EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper surveys the history of nativism in the United States from the late nineteenth century to the present.
It compares a recent surge in nativism with earlier periods, particularly the decades leading up to the 1920s, when nativism directed against southern and eastern European, Asian, and Mexican migrants led to comprehensive legislative restrictions on immigration.
This paper argues that the rule of law must be restored to the US removal adjudication system, and it proposes ways in which this can be accomplished.
Specific recommendations include the necessity of clear enforcement priorities, sufficient resources to allow for fair adjudication, a statute of limitations for immigration violations, and the right to counsel. View Publication This paper outlines the complexities — and unlikelihood — of keeping families together when facing, or in the aftermath of deportation.
In particular, Congress should take a careful look at the incremental gains that might come from additional spending on border enforcement.
The evidence suggests that deterrence through enforcement, despite its successes in reducing illegal entry across the border, is producing diminishing returns due to three reasons.
In “ministerial” or expedited forms of removal, there is no courtroom, no administrative judge, and rarely any opportunity for legal counsel to participate or 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.
As this paper argues, strengthening enforcement must include not only “vertical” mechanisms, including strategic enforcement and penalizing and criminalizing egregious and repeated labor violators, but also “lateral” mechanisms, such as co-enforcement by workers and through worker and community organizations.
The article illustrates the role of co-enforcement in labor standards through two case studies....