DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of Section 287(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the Latino Community by A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Impact of Section 287(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on the Latino Community by A THE IMPACT OF SECTION 287(G) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT ON THE LATINO COMMUNITY BY A. ELENA LACAYO* I. INTRODUCTION The recent signing of Arizona SB 1070 and subsequent reactions to the law have brought significant attention to the dangers of state-level immigration enforcement and the urgent need for comprehensive federal immigration reform. Introduction........................1 One antecedent of the law is the federal law known as section 287(g) of the Background ........................2 Immigration and Nationality Act. Challenges in Implementation ..................7 Enacted in 1996, 287(g) allows the federal government to enter into agreements Davidson County, Tennessee: with state and local law enforcement agencies, allowing them to deputize local The Latino Experience ......13 officials to enforce federal immigration law. Intended to aid in the apprehension Policy Recommendations.. 19 and removal of dangerous, criminal undocumented immigrants from the U.S., the program remained dormant for several years until gaining the interest of Conclusion ........................23 policymakers and political leaders after the September 11, 2001 attacks. While Comprehensive List the goal of the program is to apprehend threatening criminals and potential of 287(g) Agencies ............24 terrorists, it has provided perilously unchecked authority to local law enforcement, Endnotes ..........................26 * A. Elena Lacayo, Immigration Field Coordinator, works with the Immigration Policy Project in the Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation (ORAL) at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). Clarissa Martínez De Castro, Director of Immigration and National Campaigns, oversaw and provided overall direction for the project. Eric Rodriguez, Vice President, ORAL, oversaw the project and provided extensive substantive input. The following ORAL staff also contributed to this issue brief: Darcy Eischens, Director of Administration; Raul González, Director of Legislative Affairs; Patricia Foxen, Associate Director of Research; and John Amaya, former Associate Director of Immigration. NCLR also thanks the staff of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC) who contributed to this brief: Stephen Fotopulos, Executive Director, for providing substantive input and guidance on Davidson County data, and Remziya Suleyman, Policy Coordinator, for assisting in collecting accurate on-the-ground information. Hallan Hanson, NCLR Research Fellow, worked closely with TIRRC, conducted original research, and helped lay the initial foundations for this project. Gregory Wersching, Assistant Editor, and Rodrigo Alvarez Muñoz, Graphic Designer and Production Coordinator, provided overall technical support and editing in preparing this paper for dissemination. entangled the broader immigrant community The Office of Inspector General (OIG) by leading to the arrests of nonviolent and within DHS recently released a report with nonthreatening immigrants, and exacerbated 33 recommendations for fixing the 287(g) racial and ethnic targeting of Hispanics at the program. However, despite the serious and local level. numerous concerns presented by the GAO and OIG, the Obama administration continues to Elevated racial and ethnic profiling by law maintain and expand the 287(g) program. enforcement has created a threatening and This issue brief provides background on the insecure environment for all Latinos. For 287(g) program and its evolution, offers a example, a 2008 Pew Hispanic Center survey concrete example of its implementation in of Latinos,* including U.S. citizens and Tennessee, tells the story of how the program immigrants alike, found that nearly one in ten is adversely impacting the Latino community Hispanic adults in the U.S. reported that they and undermining social cohesion, and had been asked by police or other authorities provides recommendations for policy experts about their immigration status in the past and the Obama administration. year. More importantly, the study found that 35% of native-born Hispanic citizens (who II. BACKGROUND cannot be deported) worry a lot or some Prior to the creation of the Immigration and about deportation for themselves or their Nationality Act (INA), federal immigration 1 loved ones. law was prescribed by a variety of statutes with little cohesion. In 1952, the INA codified In January 2009, a blistering report from the and collected the nation’s immigration laws, Government Accountability Office (GAO) effectively reorganizing their structure. was released faulting the U.S. Department Over the years, the INA has been amended of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Immigration frequently and remains the backbone of and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for a lack immigration law today.2 of program oversight, among other things. Following the release of the GAO report, The last major reform of federal immigration congressional hearings were held to examine policy occurred in 1986 with the Immigration the impact of the program. In October 2009, Reform and Control Act (IRCA). IRCA legalized the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) millions of undocumented immigrants called for the termination of the 287(g) and set guidelines for hiring immigrant program. Moreover, the only comprehensive workers by establishing the I-9 eligibility immigration reform bill introduced in the verification process.3 In 1996, Congress 111th Congress would call for the elimination passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and of the 287(g) program. * The terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” are used interchangeably by the U.S. Census Bureau and throughout this document to identify persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central and South American, Dominican, and Spanish descent; they may be of any race. 2 THE IMPACT OF SECTION 287(G) OF THE IMMIGRATION www.nclr.org Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The This provision allows local police and other law greatly increased enforcement measures such agencies to enforce civil immigration on the Mexican border, increased penalties law. In particular, the attorney general may for unlawful presence in the U.S., and deputize local officers to enforce federal law. strengthened the enforcement of employer Under the law, ICE and local law enforcement sanctions through the I-9 process.4 must enter into a written Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that defines the scope and 8 Prior to 1996, the INA provided limited limitation of the authority to be delegated. avenues for state enforcement of its civil and Once local law enforcement has entered into criminal provisions.5 Historically, states and an MOA with the federal government, the localities have been permitted to enforce only 287(g) program would allow state and local the criminal aspects of immigration law (e.g., law enforcement agencies to cooperate in alien smuggling), whereas the enforcement the arrests and detention of noncriminal and 9 of the civil provisions (e.g., illegal presence nonviolent offenders. in the U.S.) has been viewed as a federal responsibility with states providing limited Passed in 1996, the 287(g) program was support.6 The justification for separating the largely ignored and not implemented until enforcement of criminal and civil immigration 2001. The events of September 11, 2001 violations rested largely on the notion that resulted in greater political pressure on states needed a uniform immigration policy. lawmakers and agencies to enforce federal However, the 1996 law leaned heavily on immigration law. Many argued that the enforcement and pressure grew to involve federal government alone could not effectively state/local police in enforcement activities. monitor the nation’s immigrant population, particularly within the interior of the U.S.10 As a result, IIRIRA included section 287(g): Accordingly, it was argued that state and local law enforcement agencies should contribute to the monitoring and enforcement of the law.11 The Attorney General may enter into The March 2003 merger of the Immigration a written agreement with a State, or and Naturalization Service (INS) with the U.S. any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or Customs Service into U.S. Immigration and employee of the State or subdivision, Customs Enforcement within the Department who is determined by the Attorney of Homeland Security—along with a series of General to be qualified to perform legal opinions issued by the Department of a function of an immigration officer Justice in 2002—expedited the merger of state in relation to the investigation, and local resources with federal immigration apprehension, or detention of aliens enforcement efforts.12 in the United States.7 AND NATIONALITY ACT ON THE LATINO COMMUNITY 3 With continued calls for immigration ICE. In August 2007, ICE launched ACCESS enforcement, several years later the U.S. (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, to Enhance Safety and Security), an initiative the “Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and that brought together a series of programs Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.” with the goal of increasing state and local Along with a number of other punitive agency cooperation with federal agents in measures, H.R. 4437 would have made being enforcing federal immigration law.15 Intended an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. or to increase interior enforcement, ACCESS aiding an undocumented immigrant a felony. houses a number of ICE efforts including The bill sparked a national movement that Fugitive Operation Teams, Operation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Healing the Scars of Forced Migration: an Italian-American Story
    RSAJOURNAL 30/2019 LINDSEY N. KINGSTON Healing the Scars of Forced Migration: An Italian-American Story There’s an expression for wishing someone “good luck” in Italian – in bocca al lupo – that literally translates to “in the mouth of the wolf.” I imagine my grandfather’s friends saying this to him as he left his Sicilian village, Grotte, in 1938. The expression would have certainly been fitting for the 17-year-old; the intimidating journey looming before him must have felt like staring down the jaws of a predator. He traveled to America several years after his father and two older brothers, who had saved money and made the necessary arrangements to bring the rest of the family over. Grandpa was not particularly eager to leave Sicily, but his mother and siblings were going with or without him; the decision he faced was between family and homeland. He first went to Naples, where he was awe-struck by the endless rows of ships in port. He had never been to a city before, even to nearby Agrigento to see its famed Greek temples. Yet he had already survived extreme poverty and hunger when he boarded his ship, the SS Roma (where he felt every seasickness-inspiring roll of the ocean, and where he likely spent his eighteenth birthday), so he had endured harder things than the long voyage to New York. He arrived in the United States with one suitcase and the remnants of a handmade guitar that was crushed along the way. He had no real job prospects, no education to speak of, and initially no English skills whatsoever.
