DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 83, No. 196/Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 83, No. 196/Wednesday, October 10, 2018 51114 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND that the former Immigration and 4. Exemptions SECURITY Naturalization Service (INS) published 5. Waivers on May 26, 1999. B. Definition of Public Charge and Related Terms 8 CFR Parts 103, 212, 213, 214, 245 and DATES: Written comments and related 248 1. Public Charge material to this proposed rule, including 2. Public Benefit [CIS No. 2499–10; DHS Docket No. USCIS– the proposed information collections, (a) Types of Public Benefits 2010–0012] must be received to the online docket (b) Consideration of Monetizable and Non- via www.regulations.gov, or to the mail Monetizable Public Benefits RIN 1615–AA22 address listed in the ADDRESSES section i. ‘‘Primarily Dependent’’ Standard and Its below, on or before December 10, 2018. Limitations Inadmissibility on Public Charge ii. Fifteen Percent of Federal Poverty Grounds ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Guidelines (FPG) Standard for Monetizable on this proposed rule, including the Benefits AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and proposed information collection iii. Twelve Month Standard for Non- Immigration Services, DHS. requirements, identified by DHS Docket Monetizable Benefits ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. No. USCIS–2010–0012, by any one of iv. Combination of Monetizable Benefits the following methods: Under 15 Percent of FPG and One or SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of • Federal eRulemaking Portal More Non-Monetizable Benefits Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to (preferred): www.regulations.gov. (c) Monetizable Public Benefits i. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) prescribe how it determines whether an Follow the website instructions for ii. Temporary Assistance for Needy alien is inadmissible to the United submitting comments. • Families (TANF) States under section 212(a)(4) of the Mail: Samantha Deshommes, Chief, iii. General Assistance Cash Benefits Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Regulatory Coordination Division, iv. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance because he or she is likely at any time Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Program (SNAP) v. Housing Programs to become a public charge. Aliens who Citizenship and Immigration Services, a. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher seek adjustment of status or a visa, or Department of Homeland Security, 20 Program who are applicants for admission, must Massachusetts Avenue NW, b. Section 8 Project-Based Rental establish that they are not likely at any Washington, DC 20529–2140. To ensure Assistance proper handling, please reference DHS (d) Non-Monetizable Public Benefits time to become a public charge, unless i. Medicaid Congress has expressly exempted them Docket No. USCIS–2010–0012 in your a. Description of Program from this ground of inadmissibility or correspondence. Mail must be b. Exceptions for Certain Medicaid has otherwise permitted them to seek a postmarked by the comment submission Services waiver of inadmissibility. Moreover, deadline. c. Exception for Receipt of Medicaid by DHS proposes to require all aliens FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foreign-Born Children of U.S. Citizens seeking an extension of stay or change Mark Phillips, Residence and ii. Institutionalization for Long-Term Care of status to demonstrate that they have Naturalization Division Chief, Office of iii. Premium and Cost Sharing Subsidies not received, are not currently receiving, Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship Under Medicare Part D iv. Subsidized Public Housing nor are likely to receive, public benefits and Immigration Services, Department (e) Receipt of Public Benefits by Active as defined in the proposed rule. of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Duty and Reserve Servicemembers and DHS proposes to define ‘‘public NW, Washington, DC 20529–2140; Their Families charge’’ as the term is used in sections telephone 202–272–8377. (f) Unenumerated Benefits 212(a)(4) of the Act. DHS also proposes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (g) Request for Comment Regarding the to define the types of public benefits Children’s Health Insurance Program that are considered in public charge Table of Contents (CHIP) inadmissibility determinations. DHS I. Public Participation (h) Request for Comment Regarding Public would consider an alien’s receipt of II. Executive Summary Benefit Receipt by Certain Alien A. Major Provisions of the Regulatory Children public benefits when such receipt is (i) Request for Comment Regarding above the applicable threshold(s) Action B. Costs and Benefits Potential Modifications by Public Benefit proposed by DHS, either in terms of III. Purpose of the Proposed Rule Granting Agencies dollar value or duration of receipt. DHS A. Self-Sufficiency 3. Likely at Any Time To Become a Public proposes to clarify that it will make B. Public Charge Inadmissibility Charge public charge inadmissibility Determinations 4. Household determinations based on consideration IV. Background (a) Definition of Household in Public of the factors set forth in section A. Legal Authority Charge Context 212(a)(4) and in the totality of an alien’s B. Immigration to the United States (b) Definitions of ‘‘Household’’ and Similar C. Extension of Stay and Change of Status