Archive for "immigration"
New Immigrant Youth Clinic Announced
On June 15th, 2012, President Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano announced a program that will grant deferred action from removal proceedings to “young people who were brought to the United States through no fault of their own as young children” and remained in the U.S. without immigration status, provided they meet certain criteria. Deferred action is an act of prosecutorial discretion; it does not grant lawful status or wipe out previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence, but only defers removal action for two years.
To be eligible for deferred action, individuals must have come to the U.S. when they were under the age of sixteen; have continuously resided in the U.S. for at least five years before June 15th, 2012 and were present in the U.S. on June 15th, 2012; currently be in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or U.S. Armed Forces; have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; and not be above the age of thirty.
It is estimated that 30-40,000 people in New York will be eligible for deferred action. Accordingly, Brooklyn Law School will offer a new clinic this fall and spring where students interested in immigration law will work to serve the immigration needs of adolescents located in Brooklyn. Students will work directly with clients to help them complete their application and possibly apply for other forms of relief. They will also do extensive community education outreach.
They will work with two undocumented-youth oriented organizations: Atlas: DIY, and the New York State Youth Leadership Council. Atlas: DIY is a NYC Non Governmental Organization that serves as “a cooperative empowerment center for immigrant youth and their allies” and provides immigrant youth with legal assistance, emotional support, education, and career training and resources. The New York State Youth Leadership Council is a volunteer-run undocumented-youth led organization that empowers immigrant youth through “leadership development, grassroots organizing, educational advancement, and a safe space for self-expression.”
The clinic will offer BLS students the opportunity to learn how to put together a successful client narrative and immigration application through learning about and putting “into practice the intricacies of interviewing youth who have experienced stigma, isolation, and trauma.”
Students will work directly with Atlas: DIY Executive Director, Lauren Burke, who is also a supervising staff attorney at the New York Asian Women’s Center. Much of the clinic’s work will take place in the Atlas: DIY office in Sunset Park (a 15 minute subway ride from BLS) and in community centers in Brooklyn.
Immigration law is not a prerequisite. The clinic will accept up to 8 students. Evening students are encouraged to apply, although the mandatory seminar will be held from 4:30 to 6pm on Mondays. The clinic will award 3 clinical credits and 1 seminar credit. If you are interested in being considered for the clinic, send a resume and cover letter to Professor Stacy Caplow.
Inter Alia: June Legal News Recap
This month’s news is brought to you by the letter J. J is for June, John Roberts, and jobs. Three cheers for the letter J!
Brooklyn Law School
● BLS ranks 7th in unemployment. That is, if you trust math and statistics (I’m skeptical). [WSJ].
● Wedding Bells! [NYTimes].
● Moody’s assigns BLS’ bonds Baa1 rating. [Reuters]. (This might be a story in the future.)
● Worried about jobs? Grow a mohawk. Tats a plus. [NYTimes].
National
● FCC not happy about the Supreme Court’s decision about “indecency” fines for wardrobe malfunctions and provocative images. [LA Times].
● Free speech vs. abortion rights reaches Maryland court. [BusinessWeek].
● Wired.com recaps decisions from the Court’s 2011-2012 term. [Wired].
● Following Arizona ruling, local enforcement dubious about implementation of SB 1070. [NPR].
New York
● City firefighter discrimination case continues in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. [Reuters]
● $40 million hate crime suit dismissed for improper service. [WashingtonPost]
● Peter Madoff pleads guilty to fraud charges. [NYTimes].
___
Boyan Toshkoff,’14, also contributed to this list
Inter Alia: This Week in Legal News
In this new feature, 1L Erin Erturk summarizes major legal developments from the past week.
