What moral standards ought nation-states abide by when selecting immigration policies? Peter Higgins argues that immigration policies can only be judged by considering the inequalities that are produced by the institutions - such as gender, race and class - that constitute our social world.Higgins challenges conventional positions on immigration justice, including the view that states have a right to choose whatever immigration policies they like, or that all immigration restrictions ought to be eliminated and borders opened. Rather than suggesting one absolute solution, he argues that a unique set of immigration policies will be just for each country. He concludes with concrete recommendations for policymaking.

Academy of Parish Clergy Top Ten List Immigration is one of the most complicated issues of our time. Voices on all sides argue strongly for action and change. Christians find themselves torn between the desire to uphold laws and the call to minister to the vulnerable. In this book World Relief immigration experts Matthew Soerens and Jenny Yang move beyond the rhetoric to offer a Christian response to immigration. They put a human face on the issue and tell stories of immigrants' experiences in and out of the system. With careful historical understanding and thoughtful policy analysis, they debunk myths and misconceptions about immigration and show the limitations of the current immigration system. Ultimately they point toward immigration reform that is compassionate, sensible, and just as they offer concrete ways for you and your church to welcome and minister to your immigrant neighbors. This revised edition includes new material on refugees and updates in light of changes in political realities.

Intended for use with the authors’ casebook, Immigration Law and Social Justice (2018), Immigration Law and Social Justice, 2020 Case and Statutory Supplement covers new federal cases, enforcement policies, and administrative decisions since the book’s publication. The 2020 Case and Statutory Supplement features: Supreme Court cases: Trump v. Hawaii (2018)—The third iteration of the President’s travel ban was deemed constitutional in that it included more than just Muslim-majority countries and there was consultation throughout the relevant administrative agencies. Sessions v. Dimaya (2018)—The term “crime of violence” is impermissibly vague with relation to the aggravated felony ground of deportability. Pereira v. Sessions (2018)—A defective Notice to Appear does not stop the clock in accumulating physical presence for purpose of cancellation of removal as a non-lawful permanent resident. Federal court decisions: Barbosa v. Barr (2019)—A conviction of robbery in the third degree under a particular Oregon statute is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Ms. L, et al., v. ICE (2018)—The separation of migrant children from their parents at the border violates due process and is not in the public interest. County of Santa Clara v. Trump (2017)—The President’s executive order to withhold certain federal funds for so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” violates the Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights of the cities and counties involved. Additional Updates regarding administrative decisions and actions made between 2017 and 2019.

"What does it really mean to "be undocumented," particularly in the contemporary United States? Political philosophers, policymakers and others often define the term "undocumented migrant" legalistically-that is, in terms of lacking legal authorization to live and work in one's current country of residence. Socially Undocumented: Identity and Immigration Justice challenges such a pure "legalistic understanding" by arguing that being undocumented should not always be conceptualized along such lines. To be socially undocumented, it argues, is to possess a real, visible, and embodied social identity that does not always track one's actual legal status in the United States. By integrating a descriptive/phenomenological account of socially undocumented identity with a normative/political account of how the oppression with which it is associated ought to be dealt with as a matter of social justice, this book offers a new vision of immigration ethics. It addresses concrete ethical challenges associated with immigration, such as the question of whether open borders are morally required, the militarization of the Mexico-U.S. border, the perilous journey that many Mexican and Central American migrants undertake to get to the United States, the difficult experiences of many socially undocumented women who cross U.S. borders to seek prenatal care while visibly pregnant, and more"--

This book is the first collection to bring together scholars and activists working to end criminal and immigration detention. Employing an intersectional lens and an impressive variety of case studies, the book makes a compelling case to rethink what justice could mean for refugees, citizens, and everyone in between. The book connects immigration detention and prison justice towards reimagining a newer, better future. The ten chapters probe the intersections of immigration detention with current and potential forms of citizenship, membership, belonging, and punishments. Deprivation of liberty is one of the most serious harms that someone can experience. Immigration control is a nation-building project where racial, gender, class, ableist, and other lines of discrimination filter and police access to permanent residence. Employing a kaleidoscope of interdisciplinary backgrounds, the contributors bring this focus to bear on case studies spanning North America, Europe, and Asia. In conversation with social movements challenging police brutality, the contributors are thinking through the implications of de-funding the police, overhauling the 'criminal justice' system, eradicating prisons (penal abolitionism), and ending all forms of containment (carceral abolitionism). Neither the prison nor the detention centre is an inevitable feature of our social lives. This book collectively argues that abolishing detention could pave the way for new visions of justice to emerge. The chapters in this book were originally published as a special issue of Citizenship Studies.

In 1975, Texas adopted a law allowing school districts to bar children from public schools if they were in the United States unlawfully. The US Supreme Court responded in 1982 with a landmark decision, Plyler v. Doe, that kept open the schoolhouse doors, allowing these children to get the education that state law would have denied. The Court established a child's constitutional right to attend public elementary and secondary schools, regardless of immigration status. With Plyler, three questions emerged that have remained central to the national conversation about immigration outside the law: What does it mean to be in the country unlawfully? What is the role of state and local governments in dealing with unauthorized migration? Are unauthorized migrants "Americans in waiting?" Today, as the United States weighs immigration reform, debates over "illegal" or "undocumented" immigrants have become more polarized than ever. In Immigration Outside the Law, acclaimed immigration law expert Hiroshi Motomura, author of the award-winning Americans in Waiting, offers a framework for understanding why these debates are so contentious. In a reasoned, lucid, and careful discussion, he explains the history of unauthorized migration, the sources of current disagreements, and points the way toward durable answers. In his refreshingly fair-minded analysis, Motomura explains the complexities of immigration outside the law for students and scholars, policy-makers looking for constructive solutions, and anyone who cares about this contentious issue.