so many Americans of all races and backgrounds.” Unlike most of her U.S. citizen peers, Benita graduated at sixteen as the valedictorian of her high school and finished college at twenty with a double major, a record that would have made her eligible for citizenship if the Dream Act had passed in the U.S. Senate in 2010. First proposed in 2001 by Illinois senator Dick Durbin with bipartisan support, it was designed to give legal status to young immigrants who had entered the country before the age of sixteen and completed college study or military service. Benita explained, “I feel just as Ameri- can as any of my friends and neighbors. But I’ve had to live almost my entire life knowing that I could be deported.” She reminded her listeners, “When Congress failed to pass [the Dream Act], President Obama . took action so people like me can apply to stay in the country and contribute.” On June 15, 2012, late in the presidential campaign and under pressure from Latino groups, Obama issued an executive order that offered a temporary reprieve from deportation and short-term work authorization to young immigrants like her.
  • Ussct Brief Template

    Ussct Brief Template

    No. 20-449 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Petitioners, v. NEW YORK, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR THE STATES OF NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, AND VERMONT, AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK LETITIA JAMES Attorney General State of New York BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD* Solicitor General MATTHEW COLANGELO STEVEN C. WU Chief Counsel Deputy Solicitor General for Federal Initiatives JUDITH N. VALE ELENA GOLDSTEIN Senior Assistant Deputy Bureau Chief Solicitor General Civil Rights Bureau 28 Liberty Street MING-QI CHU New York, New York 10005 Section Chief (212) 416-8020 Labor Bureau [email protected] *Counsel of Record (Counsel list continues on signature pages.) i QUESTION PRESENTED The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that an immigrant is “inadmissible,” and thus ineligible for legal-permanent-resident status, if the immigrant “is likely at any time to become a public charge.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A). “Public charge” is a term of art that has long been limited to individuals who are primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence. In August 2019, the United States Department of Homeland Security issued a Final Rule that, for the first time, expanded the statu- tory term “public charge” to include individuals who receive any amount of certain publicly funded supple- mental benefits for twelve months out of a thirty-six- month period, even though Congress designed these benefits to supplement health, nutrition, and economic stability rather than to provide long-term subsistence.
  • 19-161 Department of Homeland Security V

    19-161 Department of Homeland Security V

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v. THURAISSIGIAM CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 19–161. Argued March 2, 2020—Decided June 25, 2020 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) provides for the expedited removal of certain “applicants” seeking admission into the United States, whether at a designated port of entry or elsewhere. 8 U. S. C. §1225(a)(1). An applicant may avoid expedited removal by demonstrating to an asylum officer a “credible fear of persecution,” defined as “a significant possibility . that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum.” §1225(b)(1)(B)(v). An ap- plicant who makes this showing is entitled to “full consideration” of an asylum claim in a standard removal hearing. 8 CFR §208.30(f). An asylum officer’s rejection of a credible-fear claim is reviewed by a su- pervisor and may then be appealed to an immigration judge. §§208.30(e)(8), 1003.42(c), (d)(1). But IIRIRA limits the review that a federal court may conduct on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
  • 18 Lc 112 0076 Hr 1692

    18 Lc 112 0076 Hr 1692

    18 LC 112 0076 House Resolution 1692 By: Representatives Park of the 101st, Nguyen of the 89th, Marin of the 96th, Holcomb of the 81st, Glanton of the 75th, and others A RESOLUTION 1 Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act; and for other 2 purposes. 3 WHEREAS, many Chinese came to the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries, as did 4 people from other countries, in search of the opportunity to create a better life; and 5 WHEREAS, the United States ratified the Burlingame Treaty on October 19, 1868, which 6 permitted the free movement of the Chinese people to, from, and within the United States 7 and made China a "most favored nation"; and 8 WHEREAS, in 1878, the House of Representatives passed a resolution requesting that 9 President Rutherford B. Hayes renegotiate the Burlingame Treaty so that Congress could 10 limit Chinese immigration to the United States; and 11 WHEREAS, on February 22, 1879, the House of Representatives passed the Fifteen 12 Passenger Bill, which permitted only 15 Chinese passengers on any ship coming to the 13 United States; and 14 WHEREAS, on March 1, 1879, President Hayes vetoed the Fifteen Passenger Bill as being 15 incompatible with the Burlingame Treaty; and 16 WHEREAS, on May 9, 1881, the United States ratified the Angell Treaty, which allowed the 17 United States to suspend, but not prohibit, immigration of Chinese laborers, declaring that 18 "Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their 19 own free will," and reaffirming that Chinese persons possessed "all the rights, privileges, 20 immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most 21 favored nation"; and H.
  • Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP

    Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP

    Border Enforcement Developments Since 1993 and How to Change CBP Daniel E. Martínez The University of Arizona Josiah Heyman The University of Texas at El Paso Jeremy Slack The University of Texas at El Paso August 24, 2020 CMS Essays, https://cmsny.org/publications/border-enforcement-developments-since-1993- and-how-to-change-cbp/ Executive Summary Enforcement along the US-Mexico border has intensified significantly since the early 1990s. Social scientists have documented several consequences of border militarization, including increased border-crosser deaths, the killing of more than 110 people by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents over the past decade, and expanded ethno-racial profiling in southwestern communities by immigration authorities. Less attention has been paid to the pervasive and routine mistreatment migrants experience on a daily basis in CBP custody. This paper traces major developments in border enforcement to three notable initiatives: the “prevention-through-deterrence” strategy, the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Consequence Delivery System, initiated in 2011. Despite the massive buildup in enforcement, CBP has operated with little transparency and accountability to the detriment of migrants. The paper provides an overview of the findings of nongovernmental organizations and social scientists regarding migrant mistreatment while in CBP custody. It then highlights important shifts in migration patterns over the past decade, as well as changes in border enforcement efforts during the Trump administration. It discusses how these transformations affect migrants’ everyday encounters with CBP officials. The paper concludes by providing specific recommendations for improving CBP conduct. Its core theme is the need to emphasize and inculcate lessons of appropriate police behavior, civil rights, and civil liberties in training and recruiting agents and in setting responsibilities of supervisors and administrators.
  • Sample Formal Report

    Sample Formal Report

    BNL- 112464-2016-CP Transparency in Civilian Nuclear Endeavors Katherine M. Bachner Presented at the 57th Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM) Annual Meeting Atlanta, Georgia July 2016 Department/Division/Office Brookhaven National Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy NA-24, NA-241 Notice: This manuscript has been authored by employees of Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC under Contract No. DE-SC0012704 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The publisher by accepting the manuscript for publication acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. 3.0/3913e011.doc 1 (11/2015) DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any third party’s use or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.