scholarly journals Suffer the Little Children to Come: The Legal Rights of Unaccompanied Alien Children under United States Federal Court Jurisprudence

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-82
Author(s):  
Claire Nolasco Braaten ◽  
Daniel Braaten
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Unaccompanied Minors ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Abstract This article analyses United States (US) federal court jurisprudence to determine the legal rights of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in various stages of immigration enforcement proceedings. After briefly discussing statistics on UAC in the US, it explains the legal context of US laws governing unaccompanied minors. Through examining 40 cases decided by the 12 US Circuit Courts of Appeals and various federal district courts, the article specifies how these courts interpreted and expanded on the procedural legal rights of UAC upon apprehension by immigration officials, during placement or detention decisions of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), prior to voluntary departure, during asylum proceedings, when rearrested after release, and while released pending immigration proceedings. According to the US federal courts, the government must grant unaccompanied minors procedural due process if it denies their release to the custody of an available and willing legal custodian. Case law examining the rights of UAC prior to voluntary departure emphasizes the need to grant them the opportunity to consult with a responsible adult, including a lawyer from a free legal services list that should be provided to them. Federal courts have also tackled various procedural issues concerning asylum claims filed by UAC. These include the right of third parties to custody of the unaccompanied minor, the minority age at the time of the asylum application, and the right of UAC to request consent for a state juvenile court’s jurisdiction prior to applying for Special Immigrant Juvenile status. In removal proceedings against UAC, federal courts have elaborated on the scope and meaning of the right to counsel and the right to a bond rehearing upon their rearrest because of allegations of gang membership. Finally, federal courts have also examined issues concerning the rights of UAC while detained in ORR facilities and while in US territory. These include the right of an unaccompanied alien child to terminate a pregnancy while in ORR custody and the right not to be subjected to physical and sexual abuse while placed in a detention facility.

scholarly journals Jail By Another Name: ICE Detention of Immigrant Criminal Defendants on Pretrial Release

2020 ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
Kerry Martin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Pretrial Release ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Plain Text ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
The Government ◽  
Immigration And Customs Enforcement ◽  
The Right

This Article assesses the legality of an alarming practice: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) routinely detains noncitizen criminal defendants soon after they have been released on bail, depriving them of their court-ordered freedom. Since the District of Oregon’s decision in United States v. Trujillo-Alvarez, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2012), a growing group of federal courts has held that when ICE detains federal criminal defendants released under the Bail Reform Act (BRA), it violates their BRA rights. These courts have ordered that the government either free the defendants from ICE custody or dismiss their criminal charges. This Article agrees with and expands on this interpretation of the BRA. Focusing on the BRA’s plain text and legislative history, it argues that the BRA confers a “right to remain released” pending trial, which ICE detention infringes. It then debunks the leading counterarguments to this BRA interpretation. It also explores constitutional arguments for the right to remain released and their implications for federal and state criminal defendants.

The Power to be Ethical: Controlling Moral Assemblages in Border Militias

2021 ◽  
pp. 089124162110218
Author(s):  
John R. Parsons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
Ethical Conflicts ◽  
Moral Landscape ◽  
The Government ◽  
Moral Certainty ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ethical Response

Every year, hundreds of U.S. citizens patrol the Mexican border dressed in camouflage and armed with pistols and assault rifles. Unsanctioned by the government, these militias aim to stop the movement of narcotics into the United States. Recent interest in the anthropology of ethics has focused on how individuals cultivate themselves toward a notion of the ethical. In contrast, within the militias, ethical self-cultivation was absent. I argue the volunteers derived the power to be ethical from the control of the dominant moral assemblage and the construction of an immoral “Other” which provided them the power to define a moral landscape that limited the potential for ethical conflicts. In the article, I discuss two instances Border Watch and its volunteers dismissed disruptions to their moral certainty and confirmed to themselves that their actions were not only the “right” thing to do, but the only ethical response available.