Concepts in Other Public Benefits circumstances. DHS also proposes to Contexts clarify when an alien seeking D. Public Charge Inadmissibility 1. Public Laws and Case Law (c) Definitions of Household and Similar adjustment of status, who is 2. Public Benefits Under PRWORA Concepts in Other Immigration Contexts inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of (a) Qualified Aliens C. Public Charge Inadmissibility the Act, may be granted adjustment of (b) Public Benefits Exempt Under Determination status in the discretion of DHS upon the PRWORA 1. Absence of a Required Affidavit of giving of a public charge bond. DHS is 3. Changes Under IIRIRA Support also proposing revisions to existing 4. INS 1999 Interim Field Guidance 2. Prospective Determination Based on USCIS information collections and new E. Public Charge Bond Totality of Circumstances D. Age information collection instruments to V. Discussion of Proposed Rule A. Applicability, Exemptions, and Waivers E. Health accompany the proposed regulatory 1. Applicants for Admission 1. USCIS Evidentiary Requirements changes. With the publication of this 2. Extension of Stay and Change of Status 2. Potential Effects for Aliens With a proposed rule, DHS withdraws the Applicants Disability, Depending on Individual proposed regulation on public charge 3. Adjustment of Status Applicants F. Family Status VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:48 Oct 09, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10OCP3.SGM 10OCP3 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 51115 G. Assets, Resources, and Financial Status A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Table of Abbreviations 1. Evidence of Assets and Resources Planning and Review), Executive Order 2. Evidence of Financial Status 13563 (Improving Regulation and AFM—Adjudicator’s Field Manual (a) Public Benefits Regulatory Review), and Executive Order ASEC—Annual Social and Economic (b) Fee Waivers for Immigration Benefits 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Supplement of the Current Population (c) Credit Report and Score Controlling Regulatory Costs) Survey (d) Financial Means To Pay for Medical 1. Summary BIA—Board of Immigration Appeals Costs 2. Background and Purpose of the Rule BLS—U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics I. Education and Skills 3. Population CDC—Centers for Disease Control and 1. USCIS Evidentiary Requirements (a) Population Seeking Adjustment of Prevention J. Prospective Immigration Status and Status CBP—U.S. Customs and Border Protection Expected Period of Admission i. Exemptions From Determination of CFR—Code of Federal Regulations K. Affidavit of Support Inadmissibility Based on Public Charge CHIP—Children’s Health Insurance Program 1. General Consideration of Sponsorship Grounds CNMI—Commonwealth of the Northern and Affidavits of Support ii. Exemptions From the Requirement To Mariana Islands 2. Proposal To Consider Required Submit an Affidavit of Support DHS—U.S. Department of Homeland Affidavits of Support (b) Population Seeking Extension of Stay of Security L. Heavily Weighed Factors Change of Status DOS—U.S. Department of State 1. Heavily Weighed Negative Factors 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis FAM—Foreign Affairs Manual (a) Lack of Employability (a) Baseline Estimates of Current Costs FCRA—Fair Credit Reporting Act (b) Current Receipt of One of More Public i. Determination of Inadmissibility Based FPG—Federal Poverty Guidelines Benefit on Public Charge Grounds FPL—Federal Poverty Level (c) Receipt of Public Benefits Within Last Form DS–2054—Medical Examination For a. Form I–485, Application to Register 36 Months of Filing Application Immigrant or Refugee Applicant Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (d) Financial Means To Pay for Medical Form I–129—Petition for a Nonimmigrant b. Form I–693, Report of Medical Costs Worker Examination and Vaccination Record (e) Alien Previously Found Inadmissible or Form I–129CW—Petition for a CNMI-Only c. Form I–912, Request for Fee Waiver Deportable Based on Public Charge Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker d. Affidavit of Support Forms 2. Heavily Weighed Positive Factors Form I–130—Petition for Alien Relative ii. Consideration of Receipt, or Likelihood (f) Previously Excluded Benefits Form I–140—Immigrant Petition for Alien of Receipt of Public Benefits Defined in M. Summary of Review of Factors in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DEPARTMENT of STATE 22 CFR Parts 41 and 42
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/22/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-08061, and on govinfo.gov DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Parts 41 and 42 [Public Notice 10481] RIN 1400-AE64 Refusal Procedures for Visas AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule is largely technical in nature and conforms a narrow aspect of the Department’s visa regulations to the law. The current regulation requires consular officers either to grant or deny every visa application; however, the law requires consular officers to take a different action, i.e., discontinue granting visas, when a country has been sanctioned for denying or delaying accepting one or more of its nationals subject to a final order of removal from the United States. This rule will modify the current regulation to reflect this option for consular officers to discontinue granting visas to individuals in sanctioned countries. DATES: This rule is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Beaumont, Acting Chief, Legislation and Regulations Division, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, 600 19th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 485-8910, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why is the Department promulgating this rule? The Department of State is promulgating this rule to provide guidance to consular officers implementing section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1253(d) (hereinafter INA 243(d)), which is a tool for the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Progressivism in Immigrant Habeas Court: Why Boumediene V