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION PREEMPTION AFTER UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA
    Johnson & Spiro Final.docx (DO NOT DELETE)1/22/2013 5:14 PM DEBATE IMMIGRATION PREEMPTION AFTER UNITED STATES v. ARIZONA OPENING STATEMENT Preemption of State and Local Immigration Laws Remains Robust KIT JOHNSON† Many people, frustrated with what they believe to be a failure of the federal government to police the nation’s borders, have sought to leverage state and local laws to do what the federal government has not: get tough on undocumented migrants. The primary stumbling block for these attempts is federal preemption as the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976). This June, in a victory for local movements against undocumented immigration, the Supreme Court held that federal law did not preempt an Arizona law requiring police to “make a ‘reasonable attempt . to deter- mine the immigration status of any person they stop, detain, or arrest’” whenever they reasonably believe the person is “unlawfully present in the United States.” Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2507 (2012) (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-1051(B) (2012)). The task now falls to lower courts to apply Arizona to the myriad other state and local laws coming down the pike. The en banc Fifth Circuit is presently considering whether a Dallas suburb may use a scheme of “occu- pancy licenses” to prevent undocumented immigrants from living in rental housing within city limits. See Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers † Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma College of Law; J.D., 2000, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Immigrant Game
    Op-Ed The anti-immigrant game Laws such as Arizona's SB 1070 are not natural responses to undue hardship but are products of partisan politics. Opponents of SB 1070 raise their fists after unfurling an enormous banner from the beam of a 30-story high construction crane in downtown Phoenix, Arizona in 2010. If upheld, Arizona's SB 1070 would require local police in most circumstances to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop based only on a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in this country. (Los Angeles Times / April 23, 2012) By Pratheepan Gulasekaram and Karthick Ramakrishnan April 24, 2012 The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of Arizona's 2010 immigration enforcement law. If upheld, SB 1070 would require local police in most circumstances to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop based only on a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in this country. It would also compel residents to carry their immigration papers at all times and create state immigration crimes distinct from what is covered by federal law. A few other states, such as Alabama and Georgia, and some cities have passed similar laws, and many more may consider such laws if the Supreme Court finds Arizona's law to be constitutional. The primary legal debate in U.S. vs. Arizona will focus on the issue of whether a state government can engage in immigration enforcement without the explicit consent of the federal government. The state of Arizona will argue that its measure simply complements federal enforcement, while the federal government will argue that Arizona's law undermines national authority and that immigration enforcement is an exclusively federal responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • The Widening Impact of Arizona SB 1070: a State by State Look