The connection between the «color revolutions» and the strategic doctrines of the United States (late 20th century — 2014)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Igorevna Filimonova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Late 20Th Century ◽  
The Us ◽  
Color Revolutions ◽  
The Right

After the collapse of the USSR, fundamentally new phenomena appeared on the world arena, which became a watershed separating the bipolar order from the monopolar order associated with the establishment of the US global hegemony. Such phenomena were the events that are most often called «revolutions» in connection with the scale of the changes being made — «velvet revolutions» in the former Eastern Bloc, as well as revolutions of a different type, which ended in a change in the current regimes with such serious consequences that we are also talking about revolutionary transformations. These are technologies of «color revolutions» that allow organizing artificial and seemingly spontaneous mass protests leading to the removal of the legitimate government operating in the country and, in fact, to the seizure of power by a pro-American forces that ensure the Westernization of the country and the implementation of "neoliberal modernization", which essentially means the opening of national markets and the provision of natural resources for the undivided use of the Western factor (TNC and TNB). «Color revolutions» are inseparable from the strategic documents of the United States, in which, from the end of the 20th century, even before the collapse of the USSR, two main tendencies were clearly traced: the expansion of the right to unilateral use of force up to a preemptive strike, which is inextricably linked with the ideological justification of «missionary» American foreign policy, and the right to «assess» the internal state of affairs in countries and change it to a «democratic format», that is, «democratization». «Color revolutions», although they are not directly mentioned in strategic documents, but, being a «technical package of actions», straightforwardly follow from the right, assigned to itself by Washington, to unilateral use of force, which is gradually expanding from exclusively military actions to a comprehensive impact on an opponent country, i.e. essentially a hybrid war. Thus, the «color revolutions» clearly fit into the strategic concept of Washington on the use of force across the entire spectrum (conventional and unconventional war) under the pretext of «democratization». The article examines the period of registration and expansion of the US right to use force (which, according to the current international law, is a crime without a statute of limitations) in the time interval from the end of the twentieth century until 2014, filling semantic content about the need for «democratic transformations» of other states, with which the United States approached the key point of the events of the «Arab spring» and «color revolutions» in the post-Soviet space, the last and most ambitious of which was the «Euromaidan» in Ukraine in 2014. The article presents the material for the preparation of lectures and seminars in the framework of the training fields «International Relations» and «Political Science».

scholarly journals The Future of Turkey - United States Relations

Jurnal ICMES ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-196
Author(s):  
Firmanda Taufiq
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Future ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Role Of The Government

Throughout 2018, relations between Turkey and the United States seemed to deteriorate. The leaders of the two countries issued sharp diplomatic statements and the US even imposed economic sanctions on Turkey. This article aims to analyze how the future of relations between Turkey and the United States. Cooperation between the two has a long historical side after the Cold War. Relations between the two countries are based on various interests, both economic, political, military and security interests. The theory used in this study is the theory of national interest. The US has great interests in the Middle East and Turkey is the front-line ally in achieving those interests. However, there are many US foreign policies that ignore the Turkish concern and create tensions between the two countries. On the contrary, Turkey also has considerable economic interests, but the role of the government elite (in this case, President Erdogan) has a significant influence in the determination of Turkish foreign policy. The findings of this study, although it will go through complex challenges and processes, the US and Turkey will continue to maintain their relations.

scholarly journals Notes Procedural Fencing in Retiree Benefits Disputes: Applications of the First-Filed Rule in Federal Courts

2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Vanneman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
West Virginia ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
District Court ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Maximum Benefit

Basil Chapman retired from ACF Industries, a railroad-car maker, after thirty-eight years of service. In December 2003, he received an unexpected phone call at his West Virginia home from a union representative, who informed him that an ACF executive wanted to speak with him. When they spoke, the executive informed Mr. Chapman that ACF was planning on changing its retirees’ health coverage plan. The ACF plan would now have a lifetime maximum benefit cap on hospital and surgical expenses for each participant and would require retirees to make monthly contributions. According to court papers filed later, Mr. Chapman responded, “We have a contract. You can’t do that.” Then, he said that he would “file in federal court” against ACF. The next business day, ACF filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri asking the court to rule that retiree benefits were not vested and that ACF accordingly could alter benefits unilaterally. On January 26, 2004, Mr. Chapman, other named plaintiffs, and their union sued ACF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

scholarly journals Warlords, the United States, and the state of anarchy in Afghanistan

