Raymond Hornstein, one of Professor Birdsong’s brightest students, has written an interesting and provocative paper concerning the Fourteenth Amendment to the  U.S. Constitution.  Does it provide equal protection for all — or just for some?  Mr. Hornstein has given me permission to post his work on my blog. Read and enjoy.

The Fourteenth Amendment; Equal Protection for Some:

In regards to the rights of Homosexuals in the United States

Raymond H. Hornstein

I. Introduction

            Section 1 of the United States Constitution clearly states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Emphasis added).[1]

            The Fourteenth Amendment came as one of the Reconstruction Amendments and was adopted in June of 1868 in an attempt to guarantee certain protections for the recently emancipated slaves at the end of the Civil War. The Amendment went on to be the justification for the repeal of American segregation in the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka[2] , as well as guaranteeing equal rights to women under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.[3]

            The Fourteenth Amendment has gone on to become the one of the most cited

Amrita Lamba is one of Professor Birdsong’s favorite students.  She graduated from Barry Law with her J.D. degree last Saturday.  Before her graduation she did a directed research project under my supervision.   Her research resulted in a  well written and informative article about the Padilla v. Kentucky case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and how it may change the immigrant’s world. Ms. Lamba has given me permission to share her article with the world.

Read it and learn.

MR. PADILLA CHANGES THE IMMIGRANT’S WORLD 

How Criminal Convictions Are Impacting Immigration Cases and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

 by: Amrita K. Lamba

MR. PADILLA CHANGES THE IMMIGRANT’S WORLD

HOW CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS ARE IMPACTING IMMIGRATION CASES AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS

I.      Introduction

There are over 12.8 million legal permanent residents in the United States.[1]  Their backgrounds, cultures, physical characteristics, and country of origins may all vary, but they come to American to establish their home and roots in the community.[2]  They contribute to the general economy “…as members of the workforce or as small business owners, raise families, and join the military…”[3]  Just like citizens of the United States, sometimes immigrants can “…run afoul of the law.”[4]  However, when they face the criminal justice system they are subject to more disadvantages than citizens because of cultural differences and language barriers.[5]  This “problem [has] compounded…under current immigration law[s because], convictions of many types of relatively minor crimes result in mandatory detention and deportation.”[6]

Virginia Ponder, a student in Professor Birdsong’s spring Refugee Law seminar, has written an excellent paper that examines whether a parent who opposes female genital mutilation, and fears the mutilation of her child, raises a valid claim for protection under U.S. asylum law?  The circuit court responses thus far have been diverse.  Ms. Ponder has given permission to post her paper on the blog.  Read it and see what you think.

THE DILEMMA OF PARENT-CHILD

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION JURISPRUDENCE

Virginia L. Ponder

 God has blessed me.  He made me suffer but He also blessed me. 

I am safe and free in America, surrounded by people who love me. 

Others are not so fortunate.  They are being held in prisons, being

denied asylum, and being sent back to terrible forms of suffering. 

My friends, all the friends I made in prison, cried for joy for me

the day I walked into freedom.  [1]                                                                                                                                                       I.            Introduction

Almost fourteen years ago in the landmark decision In re Kasinga[2], the Board of Immigration Appeals, the highest administrative authority interpreting asylum law, found Female Genital Mutilation[3] (FGM) to be a form of persecution warranting a finding of asylum.  Kasinga’s claim was based on the risk she would be subjected to FGM if returned to her home country and the decision established basic doctrine favorable to such a claim.[4]  It was a milestone in the consideration of gender related asylum cases and advanced protection for women who fear FGM.  Currently a new question regarding FGM is circulating in our immigration courts.  Does a parent who opposes FGM, and fears the mutilation of her child, raise a valid claim for protection under U.S. asylum law?  The circuit court responses thus far have been diverse. 

The “parent-child FGM issue” most commonly presents itself when a non-US citizen parent asserts asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under Convention Against Torture [5](CAT) because she fears her US citizen or resident daughter will

Last spring Amrita Lamba wrote an outstanding Refugee and Asylum Law Seminar paper concerning the necessity for gender related asylum claims that will protect women and girls from sexual gender based violence.  She has given permission to publish her paper here on the blog.  It is very well written.  Take a look and learn.

Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Female:

The Necessity for Gender Related Asylum Provisions

 Protecting Women and Girls From

Sexual Gender Based Violence

 By: Amrita K. Lamba

I.      Introduction

            Kahindo is twenty-eight years old and the mother of six children.  One day, almost four years ago, Kahnido and her children ran into a group of men in the unstable province of North Kivu, not far from her village in the eastern Democractic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”).[1]  Kahindo’s reaction upon seeing the men was a “sigh of relief,” she thought now her children and herself “were not going to run anymore.”[2]  However, a few seconds after encountering the group of men, Kahindo’s realized her initial reaction was quite wrong.[3] Six armed men separated Kahnido away from her children and she was raped by them one after the other until she went into a coma.[4]  She was left to die by the men.[5]  If you speak to Kahindo today, she will tell you that she wishes she had died.[6]  

Still after hearing Kahindo’s story, one must think how lucky she is to still be alive.  However, Kahindo thinks otherwise.  During her recovery process she learned that she contracted HIV.[7]  Furthermore, she has had to endure the stigma of being a rape victim.[8]  Kahindo believes the men raped her as punishment – they wanted to degrade her family, dignity, culture, and everything she stands for.[9] 

Kahindo is not the only victim of such violent acts.  According to estimated figures by the United Nations (UN), close to 3,500 females were raped in eastern DRC

Professor Birdsong’s Refugee Law seminar Student, Jason Patrou, wrote a well researched paper on the Safe Third Country Agreement between the United States and Canada concerning asylum applicants.  Jason has given me his permission to post his paper on the blog.  Since most of you do not know that we have a safe third country agreement with Canada, why don’t you read what Jason has written and you will learn something valuable.

CANADIAN COUNSEL FOR REFUGEES V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN: IS THE UNITED STATES A SAFE THIRD COUNTRY?

 By:  Justin Patrou

May 6, 2010

            Introduction

 The Nazi persecution of Jews throughout Europe was by no means the first persecution by a government of its people, nor was it likely to be the last attempt by a government to persecute those the country governs.  In fact, during World War II, one might say that the United States of America, one of the ally countries fighting Nazi Germany, persecuted a segment of its society when the United States created a series of laws discriminated against Japanese-Americans.[1]  After the travesties of World War II the international community felt compelled to act and ensure that in the future, those who are persecuted by the countries in which they reside would be protected by international law and have the ability to seek refuge in another country without the fear of refoulement.[2] 

The origins of modern refugee law can be found in three international treaties:  the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Convention”), the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Protocol”), and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Convention Against Torture”).  The Convention, which was incorporated into the Protocol, expressed that all states should recognize the social and humanitarian nature of refugees and “will do everything within their power to prevent this problem from becoming a cause of tension between States.” 

Under international law, specifically the Protocol which expanded the term of refugees to include those individuals who reside outside of Europe, a refugee is