bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
The Intersection of Statelessness and Refugee Protection in US Asylum Policy
Authors: Fullerton Maryellen 
Published: August 2018

More than ten million people are stateless today. In a world of nation states, they live on the margins without membership in any state, and, as a consequence, have few enforceable legal rights. Stateless individuals face gaps in protection and in many cases experience persecution that falls within the refugee paradigm. However, US asylum policy does not adequately address the myriad legal problems that confront the stateless, who have been largely invisible in the jurisprudence and academic literature. Two federal appellate court opinions shed new light on the intersection of statelessness and refugee law in the United States. In 2010, Haile v. Holder examined the asylum claim of a young man rendered stateless when the Ethiopian government issued a decree denationalizing ethnic Eritreans. In a 2011 case, Stserba v. Holder, the court reviewed an asylum claim by a woman who became stateless when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the successor state of Estonia enacted citizenship legislation that included a language requirement. This article analyzes the opinions which suggest that state action depriving residents of citizenship on ethnic and other protected grounds warrants a presumption of persecution. This article also identifies additional circumstances in which stateless individuals may have a well-founded fear of persecution that qualifies them for asylum in the United States. In addition, this article notes that although far too many stateless individuals face persecution, not all of them do. Stateless persons who do not fear persecution, however, are also vulnerable. The absence of state protection condemns them to a precarious existence and their inability to obtain passports or other travel documents often prevents their return to states where they formerly resided. The refusal of most states to admit noncitizens frequently keeps stateless persons in limbo. Stateless individuals stranded in the United States live under a supervisory patchwork that serves neither their interests nor those of the United States. Rather than relying on incremental case law developments and inapposite regulatory schemes, the US State Department and the Department of Homeland Security should convene a task force to report on the size and composition of the stateless population in the United States and the need to develop legislative, regulatory, and other policy guidance concerning statelessness claims.
Children's Migration to the United States from Mexico and Central America: Evidence from the Mexican and Latin American Migration Projects
Authors: Donato Katharine M. , Sisk Blake 
Published: August 2018

In light of rising numbers of unaccompanied minors at the Mexico-US border in 2014, this article examines child migration from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Using data from the Mexican and Latin American Migration Projects that permit us to go beyond simple descriptive analysis about children apprehended at the border, we investigate the extent to which children from these countries: (1) enter without legal authorization to do so; (2) are more likely to cross the border now than in the past; and (3) are tied to their parents' migration. In theory, if immigration and refugee protections worked well for children and offered them legal pathways to reunify with their families, then we would expect low levels of unauthorized entry and no dramatic shifts over time. However, our examination of child migration shows that it is strongly linked to unauthorized entry, period of entry, and parents' US experience. The findings show that the migration of children is closely linked to their parents' migration history. Although the overall likelihood of a Mexican child making a first US trip is quite low, it is practically non-existent for children whose parents have no US experience. Thus, the increase in child migration from Central America, and the continued high levels of child migration from Mexico result from widespread migration networks and the United States' long-standing reliance on the children's parents as immigrant workers. The findings suggest that these children need protection in the form of family reunification and permanent legal status.
Promoting the Recognition and Protection of the Rights of All Migrants Using a Soft-Law International Migrants Bill of Rights
Authors: Kysel Ian M. 
Published: August 2018

The rights and movement of people crossing international borders remain inadequately governed and incompletely protected by a fragmented patchwork of institutions and norms. In recent years, debates regarding migration law and practice globally have been focused on subcategories of migrants, such as refugees, or on particular migration contexts, such as migration as a result of crisis or climate change. In response, a transnational initiative housed at the Georgetown University Law Center has drafted a soft-law bill of rights — the International Migrants Bill of Rights (IMBR) — that seeks to elaborate the law protecting all migrants, regardless of the cause of their movement across an international border. The bill draws its content from human rights, refugee, and labor law, among other areas, and is drafted to be a comprehensive and declarative tool that articulates a core set of rights to protect migrants and to apply in the migration context. This article articulates how such a tool could be used to promote the recognition and protection of the rights of all migrants, in law and in practice. It argues that a soft-law bill of rights could be leveraged to fill significant gaps and promote an improved normative and institutional infrastructure that better protects all migrants worldwide. Section I provides a brief overview of the gap that a soft-law bill of rights can address. Section II provides a brief overview of the history and content of the bill of rights and IMBR Initiative. Section III describes, specifically, how making use of a soft-law bill of rights stands to improve the recognition and protection of fundamental rights that protect all migrants — and how soft law can help fill specific protection gaps.
“They Need to Give Us a Voice”: Lessons from Listening to Unaccompanied Central American and Mexican Children on Helping Children Like Themselves
Authors: Schmidt Susan 
Published: August 2018