    The Widening Impact of Arizona SB 1070: A State by State Look Even before Arizona’s new immigration law takes effect, lawmakers in other states are following Arizona’s lead. Here are the states that are considering or have introduced laws similar to Arizona’s statutes that target illegal immigrants. State Bill Status Michigan Sen. Michelle McManus (R) introduced Senate bill 1388 Referred to the Senate Judiciary on June 15, 2010. This requires law enforcement Committee on June 15, 2010. officers make a reasonable attempt when practicable to determine the immigration status of any person Michigan Legislature - Senate Bill 1388 detained under any lawful stop, detention, or arrest if (2010) there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien. Minnesota Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, introduced The bill introduced to the house, but will legislation that would create a Minnesota Illegal not advance this year. Immigration Enforcement Team and require immigrants to carry an “alien registration” card. The bill uses the Minnesota HF3830 same “reasonable suspicion” protocol that has generated criticism against Arizona’s law. The bill is referred to as “ The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” Nebraska The town of Fremont approved a ban on hiring or State Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont renting property to illegal immigrants. plans to introduce a stricter immigration bill in 2011 based at least in part on City of Fremont, Nebraska Immigration Ordinance Arizona's law. Oklahoma House Bill 1804 restricts undocumented immigrants Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill from obtaining IDs or public assistance, give police plans to introduce a bill that would also authority to check the status of anyone arrested, and likely include asset seizure and forfeiture make it a felony to knowingly provide shelter, provisions for immigration-related crimes transportation or employment to the undocumented.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Hispanic Policy a Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication
    Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Hispanic Policy A Harvard Kennedy School Student Publication Volume 30 Staff Kristell Millán Editor-in-Chief Estivaliz Castro Senior Editor Alberto I. Rincon Executive Director Bryan Cortes Senior Editor Leticia Rojas Managing Editor, Print Jazmine Garcia Delgadillo Senior Amanda R. Matos Managing Editor, Editor Digital Daniel Gonzalez Senior Editor Camilo Caballero Director, Jessica Mitchell-McCollough Senior Communications Editor Rocio Tua Director, Alumni & Board Noah Toledo Senior Editor Relations Max Wynn Senior Editor Sara Agate Senior Editor Martha Foley Publisher Elizabeth Castro Senior Editor Richard Parker Faculty Advisor Recognition of Former Editors A special thank you to the former editors Alex Rodriguez, 1995–96 of the Harvard Kennedy School Journal of Irma Muñoz, 1996–97 Hispanic Policy, previously known as the Myrna Pérez, 1996–97 Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, whose Eraina Ortega, 1998–99 legacy continues to be a source of inspira- Nereyda Salinas, 1998–99 tion for Latina/o students Harvard-wide. Raúl Ruiz, 1999–2000 Maurilio León, 1999–2000 Henry A.J. Ramos, Founding Editor, Sandra M. Gallardo, 2000–01 1984–86 Luis S. Hernandez Jr., 2000–01 Marlene M. Morales, 1986–87 Karen Hakime Bhatia, 2001–02 Adolph P. Falcón, 1986–87 Héctor G. Bladuell, 2001–02 Kimura Flores, 1987–88 Jimmy Gomez, 2002–03 Luis J. Martinez, 1988–89 Elena Chávez, 2003–04 Genoveva L. Arellano, 1989–90 Adrian J. Rodríguez, 2004–05 David Moguel, 1989–90 Edgar A. Morales, 2005–06 Carlo E. Porcelli, 1990–91 Maria C. Alvarado, 2006–07 Laura F. Sainz, 1990–91 Tomás J. García, 2007–08 Diana Tisnado, 1991–92 Emerita F.