    CONSERVATIVE PROGRESSIVISM IN IMMIGRANT HABEAS COURT: WHY BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH IS THE BASELINE CONSTITUTIONAL MINIMUM JOSHUA J. SCHROEDER ∞ ABSTRACT This article opens with a presentation of the six baseline holdings of Boumediene v. Bush as an expression of the basic constitutional minimum required under the Suspension Clause for all habeas cases. Then it describes the Circuit split that gave rise to DHS v. Thuraissigiam, which distinguished Boumediene according to the Court’s Conservative Progressive ideology. In Thuraissigiam, this ideology was symbolized by Landon v. Plasencia that favored Mathews v. Eldridge post- racial balancing tests to real justice. Then this article exposes the reasons why Thuraissigiam should be distinguished in all future cases, as Justice Sotomayor contended, according to its highly individualized, narrow set of circumstances. For as Sotomayor wrote in dissent, Thuraissigiam is “nothing short of a self-imposed injury to the Judiciary, to the separation of powers, and to the values embodied in the promise of the Great Writ.” As such, its rationale should not be followed or repeated, as it may soon fall into the same kind of disrepute as cases like Korematsu, Plessy, and Buck v. Bell. In an unrelated matter USAID v. Alliance For Open Society, the Court attempted to rewrite the holdings of Boumediene as the opposite of what they were sub silentio. The Court should not be allowed to apply Boumediene as if it held the opposite of what it actually held. So fundamental is the holding of Boumediene to basic liberty in America that if the Court fails to rediscover the baseline holdings of Boumediene for whatever reason, it is possible the nation could founder.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 77/Monday, April 22, 2019/Rules and Regulations
    16610 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2019 / Rules and Regulations La Crosse, WI, La Crosse Rgnl, VOR RWY 36, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: prove ineffective at encouraging the Amdt 32A, CANCELLED Taylor Beaumont, Acting Chief, foreign government’s cooperation on Menomonie, WI, Menomonie Muni-Score Legislation and Regulations Division, removals. For example, the Secretary Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1 Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Menomonie, WI, Menomonie Muni-Score could order consular officers to Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1 Consular Affairs, Department of State, discontinue granting B–1 and B–2 visas Menomonie, WI, Menomonie Muni-Score 600 19th St. NW, Washington, DC for personal travel by ministers of a Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, 20006, (202) 485–8910, VisaRegs@ foreign government, with an escalation Amdt 2 state.gov. measure that requires discontinuation of West Bend, WI, West Bend Muni, LOC RWY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: F-category student visas for members of 31, Orig-D, CANCELLED the same foreign officials’ families after Berkeley Springs, WV, Potomac Airpark, Why is the Department promulgating 6 months, if the country remains RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1A this rule? Berkeley Springs, WV, Potomac Airpark, uncooperative on removals. The Department of State is RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1A Current regulations describing a Berkeley Springs, WV, Potomac Airpark, promulgating this rule to provide Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt guidance to consular officers consular officer’s authority to refuse 2 implementing section 243(d) of the visas state that the officer must issue or Parkersburg, WV, Mid-Ohio Valley Rgnl, ILS Immigration and Nationality Act, as refuse a visa when a ‘‘properly OR LOC RWY 3, Amdt 14C amended, codified at 8 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Posses: U.S
    Journal of Legislation Volume 34 | Issue 1 Article 2 1-1-2008 Immigration Posses: U.S. Immigration Law and Local Enforcement Practices Kevin J. Fandl Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg Recommended Citation Fandl, Kevin J. (2008) "Immigration Posses: U.S. Immigration Law and Local Enforcement Practices," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 34: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol34/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Legislation at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Legislation by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMMIGRATION POSSES: U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES Kevin J. Fandl* ABSTRACT The failure of the United States Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation at a time when the issue of immigration has reached a boiling point has created an overwhelming demand by citizens for local reform. States have responded by enacting hundreds of laws that regulate immigration at the state level. This creates significant tension both between states with conflicting laws-which creates havens in some states and rampant enforcement in others-and between states and the federal government, which is ultimately responsible for regulating immigration law. This article examines the history of immigration legislation since the founding of the United States and looks at where the federal and state governments are today in meeting citizen demand for reform. It explores the relationship between state and federal enforcement of immigration law. Finally, it provides recommendations for effective reform and insights into why the current approach is likely to fail.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Detention: a Legal Overview