Children make up half of the world's refugees, yet limited research documents the views of youth about migratory causes and recommendations. While there is wide recognition of migrant children's right to free expression, few opportunities exist to productively exercise that right and provide input about their views. This article analyzes the responses of Central American and Mexican migrant children to one interview question regarding how to help youth like themselves, and identifies several implied “no-win” situations as potential reasons for the migration decisions of unaccompanied children. Furthermore, the children's responses highlight the interconnected nature of economics, security, and education as migratory factors. Examination of children's political speech revealed primarily negative references regarding their home country's government, the president, and the police. The police were singled out more than any other public figures, with particular emphasis on police corruption and ineffectiveness. Additional analysis focused on children's comments regarding migration needs and family. Recommendations for future action include: • recognizing entwined motivations and no-win situations that may lead children to leave their countries of origin; • promoting integrated approaches to home country economic, security, and education concerns for Central American and Mexican youth; • acknowledging migrant children's political interests and concerns; • providing youth with meaningful opportunities to contribute their views and suggestions. • incorporating migrant children's input and concerns into spending plans for US aid appropriated for Central America; and • emphasizing youth leadership development in efforts to address child migration.
The Human Cost of IIRIRA —Stories from Individuals Impacted by the Immigration Detention System
Authors: Ahmed Saba , Appelbaum Adina , Jordan Rachel 
Published: August 2018

The 1996 passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) has had a devastating impact on immigrants who are detained, indigent, and forced to face deportation proceedings without representation (pro se). In the past 20 years, immigration detention has grown exponentially and a criminal–immigration detention–deportation pipeline has developed as a central function of the immigration system. Despite the growing specter of the “criminal alien” in the American psyche, there is little public knowledge or scrutiny of the vast immigration detention and deportation machine. Enforcement of IIRIRA has effectively erased human stories and narrowed immigration debates to numbers and statistics. The five vignettes below tell the stories of individuals who have personally experienced the impact of IIRIRA. Part 1 describes the on-the-ground reality of a state public defender's obligations and struggles to defend immigrants from harsh consequences of criminal convictions. Part 2 provides the perspective of an indigent immigrant fighting his deportation pro se. Part 3 describes a nonprofit immigration attorney's challenges in providing legal services to detained immigrants. Part 4 is a glimpse into the brisk pace of an immigration judge's detained docket. Part 5 tells the story of a detained immigrant's family member and the many hoops she must jump through to ensure he has a fighting chance in immigration court. Collectively, these vignettes provide a realistic picture of the immigration detention experience, revealing the human cost of IIRIRA.
Immigration Policy and Agriculture: Possible Directions for the Future
Authors: Martin Philip 
Published: August 2018

Presidential candidate Trump in 2016 promised to prevent unauthorized migration and deport unauthorized foreigners in the United States, and President Trump issued executive orders after taking office in January 2017 that could lead to a 2,000-mile wall on the Mexico-US border and the removal of many of the 11 million unauthorized foreigners, including one million who work in US agriculture. This paper emphasizes that, especially agriculture in the western United States, has long relied on newcomers to fill seasonal farm jobs. The slowdown in Mexico-US migration since 2008–09 means that there are fewer flexible newcomers to supplement the current workforce, which is aging and settled. Farm employers are responding by offering bonuses to satisfy current workers, stretching them with productivity-increasing tools, substituting machines for workers, and supplementing current workforces with legal H-2A guest workers. Immigration policy will influence the choice between mechanization, guest workers, and imports. Several factors suggest that the United States may be poised to embark on another large-scale guest worker program for agriculture. If it does, farmers should begin to pay Social Security and Unemployment Insurance (UI) taxes on the wages of H-2A workers to foster mechanization and development in the workers' communities of origin by dividing these payroll taxes equally between workers as they depart and commodity-specific boards. Worker departure bonuses could be matched by governments in migrant-sending areas to promote development, and commodity-specific boards could spend monies to reduce dependence on hand labor over time. The economic incentives provided by payroll taxes could help to usher in a new and better era of farm labor.
Immigration Adjudication: The Missing “Rule of Law”
Authors: Benson Lenni B. 
Published: August 2018

