Suchergebnisse

"Today's Runaway Slaves" engages in long-standing debates about American federalism, slavery and immigration law, civil and immigrant rights, and racial politics. The central puzzle it addresses is how American federalism and social movements shape the development of state and local sanctuary laws that protect classes of people, who federal law considers unlawfully present inside the United States. I employ an innovative research design of documenting and comparing laws protecting runaway slaves from 1780-1860 with contemporary laws on Central American asylum seekers from 1980-1997 and undocumented immigrants from 2000-2017. From this original research, I offer analysis of what I term a "federalism conflict" between federal and state/local laws on free movement and presence, and develop the term "free presence" to make sense of how sanctuary laws accumulate to decouple states from enforcing federal law in ways that benefit the life chances of runaway slaves and undocumented immigrants.The dissertation makes two contributions: a long-run institutional account of sanctuary policies rooted in the U.S. Constitution and federalism; a general theory accounting for the proliferation of sanctuary policies and variation in each historical period. On the long-run question, I argue that the courts institutionalize states' semi-sovereignty and what I term a federalism conflict that has always allowed for sanctuary laws to emerge and proliferate, which I reveal through court decisions on slavery, alienage, and immigration. On the empirical question, I advance a theory of coalition building in a federalism framework to explain variation in sanctuary policies in antebellum and contemporary periods. Sanctuary policies emerge out similar fights for federal abolition and federal immigration reform. I posit that federalism's structure shapes the timing of where and when sanctuary policies emerge: national activists commit to a federal reform strategy, and sanctuary policies gain clout only after numerous failures at the national level occur. National activists respond to repeated national failure by revising their reform strategy to include subfederal sanctuary polices; after this shift, my theory posits that state and local coalition building contexts explain the differences in the timing and scope of sanctuary policies across jurisdictions.Sanctuary policies animate long-standing debates in American politics. Without comprehensive reform at the national level, states and localities play a critical protective role over runaway slaves and undocumented immigrants, who live in fear of re-enslavement and deportation. My dissertation explains how federalism empowers advocacy coalitions within states and localities to contest national policy, connects America's abolitionist heritage to salient questions shaping today's immigration debates, develops a timely framework and concepts to understand why classes of people lacking federal legal status are welcomed by states and localities, and why sanctuary policies contribute to the ongoing project of American democracy and civil rights.

Immigration law is no longer the exclusive domain of the federal government. That was certainly clear in the mid 2000s, with restrictive laws on immigration enforcement in many states and localities. Starting in 2012, however, momentum shifted away from these restrictionist laws, and towards a growing number of state laws that push towards greater immigrant integration, on matters ranging from in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented students, to expanded health benefits and access to driver's licenses. California has gone the furthest in this regard, both with respect to the number of pro-integration laws passed since 2000, and in their collective scope. Indeed, as we argue in this paper, these individual laws have, over time, combined to form a powerful package of pro-integration policies that stand in sharp contrast to the restrictive policies of states like Arizona. In this paper, we provide a deeper look into the "California package" of immigrant integration policies, and ask two fundamental questions, one empirical (Why do pro-integration laws pass in some states and not in others, and in some years but not in others?), and the other theoretical (what are the implications of the "California package" of immigrant integration laws for our notions of citizenship?). As we elaborate, California has created a de facto regime of state citizenship, one that operates in parallel to national citizenship and, in some important ways, exceeds the standards of national citizenship, as currently established and as envisioned in Congressional attempts at comprehensive immigration reform.

"October 5, 2013 was a big day for immigration and citizenship in the United States. Tens of thousands of protesters - undocumented immigrants, naturalized citizens, and native-born alike - rallied across more than 40 states around the country, from large cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Boston, to smaller places like Reading, Pennsylvania, Hobbs, New Mexico, and Yakima, Washington.1 In Minneapolis, nearly 2,000 demonstrators "marched from the Basilica of St. Mary, after an interfaith prayer service, to the plaza, hoisting flags and placards and chanting empowerment cries, including 'Si se puede!'"2 In Birmingham, Alabama, hundreds of rally participants listened to "the president of the N.A.A.C.P. in Alabama, [who] portrayed the immigration effort as part of broader civil rights activism in the state,"3 while in Reading, Pennsylvania, "demonstrators demanded that the congressmen sign onto or co-sponsor bipartisan immigration reform, speak on the House floor about the urgency of reform and oppose laws that promote racial profiling."4 These protests were all part of the National Day of Immigrant Dignity and Respect, as thousands of Americans joined President Barack Obama's call for Congress to pass immigrant legalization as part of a comprehensive reform package"--

Immigration law is no longer the exclusive domain of the federal government. That was certainly clear in the mid 2000s, with restrictive laws on immigration enforcement in many states and localities. Starting in 2012, however, momentum shifted away from these restrictionist laws, and towards a growing number of state laws that push towards greater immigrant integration, on matters ranging from in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented students, to expanded health benefits and access to driver's licenses. California has gone the furthest in this regard, both with respect to the number of pro-integration laws passed since 2000, and in their collective scope. Indeed, as we argue in this paper, these individual laws have, over time, combined to form a powerful package of pro-integration policies that stand in sharp contrast to the restrictive policies of states like Arizona. In this paper, we provide a deeper look into the "California package" of immigrant integration policies, and ask two fundamental questions, one empirical (Why do pro-integration laws pass in some states and not in others, and in some years but not in others?), and the other theoretical (what are the implications of the "California package" of immigrant integration laws for our notions of citizenship?). As we elaborate, California has created a de facto regime of state citizenship, one that operates in parallel to national citizenship and, in some important ways, exceeds the standards of national citizenship, as currently established and as envisioned in Congressional attempts at comprehensive immigration reform.