    Immigration Detention: A Legal Overview September 16, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45915 SUMMARY R45915 Immigration Detention: A Legal Overview September 16, 2019 The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes—and in some cases requires—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain non-U.S. nationals (aliens) arrested for Hillel R. Smith immigration violations that render them removable from the United States. An alien may be Legislative Attorney subject to detention pending an administrative determination as to whether the alien should be removed, and, if subject to a final order of removal, pending efforts to secure the alien’s removal from the United States. The immigration detention scheme is multifaceted, with different rules that turn on several factors, such as whether the alien is seeking admission into the United States or has been lawfully admitted into the country; whether the alien has engaged in certain proscribed conduct; and whether the alien has been issued a final order of removal. In many instances DHS maintains discretion to release an alien from custody. But in some instances, such as when an alien has committed specified crimes, the governing statutes have been understood to allow release from detention only in limited circumstances. The immigration detention scheme is mainly governed by four INA provisions that specify when an alien may be detained: 1. INA Section 236(a) generally authorizes the detention of aliens pending removal proceedings and permits aliens who are not subject to mandatory detention to be released on bond or on their own recognizance; 2. INA Section 236(c) generally requires the detention of aliens who are removable because of specified criminal activity or terrorist-related grounds after release from criminal incarceration; 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberty, Restriction, and the Remaking of Italians and Eastern European Jews
    "Liberty, Restriction, and the Remaking of Italians and Eastern European Jews, (1882-1965)" By Maddalena Marinari University of Kansas, 2009 B.A. Istituto Universitario Orientale Submitted to the Department of History and the Faculty of The Graduate School of the University Of Kansas in partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy __________________________________________ Dr. Jeffrey Moran, Chair __________________________________________ Dr. Donna Gabaccia __________________________________________ Dr. Sheyda Jahanbani __________________________________________ Dr. Roberta Pergher __________________________________________ Dr. Ruben Flores Date Defended: 14 December 2009 The Dissertation Committee for Maddalena Marinari certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: "Liberty, Restriction, and the Remaking of Italians and Eastern European Jews, (1882-1965)" Committee: __________________________________________ Dr. Jeffrey Moran, Chair __________________________________________ Dr. Donna Gabaccia __________________________________________ Dr. Sheyda Jahanbani __________________________________________ Dr. Roberta Pergher __________________________________________ Dr. Ruben Flores Date Approved: 14 December 2009 2 Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………….3 Chapter 1: From Unwanted to Restricted (1890-1921) ………………………………………...17 Chapter 2: "The doors of America are worse than shut when they are half-way open:" The Fight against the Johnson-Reed Immigration
    [Show full text]
  • Nativism and Discriminatory Laws the Chinese Exclusion Acts' Effect
    Southern New Hampshire University Nativism and Discriminatory Laws: The Chinese Exclusion Acts’ effect on Immigration Laws and Immigrants during the 19th and 20th centuries A Capstone Project Submitted to the College of Online and Continuing Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Arts in History By Sandra Ippolito Philadelphia, Pa Submitted May, 2019 Copyright © 2019 by Sandra Ippolito All Rights Reserved ii Student: Sandra Ippolito I certify that this student has met the requirements for formatting the capstone project and that this project is suitable for preservation in the University Archive. __________________________________________ _______________5/22/19 Capstone Instructor Date May 21, 2019 __________________________________________ _______________ Associate Dean of Liberal Arts Date Southern New Hampshire University iii Dedication To my two children, Isabella and my unborn child, to show that when you put your mind to something anything is possible. Also, to Ryan, my husband, best friend, and the father of my children, for always pushing me to do my best. Thank you so much this is for you. iv Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi List of Illustrations ........................................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • [Billing Code 4710-10] DEPARTMENT of STATE 22