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Shah Azami
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Building ◽  
The State ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Illegal Mining ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact

As part of its “War on Terror”, the United States (US) provided immense sums of money and advanced equipment to Afghan warlords in order to defeat and dismantle the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Nearly two decades after the 2001 US-led intervention in Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban regime, the US continues supporting the warlords in various ways. As the intervention was also aimed at establishing a functioning state and reconstruction of the war-torn country, the US needed the support of local warlords to achieve its goals. However, over time, warlords and warlordism became a major challenge to the postTaliban state-building project and in many ways undermined the overall security and the state monopoly on violence. These warlords, who had been mostly expelled and defeated by the Taliban regime, returned under the aegis of the B52 bombers, recaptured parts of the country and reestablished their fiefdoms with US support and resources. They not only resist giving up the power and prestige they have accumulated over the past few years, but also hamper the effort to improve governance and enact necessary reforms in the country. In addition, many of them run their private militias and have been accused of serious human rights abuses as well as drug trafficking, arms smuggling, illegal mining and extortion in the areas under their control or influence. In many ways, they challenge the government authority and have become a major hurdle to the country’s emerging from lawlessness and anarchy. This paper explores the emergence and reemergence of warlords in Afghanistan as well as the evolution of chaos and anarchy in the country, especially after the US-led intervention of late 2001. It also analyzes the impact of the post-9/11 US support to Afghan warlords and its negative consequences for the overall stability and the US-led state-building process in Afghanistan.

Where to limit the freedom of speech? Analysis in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the fighting words doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256
Author(s):  
Karolina Palka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Socialist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Socialist Party Of America ◽  
The Right

This article is about the limits of the right to free speech. The first section provides a brief introduction to this topic, primarily in the context of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second section describes the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which was fundamental to the topic of this paper because the United States Supreme Court created the so-called "fighting words" doctrine based on it. In the next two sections, two court cases are presented that perfectly demonstrate the limits of the right to free speech in the United States: Snyder v. Phelps and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. The fifth part shows the right to freedom of speech in the context of Polish civil, criminal, and constitutional law, as well as acts of international law binding on Poland. The last part is a short summary.

Judicial Review

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schillig
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bank Resolution ◽  
The Us ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Takings Clause ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The exercise of extensive powers by authorities during the recovery and resolution process may interfere with constitutionally protected fundamental rights of stakeholder in a multitude of ways. Particularly relevant are the right to conduct a business and the right to property under the EU Charter of fundamental rights, as well as the takings clause under the US constitution. A balance needs to be struck between the aims and objectives of bank resolution and the rights of investors and the requirements of due process. This is normally achieved through expedited and limited judicial review. This chapter assesses whether and to what extent the respective procedures are in line with constitutional and fundamental rights requirements.

24. The War in Iraq

2020 ◽  
pp. 587-611
Author(s):  
John W. Young ◽  
John Kent
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
Operation Iraqi Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
The Troubles ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Arab Spring ◽  
Iraqi Freedom

This chapter focuses on the Iraq war of 2003–11 and the troubles in the Middle East. George W. Bush’s advisers, led by Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, had been considering an attack on Iraq well before 9/11. At the same time, many experts within the government pointed to the lack of any evidence for Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed against the United States. The threats to US national security were outlined to Bush in a briefing just prior to his inauguration; these threats came primarily from al-Qaeda’s terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The chapter first considers the US decision to invade Iraq, before discussing the war, taking into account the US’s Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war’s costs to the US and to Iraq. It also examines the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and concludes with an assessment of the ‘Arab Spring’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document