Search results

Wage theft costs workers billions of dollars each year. During a time when the federal government is rolling back workers' rights, it is essential to consider how state and local laws can address the problem. As this Article explains, the pernicious practice of wage theft seemingly continues unabated, despite a recent wave of state and local laws to curtail it. This Article provides the first comprehensive analysis of state and local anti-wage theft laws. Through a compilation of 141 state and local anti-wage theft laws enacted over the past decade, this Article offers an original typology of the most common anti-wage theft regulatory strategies. An evaluation of these laws shows that they are unlikely to meaningfully reduce wage theft. Specifically, the typology reveals that many of the most popular anti-wage theft strategies involve authorizing worker complaints, creating or enhancing penalties, or mandating employers to disclose information to workers about their wage-related rights. Lessons learned about these conventional regulatory strategies from other contexts raise serious questions about whether these state and local laws can be successful. Rather than concede defeat, this Article contends that there are useful insights to be drawn from the typology and analysis. It concludes by recognizing promising regulatory innovations, identifying new collaborative approaches to enhance agency enforcement, and looking beyond regulation to nongovernmental strategies.

Abstract
Detention facilities are no place for children who are irregular migrants. Yet both the United States (US) and Mexico have struggled with how to respond to the arrival of Central American children who are primarily fleeing violence. In these neighbouring countries, the detention of children reflects both an ineffective and misguided strategy to deter people from moving across their southern borders. This focus on border control is further reinforced by the US outsourcing of enforcement controls to Mexico. In the US, a preoccupation with border control can quickly undermine the purported interest of protecting migrant children because they lack the fundamental right to be free from detention. In Mexico, its role as a buffer State causes it to overlook its human rights, constitutional, and federal law commitments to the fundamental rights of children, while allowing practical obstacles to stand in the way of these legal obligations. This article examines how the political imperative of border control in the US influences the various approaches taken by the US and Mexico towards the detention of migrant children. It analyses the shortcomings and best practices of each system and concludes with recommended reforms that actualize the right of migrant children to be free from detention.

This volume, part of the Feminist Judgment Series, shows how feminist legal theory along with critical race theory and intersectional modes of critique might transform immigration law. Here, a diverse collection of scholars and lawyers bring critical feminist, race, and intersectional insights to Supreme Court opinions. Feminist reasoning values the perspectives of outsiders, exposes the deep-rooted bias in the legal opinions of courts, and illuminates the effects of ostensibly neutral policies that create and maintain oppression and hierarchy. One by one, the chapters reimagine the norms that drive immigration policies and practices. In place of discrimination and subordination, the authors demand welcome and equality. Where current law omits the voice and stories of noncitizens, the authors center their lives and experiences. Collectively, they reveal how a feminist vision of immigration law could center a commitment to equality and justice and foster a country where diverse newcomers readily flourish with dignity.