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/10/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-22011, and on govinfo.gov [Billing Code 4710-10] DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 5 [Public Notice 10513] RIN 1400-AE18 Organization AGENCY: State Department. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Department of State (the Department) updates and revises the rules that set forth its organization, rules of procedure, place at which the public may obtain forms, and its substantive rules of general applicability. DATES: This rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Kottmyer, Attorney Adviser, Office of Management, Office of the Legal Adviser, (202) 647-2318, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why is the Department promulgating this rule? The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) requires that agencies publish in the Federal Register certain information.1 The Department provides this information in 1 (A) Descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions; (B) Statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available; (C) Rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; (D) Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by Part 5 of Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Enforcement Under Federalism: Conflict, Cooperation, and Policing Efficiency∗
    Immigration Enforcement under Federalism: Conflict, Cooperation, and Policing Efficiency∗ Alberto Ciancio1 and Camilo Garc´ıa-Jimeno2 1Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania 2Institute for Quantitative Theory and Methods, Emory University and NBER This Version: February 27, 2019, First Version: December, 2018 Abstract We study how the shared responsibilities over immigration enforcement by local and federal levels in the US shape immigration and law enforcement outcomes, using detailed data on the Secure Communities program (2008-2014). Tracking the pipeline taking arrested unlawfully present individuals through the several steps of the immigra- tion enforcement process, and exploiting a large shift in federal immigration enforce- ment priorities in mid 2011, we disentangle the three key components of the variation in deportation rates: federal enforcement efforts, local enforcement efforts, and the composition of the pool of arrestees. This decomposition allows us to recover the local (county) level immigration enforcement response to changes in federal immigration en- forcement intensity. Among urban counties, 80 percent, mostly Democratic but with small shares of Hispanics, exhibit strategic substitutabilities. The inverse relationship between federal and local efforts was accompanied by an increased misalignment of local and federal preferences. Increased conflict is driven by a change in the types of undocumented individuals prioritized for removal by the federal level. However, the federal level is very effective in directing its enforcement efforts towards counties where it expects local collaboration. Local immigration enforcement efforts are cor- related with improvements in policing efficiency, suggesting that heterogeneity in law enforcement outcomes closely depends on overall immigration enforcement intensity. Keywords: Immigration enforcement, Secure Communities, federalism, law enforce- ment, crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining Wars: Corporate Expansion and Labor Violence in the Western Desert, 1876-1920
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 2009 Mining wars: Corporate expansion and labor violence in the Western desert, 1876-1920 Kenneth Dale Underwood University of Nevada Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Latin American History Commons, Social History Commons, and the United States History Commons Repository Citation Underwood, Kenneth Dale, "Mining wars: Corporate expansion and labor violence in the Western desert, 1876-1920" (2009). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 106. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/1377091 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINING WARS: CORPORATE EXPANSION AND LABOR VIOLENCE IN THE WESTERN DESERT, 1876-1920 by Kenneth Dale Underwood Bachelor of Arts University of Southern California 1992 Master
    [Show full text]
  • Open Government Plan
    United States Department of State Open Government Plan September 2016 OPEN GOVERNMENT PLAN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4 New and Expanded Initiatives ................................................................................................................ 6 Open Data ................................................................................................................................... 6 Proactive Disclosures .................................................................................................................. 9 Privacy ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Whistleblower Protection...........................................................................................................11 Websites .................................................................................................................................... 12 Open Innovation Methods......................................................................................................... 13 Access to Scientific Data and Publications ............................................................................... 14 Open Source
    [Show full text]