Gregorio Diaz, an American citizen of Mexican descent, is an Illinois resident. On February 18, 1998, Mr. Diaz arrived at O’Hare International Airport, Chicago from a trip abroad. When passing through customs, he was detained by an Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) inspection officer’, at which time he submitted documentation of his citizenship. Instead of allowing Mr. Diaz to enter the United States, the inspection officer judged him inadmissible, confiscated his documents, and summarily “removed” Mr. Diaz, deporting him to Mexico. By the time Mr. Diaz was permitted to return to the U.S., he had lost his job, suffered emotional distress, and only retrieved his documents after suing INS.? Despite the fact that Mr. Diaz’s American citizenship gave him full legal entitlement to enter the United States, he never had a chance to defend his constitutional rights by proving his admissibility before an immigration judge. A new immigration law, put into effect only a year before Mr. Diaz’s failed attempt to return to the United States, authorized the new INS procedure which precluded judicial review of the inspection officer’s determination that excluded Mr. Diaz.
As big data’s promises of increased efficiency and serendipitous insights spread across a broad range of sectors, they are accompanied by new risks—some intuitive, some unpredictable. That dichotomy is heavily accentuated in the law enforcement context, where blithe application of
This article assesses the efficacy of the legal framework for asylees, individuals granted refugee status within the United States, through an examination of the human outcomes following the grant of asylum.
Immigrants face long hours, low pay, poor working conditions, and deportation threat. Evidence of immigration enforcement involvement in labor disputes in NYC
Explores the process of seeking asylum and analyses the procedural nuances involved with reference to South Texas.