The United States spends more than $19 billion each year on border and immigration enforcement.1 The Obama administration removed more people in eight years than the last four administrations combined.2 Yet, to the Trump administration, enforcement is not yet robust enough. Among other measures, the administration favors more expedited and summary removals. More than 80 percent3 of all removal orders are already issued outside the court process: When the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses summary removal processes, both access to counsel and an immigration judge can be nearly impossible. Advocates and policy analysts are equally concerned that a backlog of over 545,000 immigration court cases creates delay that harm people seeking asylum and other humanitarian protection. Recent use of priority or “rocket” dockets in immigration court and lack of appointed counsel also interfere with the fair adjudication of claims. Thus the administrative removal system is criticized both for being inefficient and moving too slowly, on the one hand, and for moving too quickly without adequate procedural safeguards, on the other. Both critiques have merit. The challenge is to design, implement, and most critically, maintain an appropriately balanced adjudication system. While it is clear that US removal procedures need reform, process alone will not be able to address some of the systematic flaws within the system. Ultimately, the DHS will need to refine and prioritize the cases that are placed into the system and the government needs new tools, widely used in other adjudication systems, that can reduce backlogs, incentivize cooperation, and facilitate resolution. Congress should similarly reexamine the barriers to status and avenues for regularization or preservation of status. The paucity of equitable forms or relief and the lack of statutes of limitation place stress on the immigration court system. The lack of appointed counsel has a dramatic impact on case outcomes. Without counsel, the rule of law is barely a constraint on government authority. Conversely, a system of appointed counsel could lead to efficiencies and to a culture of negotiation and settlement within the immigration court system. DHS has increasingly used every tool in its arsenal to expeditiously remove people from the United States and most of these tools bypass judicial hearings. In these “ministerial” or expedited forms of removal, there is no courtroom, there is no administrative judge, and there are rarely any opportunities for legal counsel to participate. Moreover, there is rarely an opportunity for federal judicial review. In these settings, the rule of law is entirely within the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers who serve as both prosecutor and judge. There is little record keeping and almost no avenue for administrative or judicial review. This paper will argue that the rule of law is missing in the US removal adjudication system, and will propose ways in which it can be restored.
Zero Undocumented Population Growth is Here to Stay and Immigration Reform Would Preserve and Extend These Gains
Authors: Warren Robert 
Published: August 2018

This report demonstrates that a broad and sustained reduction in undocumented immigration to the United States occurred in the 2008 to 2015 period. First, the report shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the Great Recession had little, if any, role in the transformation to zero population growth. The population stopped growing because of increased scrutiny of air travel after 9/11, a decade and a half of accelerating efforts to reduce illegal entries across the southern border, long-term increases in the numbers leaving the population each year, and improved economic and demographic conditions in Mexico. These conditions are likely to continue for the foreseeable future. It is time to recognize that the era of large-scale undocumented population growth has ended, and that there is a need to reform the US legal immigration system to preserve and extend these gains (Kerwin and Warren 2017, 319–21). Major findings of the report include: • The recession did not reduce arrivals or accelerate departures from the undocumented population; it essentially had very little impact on population change.1 • Population growth was lower in 2008 to 2015 than in 2000 to 2008 for all major sending areas and for 13 of the top 15 countries of origin.2 • Population growth was lower in 2008 to 2015 than in 2000 to 2008 in all of the top 15 states. In 10 of the 15 top states, growth changed to decline. • Nearly twice as many left3 the undocumented population from Mexico than arrived in the 2008 to 2015 period — 1.7 million left the population and 900,000 arrived. • Almost twice as many overstays as persons who entered without inspection (EWIs) “arrived” (joined the undocumented population) from 2008 to 2015 — 2.0 million overstays compared to 1.1 million EWIs. • Overstays leave the undocumented population at higher rates than EWIs: about 1.9 million, or 40 percent, of overstays that lived in the United States in 2008 had left the undocumented population by 2015, compared to 1.6 million, or 24 percent, of EWIs. • The rate of overstays (65% of the newly undocumented), compared to EWIs, is more dramatic than the numbers indicate since estimates of the undocumented count Central American asylum seekers that cross the US southern border as EWIs.
A Statistical and Demographic Profile of the US Temporary Protected Status Populations from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti
Authors: Warren Robert , Kerwin Donald 
Published: August 2018

