This Article introduces a collection of articles presented as part of the Drexel University Law Review symposium on the twentieth anniversary of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Drexel L. Review 261
This Article reflects upon the political contestation that led to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, contextualizing the anti-immigration backlash and debates.
Drexel L. Review 269
This Article analyzes three distinct but interrelated effects of the 1996 laws: (1) the over-criminalization of migrant communities at the federal level; (2) the normalization of immigration enforcement as a part of the standard sub-federal policing agenda; and (3) the rising tide of highly vulnerable liminal legal statuses as a response to powerful economic and political pressures.
Drexel L. Review 297
The U.S. Supreme Court lacks a jurisprudence for when courts should defer to immigration agency interpretations of civil removal statutes that involve criminal law terms or otherwise require analysis of criminal law. This Article represents a first step toward such a jurisprudence, arguing for an expansive principle of nondeference in cases involving ambiguity in the scope of crime-based removal statutes.
Drexel L. Review 323
By comparing public benefits access for categories of immigrants, such as survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, and those who obtained asylum protection, this Article will advocate for reforms at the federal, state, and local level to increase access to food security for vulnerable groups.
Drexel L. Review 353
This Article explores the lack of relief from removal in immigration law and shows how its stingy availability sheds light on other, broader problems afflicting immigration law.
Drexel L. Review 393
This Note suggests the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status process be amended by working toward two long-term goals: (1) creating a nation-wide “best interest” standard based largely on current U.S. family law statutes and the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, and (2) creating a standard SIJS order that all state court judges must complete when deciding SIJS matters.
Drexel L. Review 421