Elizabeth M. McCormick

Examines the history of the 1996 federal anti-sanctuary laws, the ways in which state and federal courts have understood their meaning and purpose, and the evolving role of the statutes in the national immigration debate, in particular the struggle to define the proper role for the state and local actors in immigration enforcement. Closes with a discussion of the anti-sanctuary statutes in the context of Kate Steinle's killing and San Francisco's sanctuary law, concluding that the San Francisco ordinance which mandated Lopez-Sanchez's release from custody did not violate the anti-sanctuary statutes or any other federal law. 

Discusses the plight of 222 Haitian refugees detained by the United States Immigration Service at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 1993, and argues against the exclusion of these refugees who are infected with HIV. Argues that such exclusionary policies ignore a fundamental premise of United States refugee law by failing to consider the compelling circumstances which prompt certain immigrants to leave their homes and seek refuge in the United States. Reveals that the exclusion policy furthers no legitimate economic or public health interest on the part of the United States. 

Reviews the legislative history of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and provides some historical context to the creation of the U visa. Examines the statutory language creating the U visa and considers whether and to what extent the language of the statute reflects both the law enforcement and humanitarian goals of the U visa. Reviews the claims of immigrant crime victims and their families during the interim relief period prior to the issuance of U visa regulations. Examines and expands upon arguments made in a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. citizen child victim exclusion. 

Sets forth the central features of the Trump administration's mass deportation plans and its campaign to "crack down" on sanctuary cities. Outlines the diverse ways in which localities have sought to protect their residents by refusing to participate in the Trump immigration agenda. Analyzes the legal and policy justifications that local jurisdictions have advanced. Reveals important insights for how sanctuary cities are understood and preserved in the age of Trump.

Argues that the central biblical command to offer hospitality to the stranger has been overlooked and/or ignored in recent debates over U.S. policy concerning the treatment of immigrants, that there are good reasons for considering this biblical command when setting public policy about immigration, and the religious command to show hospitality to the stranger should lead us to reconsider (and oppose) several policy changes currently under consideration. Offers three specific examples of how United States immigration law and policy might be brought more in line with the biblical mandate to show hospitality to the stranger, and how doing so could lead to a more just and effectual immigration system. 

Addresses legal, social, political, and cultural issues of immigrant groups in Oklahoma and explores immigration trends and issues faced by individual ethnic populations.

Considers Oklahoma's recent experiment in immigration regulation and examines how it is that Oklahoma has found itself on the front lines of the illegal immigration debate. Argues that a "steam valve" model of immigration federalism is no longer an apt description of sub-federal immigration lawmaking. Argues that allowing individual states to enact immigration control measures locally provides a dangerous mechanism for national anti-immigrant groups to accomplish through state-by-state lobbying effort what they have been unable to achieve at the national level.