Suchergebnisse

We assess government estimates of the size and legal composition of the US foreign-born population from 2007 to 2015. We examine annual Census Bureau estimates of the total number of foreign born (by citizenship) and annual Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) estimates of the counts of the three noncitizen categories — legal permanent residents, legal temporary residents, and the unauthorized. Comparison of the annual Census estimates of the number of noncitizens with the estimates implied by the OIS estimates reveals that the OIS estimates are larger than the Census estimates by 3.4–4.7 million over the period. Besides documenting these discrepancies, we describe the data and methods used to produce the estimates, identify the possible sources of discrepancies, propose and implement an approach for reconciling the estimates, and contrast the reconciled estimates with the original estimates. Finally, we provide a foundation for improving estimates of the size of the four major categories of the foreign born, for example, by suggesting new methods to measure citizenship and to estimate such groups as legal permanent residents who become unauthorized. Because in most countries the four foreign-born subpopulations are constrained by distinctive rules, they each have different impacts on their host countries. Estimates of their size are critical for assessments of immigration policy, as differing constraints on employment and entitlement eligibility across these categories means that having accurate counts of their numbers is essential for assessing their economic and fiscal impacts in any country that hosts immigrants.

Intro -- TABLE OF CONTENTS -- LIST OF FIGURES -- LIST OF TABLES -- PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION -- CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING -- CHAPTER 2: SECONDARY LEGAL RESOURCES -- CHAPTER 3: RESEARCHING LEGISLATION -- CHAPTER 4: RESEARCHING CASE LAW -- CHAPTER 5: LEGAL RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET -- CHAPTER 6: LEGAL RESEARCH DATABASES AND CD-ROMS -- CHAPTER 7: INTERNATIONAL AND FOREIGN LEGAL RESEARCH -- CHAPTER 8: LEGAL RESEARCH BY TOPIC -- CHAPTER 9: SELECTING AND ACQUIRING LEGAL RESOURCES -- CHAPTER 10: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT FOR LAWYERS

Legal Usage A Modern Style Guide is a clear, unambiguous guide to good legal usage. It highlights the techniques that legal writers in the common law tradition need for effective, compelling and readable legal writing. The easy-to-use layout facilitates ready understanding of best practice for legal vocabulary and drafting style. It adopts a plain language approach to legal writing, in line with modern practice

Finding the law -- The federal and state court systems -- Statutory law -- Case law and judicial opinions -- Locating cases through digests, annotated law reports, and words and phrases -- Encyclopedias, periodicals, treatises, and restatements -- Miscellaneous secondary authorities -- Legal citation form -- Updating and validating your research -- Special research issues -- The digital library : Lexis advance, Westlaw, and other nonprint research sources -- E-Research : legal research using the internet -- Overview of the research process -- Back to basics -- Strategies for effective writing -- Legal correspondence -- Legal memoranda -- Legal briefs -- Postwriting steps.

A philosophy of drafting -- Contract drafting -- Legislative drafting -- The rules of interpretation -- Drafting ethics -- An overview -- Getting started -- Drafting within the law -- Determining substance -- Choosing the right concept -- Organization -- Avoiding ambiguities -- Drafting style and usage -- Definitions -- Terms creating legal consequences -- Document typography and layout -- Reviewing and revising drafted documents

Résumé D'un examen de la taille des juridictions et des arrangements organisationnels qui en découlent, du mode de sélection des membres et de ses conséquences sur la vie intellectuelle des collèges, enfin de l'assistance dont bénéficient les juges et de ses effets sur la prise de décision, il résulte que la Cour de justice et la Cour européenne s'inscrivent dans des schémas fondamentalement différents. L'une et l'autre sont donc intéressantes à observer pour apprécier les mérites comparés des différentes formules disponibles en matière de composition et de fonctionnement des cours internationales. Mais aucune des deux ne peut servir de modèle à l'autre.