Executive Summary1 This report presents detailed statistical information on the US Temporary Protected Status (TPS) populations from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti. TPS can be granted to noncitizens from designated nations who are unable to return to their countries because of armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. In January 2017, an estimated 325,000 migrants from 13 TPS-designated countries resided in the United States. This statistical portrait of TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti reveals hardworking populations with strong family and other ties to the United States. In addition, high percentages have lived in the United States for 20 years or more, arrived as children, and have US citizen children. The paper finds that: • The labor force participation rate of the TPS population from the three nations ranges from 81 to 88 percent, which is well above the rate for the total US population (63 percent) and the foreign-born population (66 percent). • The five leading industries in which TPS beneficiaries from these countries work are: construction (51,700), restaurants and other food services (32,400), landscaping services (15,800), child day care services (10,000), and grocery stores (9,200). • TPS recipients from these countries live in 206,000 households: 61,000 of these households (about 30 percent) have mortgages. • About 68,000, or 22 percent, of the TPS population from these nations arrived as children under the age of 16.
Kidnapped, Trafficked, Detained? The Implications of Non-state Actor Involvement in Immigration Detention
Authors: Flynn Michael 
Published: August 2018

Global migration challenges are reinforcing long-standing trends that involve shifting immigration control measures beyond national borders and incorporating new actors into detention systems. Proposals to shape migration management policies — including discussions on developing a Global Compact for Migration — recognize the need to involve a range of actors to implement humane and effective strategies. However, when observed through the lens of immigration detention, some policy trends raise challenging questions, particularly those that lead to increasing roles for non-state actors in migration control. This article critically assesses a range of new actors who have become involved in the deprivation of liberty of migrants and asylum seekers, describes the various forces that appear to be driving their engagement, and makes a series of recommendations concerning the role of non-state actors and detention in global efforts to manage international migration. These recommendations include: • ending the use the detention in international migration management schemes; • limiting the involvement of private companies in immigration control measures; • insisting that the International Organization for Migration (IOM) actively endorse the centrality of human rights in the Global Compact for Migration and amend its constitution so that it makes a clear commitment to international human rights standards; and • encouraging nongovernmental organizations to carefully assess the services they provide when operating in detention situations to ensure that their work contributes to harm reduction.
Matching Systems for Refugees
Authors: Jones Will , Teytelboym Alexander 
Published: August 2018

Executive Summary1 Design of matching systems between refugees and states or local areas is emerging as one of the most promising solutions to problems in refugee resettlement. We describe the basics of two-sided matching theory used in a number of allocation problems, such as school choice, where both sides need to agree to the match. We then explain how these insights can be applied to international refugee matching in the context of the European Union and examine how refugee matching might work within the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.
The Mixed Motives of Unaccompanied Child Migrants from Central America's Northern Triangle
Authors: Lorenzen Matthew 
Published: August 2018

A growing body of literature has argued that the distinction between forced and voluntary migration can be, in practice, unclear. This literature points out that each individual migrant may have mixed motives for migrating, including both forced and voluntary reasons. Few studies, however, have actually set out to analyze mixed-motive migration. This paper examines the mixed-motive migration of unaccompanied minors from Central America's Northern Triangle states (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador), using data from a small 2016 survey carried out in 10 shelters for unaccompanied child migrants run by a Mexican government child welfare agency. Using this survey, the paper identifies the immigrating minor's motives, which are oftentimes mixed, and details differences by nationality, gender, and age groups. Some of the key findings include: • Around one-third of the child migrants surveyed had mixed motives, including both forced and voluntary reasons for migrating. • Violence appears most often as a reason for migrating among minors with mixed motives, as opposed to the search for better opportunities, which appears more often as an exclusive motive. • Significant differences between the three nationalities are observed. Relatively few Guatemalan minors indicated violence as a motive, and few displayed mixed motives, as opposed to Hondurans, and especially Salvadorans. • The minors fleeing violence, searching for better opportunities, and indicating both motives at the same time were largely mature male adolescents. • The minors mentioning family reunification as their sole motive were predominantly girls and young children. The results indicate that binary formulations regarding forced and voluntary migration are often inadequate. This has important implications, briefly addressed in the conclusions. These implications include: • the need for migration scholars to consider forced reasons for migrating in the context of mixed-motive migration; • the fact that mixed motives call into question the established, clear-cut categories that determine whether someone is worthy of humanitarian protection or not; • the need to have in-depth, attentive, and individual asylum screening because motives may be interconnected and entangled, and because forced reasons may be hidden behind voluntary motives; and • the need for a more flexible policy approach, so that immigration systems may be more inclusive of migrants with mixed motives.