New York
• 2nd Circuit overruled removal of Bank of New York Mellon v. Walnut Place, LLC to federal court, applying the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. {NY Law Journal}
• 2nd Circuit heard oral arguments in Lynne Stewart’s appeal of her lengthened jail sentence—a result of her “standing on my head” comment– invoking her right to free speech. {NY Times} {WSJ}
• Brooklyn federal judge steps in for state legislature over congressional redistricting. {WSJ}
• Brodie, first Afro-Caribbean born judge to sit in U.S. district court, confirmed to EDNY. {Reuters}
Nation
• Supreme Court granted cert to hear game-changing affirmative action case in Fisher v. University of Texas. {DB}
• Judge Martin’s “Zombie Mohammed” decision on violation of an atheist’s First Amendment rights questioned. {CNN}
• D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decides graphic warning labels on tobacco products violate free-speech rights. {Reuters}
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
• The Senate defeated the Blunt amendment, which would allow employers to opt of provisions in the health care law providing free birth control. [Politico] President Obama calls Georgetown student, Fluke, speaking out on reproductive rights, called “slut” by Limbaugh. {Politico} {Reuters} {Fluke’s testimony} [pdf]
• 63% of voters favor the free birth control policy. {Reuters}
• 72% say Individual Mandate is unconstitutional. {Gallup Poll}
Immigration
• District Judge blocks Arizona Immigration Law [pdf] “Day Labor” rule; prohibits police from enforcement, stating law violates constitutional rights rather than achieves purported purpose of increasing traffic safety. {MSNBC}
• Arizona v. United States, Arizona’s challenge to 9th Circuit ruling in U.S. v. Arizona that S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional [pdf], will be before the Supreme Court in April. {SC.gov} [pdf]
• 11th Circuit Court of Appeals set to hear Alabama and Georgia immigration enforcement laws. {Atlanta Journal-Constitution}
International
• Armenian Genocide law struck down by French Constitutional Council. {BBC}
• Supreme Court addresses whether or not corporations are liable for human rights violations in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, drawing comparisons to the Citizens United ‘personhood’ debate. {NY Times} {Guardian} {HuffPo}
• Google Privacy Plan in violation of European laws? {NY Times}
• UN not convinced by Syrian referendum approving a new constitution. {NP}
Ten Years After 9/11, Professors Reflect on Civil Liberties
From left, Profs. Fullerton, Bambauer, Tebbe and Herman watch Interim Dean Gerber at the podium at a discussion of civil liberties commemorating the tenth anniversary of 9/11.
In the ten years since 9/11, the American government’s willingness to sacrifice civil liberties to preserve security has provoked fierce debate. On September 15, just a few days after nationwide ceremonies commemorated the tenth anniversary of the attacks, a panel of Brooklyn Law School faculty gathered at the Subotnick Center to discuss what freedoms Americans had lost in the war on terror. At the same time, the discussion celebrated the publication of Professor Susan Herman’s new book, Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2011).
Professor Herman, who is also the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, began the discussion by sharing excerpts from her book, illustrating the dramatic impact this legislation has had on the day-to-day lives of Americans. “We started all this change in law after 9/11 without debate or discussion. There are lots of reasons to ask questions … and now is the time to start doing that.”
Professor Derek Bambauer shared his thoughts on the impact 9/11 has had on the Internet: “The Internet before 9/11 was the domain of Pets.com, and after 9/11 one of WikiLeaks.” And the ripple effect goes far beyond our Internet domains. As Professor Maryellen Fullerton explained, in commenting on a controversial provision in the Patriot Act that outlaws providing “material support” to a terrorist organization, “the standards of material support have defined terrorist organizations so broadly that almost any group may fall into that category.” Prof. Fullerton remarked that regardless of the immense impact these “material support” laws have had on immigration and the funding of non-profit groups worldwide, unfortunately, “Congress has shown no interest in narrowing the law.”
Professor Nelson Tebbe acted as moderator and discussed the effects of anti-terrorist legislation on the free exercise of religion: “How easy is it to tell if government is targeting terrorists or Muslims? … The power of [Professor Herman’s] book is that she shows through stories of real people … how difficult it is to [distinguish] between these two things.”
The well-attended discussion sparked a stimulating conversation between panel members as well as members of the audience. “It was a great mix of perspectives on a topic we’ve already heard so much about,” said Jason Stewart, ’13.
Sean Hymowitz, ’12, asked the panelists to comment on the TSA Secure Flights program. “Is it going to get better? Because I don’t like taking my shoes off,” he said, generating laughs from the audience. Prof. Herman responded by pointing out that she covered that topic in her book, and referred specifically to one story of one twenty-two year old who was interrogated for five hours by a TSA official because he carried Arabic-English flashcards onto the plane.
As the discussion drew to a close, Interim Dean Michael Gerber asked a poignant question: is there any optimistic outlook we can take from the current trend? The panelists looked to one another before Professor Bambauer spoke up: “It’s hard to tell anything but a pessimistic story … but perhaps our lens is not broad enough yet.” To this Professor Herman added, “if we can’t change these laws while we have a former Constitutional Law professor in office… it’s not going to happen. This doesn’t mean change isn’t possible [but] politicians are not going to do it. It’s up to us.”
Listen to a podcast with Prof. Herman about her new book, courtesy of the BLS Library Blog.