    [Show full text]
  • Left Back: the Impact of SB 1070 on Arizona's Youth
    LEFT BACK: The Impact of SB 1070 on Arizona’s Youth Southwest Institute for Research on Women, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Bacon Immigration Law and Policy Program, James E. Rogers College of Law September 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 3 II. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 5 III. KEY FINDINGS....................................................................................................... 7 1. Social Disruption and Its Consequences for Students, Families, and Schools7 A. Flight from the State .............................................................................................. 8 1) The Character of Departure ............................................................................... 8 2) Where Did People Go?.................................................................................... 10 3) How Many People Left?.................................................................................. 10 B. What This Social Disruption Meant for Youth .................................................... 11 1) The Strenuous Deliberation over Whether to Leave ....................................... 12 2) Youth Left Behind........................................................................................... 13 3) Distress and its
    [Show full text]
  • Az-Complaint.Pdf
    1 Tony West Assistant Attorney General 2 Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney 3 Arthur R. Goldberg Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch 4 Varu Chilakamarri (NY Bar #4324299) Joshua Wilkenfeld (NY Bar #4440681) 5 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 6 Washington, DC 20530 Tel. (202) 616-8489/Fax (202) 616-8470 7 [email protected] Attorneys for the United States 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 12 The United States of America, No. ________________ 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. COMPLAINT 15 The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her 16 Official Capacity, 17 18 Defendants. 19 Plaintiff, the United States of America, by its undersigned attorneys, brings this civil 20 action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows: 21 INTRODUCTION 22 1. In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and 23 permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of 24 Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the 25 Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. 26 2. In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to 27 regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and 28 numerous acts of Congress. The nation’s immigration laws reflect a careful and considered 1 balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress 2 has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, 3 and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and 4 administering these immigration-related laws.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC CHARGE and the THREAT to IMMIGRANT FAMILIES in CALIFORNIA Reducing the Chilling Effect on Medi-Cal Participation
    PUBLIC CHARGE AND THE THREAT TO IMMIGRANT FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA Reducing the Chilling Effect on Medi-Cal Participation Grace Kim • Renee Lahey • Marcus Silva • Sean Tan CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the following individuals whose significant contributions were instrumental in developing this report: Prof. Mark A. Peterson, Primary Advisor Prof. Wesley Yin, Second Advisor Almas Sayeed, California Immigrant Policy Center Irma Livadic, Iman Nanji, Josh Summers, Caio Velasco, Ryan Weinberg; Peer Reviewers We would also like to thank the following individuals for their help in refining our analysis: Nancy Aspaturian Hon. Brian Nestande Adam Barsch Mike Odeh Connie Choi Prof. Ninez Ponce Prof. Darin Christensen Prof. Sarah Reber Madeleine Ildefonso Eric Schattl Mitchell Jacobs Kristen Golden Testa Sabrina Kim Prof. Abel Valenzuela Prof. Gerald Kominski Virdiana Velez Marielle Kress Joseph Villela Thai Le Prof. Steve Wallace Laurel Lucia AJ Young Disclaimer This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and the California Immigrant Policy Center as a policy client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 5 Glossary 6 Acronyms and Initialisms 7 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • The Cascading Effects of Arizona's SB 1070 an Overview
    Special Section ARIZONA’S SB 1070 The Cascading Effects of Arizona’s SB 1070 An Overview Erik Lee* lthough at the time of this writing, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix has halted the implemen­ Atation of several parts of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 in advance of a more thorough hearing on the measure, the Henry Romero/REUTERS bill itself necessitates a broader rethinking of how the Unit­ ed States and Mexico interact on a very important yet poor­ ly addressed policy issue: migration. For this reason, on June 16, 2010, the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS ) at Arizona State University and the Center for Re­ search on North America (CISAN ) at Mexico’s National Auto­ nomous University convened a number of researchers to discuss SB 1070 in detail. What emerged was a portrait of com­ plexity at a particularly difficult juncture in the U.S.­Mex ico binational relationship as well as the sense of having witness­ ed a historical milestone with many “cascading” effects and con­ sequences yet to come. The presentations and articles for the most part focused on recent developments in local and state anti­immigration measures, but in his article, “The Immigration Debate about Mexicans,” Jaime Aguila1 gives some even broader historical context to SB 1070. He focuses on the complex decade of the 1930s, which saw economic catastrophe, repatriation of Mex­ icans, and Mexican government attempts to reintegrate re­ * Associate Director, North American Center for Transborder Stu dies, Arizona State University. 79 Voices of Mexico • 88 The enormous increase in Arizona’s Mexican population in the 1990s was largely driven by U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona V. United States: a Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement
    Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Actg Section Research Manager/ Legislative Attorney September 10, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42719 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement Summary On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Arizona v. United States, ruling that some aspects of an Arizona statute intended to deter unlawfully present aliens from remaining in the state were preempted by federal law, but also holding that Arizona police were not facially preempted from running immigration status checks on persons stopped for state or local offenses. In reaching these conclusions, the Supreme Court made clear that opportunities for states to take independent action in the field of immigration enforcement are more constrained than some had previously believed. In recent years, several states and localities have adopted measures intended to deter the presence of unauthorized aliens within their jurisdiction. An Arizona measure enacted in 2010, commonly referred to as S.B. 1070, arguably represents the vanguard of these attempts to test the legal limits of greater state involvement in immigration enforcement. The major provisions of S.B. 1070 can be divided into two categories: (1) those provisions seeking to bolster direct enforcement of federal immigration law by Arizona law enforcement, including through the identification and apprehension of unlawfully present aliens; and (2) those provisions that criminalize conduct which may facilitate the presence of unauthorized aliens within the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequestered Inclusion: Social Service Discourses and New Latino Diaspora Youth in the Shenandoah Valley
    SEQUESTERED INCLUSION: SOCIAL SERVICE DISCOURSES AND NEW LATINO DIASPORA YOUTH IN THE SHENANDOAH VALLEY A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Elizabeth Esther Phelps May 2015 © 2015 Elizabeth Esther Phelps SEQUESTERED INCLUSION: SOCIAL SERVICE DISCOURSES AND NEW LATINO DIASPORA YOUTH IN THE SHENANDOAH VALLEY Elizabeth Esther Phelps, Ph. D. Cornell University 2015 Abstract: This dissertation explores ethnographically the impact of discourses of belonging and exclusion in a New Latino Diaspora (NLD) city located in the heart of the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia. Young NLD adults in Rocktown, Virginia, experience a form of sequestered inclusion shaped by racializing narratives based in nativist hostility as well as by implicit deficit narratives embedded in humanistic multiculturalism. Based on more than twelve months of ethnographic field work (and over six years of ordinary life in Rocktown), this dissertation explores how advocates, activists, and their allies in the social service and educational institutions in the Rocktown area have institutionalized processes of inclusion over a period of fifteen years both with and for NLD youth. These processes have been constrained by the paternalistic and reductive discourses that frame youth both as inherently needy and as a resource that benefits the receiving community. NLD youth themselves recognize their own specific needs and contributions, but resist the reductionism and racializing tendencies of these discourses. Within this context, a small group of young NLD activists formed to support and promote the DREAM Act (for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors), both capitulating to and contesting dominant discourses and constructing a narrative frame for belonging on their own terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Policy As a Defense of White Nationhood
    ARTICLE Immigration Policy as a Defense of White Nationhood JUAN F. PEREA* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE FRAMERS’ WISH FOR A WHITE AMERICA . 3 II. THE CYCLES OF MEXICAN EXPULSION ........................ 5 III. DEPORTATION AND MASS EXPULSION: SOCIAL CONTROL TO KEEP AMERICA WHITE ............................................ 11 President Trump has declared war on undocumented immigrants. Attempting to motivate his voters before the 2018 mid-term elections, President Trump sought to sow fear by escalating his anti-immigrant rhetoric.1 Trump labeled a caravan of Central American refugees seeking asylum as an “invasion” and a “crisis” that demanded, in his view, the use of military troops to defend the U.S. border with Mexico.2 When the caravan arrived, the border patrol used tear gas on the refugees, including mothers with infant children.3 Trump also referred to undocumented immigrants as criminals, rapists, and gang members who pose a direct threat to the welfare of “law-abiding” people.4 Despite the imagery of invasion, crisis, and crime disseminated by President Trump, undocumented immigrants pose no such threats. The number of * Curt and Linda Rodin Professor of Law and Social Justice, Loyola University Chicago School of Law. © 2020, Juan F. Perea. Thanks to Ala Salameh for expert research assistance on this project. Thanks to Valencia Richardson, Cindy Anderson and the editors of the Georgetown Journal of Law and Modern Critical Race Perspectives for their able assistance with this article. The author also appreciates the support of Loyola University of Chicago’s Summer Research Grant Program. 1. See Alan Gomez, Central American Migrants Keep Heading Towards USA Even as Trump Focuses on Stopping Caravan, USA TODAY (Jan.
    [Show full text]