immigration — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

The Unconstitutionality of Real ID Legislation and Its Effects on Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

On September 11, 2001, the United States experienced the deadliest terrorr attack in its history. In turn, the events of 9/11 have had a lasting legacy on American immigration policies, leading to the creation of the erDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS), which is in charge of Customs and Border Protection, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). [1] Moreover, in 2005, Real ID legislation was introduced at the federal level as a post-9/11 policy to aid in combating future terrorist attacks. This legislation was passed as a way to standardize drivers’ licenses throughout the U.S. by setting minimum guidelines individual states would need to follow to grant identification and driving permits, including requiring the verification of legal status for every applicant. [2]

Sanchez v. Mayorkas and the Perilous Future of Migrant Rights in the United States

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Sanchez v. Mayorkas (2021) that all immigrants who entered the country illegally cannot obtain green cards, regardless of having already held temporary protected status. This decision highlights the vague way that U.S. court systems define “legal entry” into the United States— an issue which is a major concern among immigration attorneys and migrants alike, as its definition and application has lasting effects on present and future migrant populations. It is important to inspect the potential human rights implications of the Sanchez decision on migrants. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez v. Mayorkas does not directly contradict existing international immigration law, the dangerous legal precedent set in Sanchez highlights the United States’s critical need to take further steps towards compliance with existing human rights law as it pertains to migrants.

Muna AliAugust 22, 2021immigration, United Nations, migrant rights, humanitarian relief

Coercive Assimilation: The Constitutionality of Enforcing English Signage

It may seem like a sensible choice to mandate that all signage in America be in English. After all, English is the most spoken language in the country, and all signage should be accessible to the majority. Upon further examination, however, it is clear that forcing minority-owned businesses to offer English signage blurs the boundary between helping the majority and unconstitutionally sanctioning forced assimilation.

Haley ChungOctober 2, 2020immigration, language, free speech, assimilation

The Matter of Ms. A.B.: Domestic Violence and Asylum

After surviving 15 years of unrelenting domestic violence, rape, and psychological violence at the hands of her husband, a Salvadoran woman known by her initials as Ms. A.B. managed to escape to a town a few hours away from their home, only to be found and brutalized again. She attempted to seek a divorce and protection from the police but instead received armed death threats from her husband and his connections with the authorities.

Parima KadikarApril 17, 2019asylum, immigration, domestic violence, jeff sessionsComment

Problems and Paradox of Restrictionist Immigration Law: An Economic Study of the Law

US immigration is now, more than ever, at the forefront of a polarized debate that implicates both enforcement and economics. The Trump administration embarked on an unprecedented strengthening of immigration enforcement that reduced refugee admissions to its lowest mark since 1980.[1] Between President Trump’s first day in office on January 20, 2017 to the end of the 2017 fiscal year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 61,000 immigrants from within the country, marking a 37% increase from the same time in 2016.[2]

Cheryl WangNovember 11, 2018ICE, immigration, Castro v. U.S., Supreme Court, Trump, Department of Homeland Security, NAFTAComment