Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1988. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 298-313).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--West Virginia University, 1999. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains vii, 200 p. : ill. (some col.) Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 191-200).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1971. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Homeland Security and Defense))--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2007. / Thesis Advisor(s): Maria J. Rasmussen. "March 2007." Includes bibliographical references (p. 79-97). Also available in print.

No description available.

No description available.

In recent years, immigration detentions have spiked. Further, the Zero Tolerance Policy enacted by President Trump has separated thousands of children from their families. Because many children are without their parents, and immigration court is civil in nature, thousands of children are placed in deportation hearings without representation each year. Child psychological research is at odds with the current deportation practices as psychological research deems children unable to understand the complexities of the court system or the impacts of deportation proceedings. A minimum competency to stand trial must be enacted to protect young children’s due process rights, regardless of citizenship. Further, children should be protected through a guardian ad litem or other legal representatives as they are a vulnerable class. This paper examines the relationship between the current legal standards for immigration court, relevant child psychological research, and explores policy recommendations for immigration competency standards and representation requirements.

Zugl.: Osnabrück, Universiẗat, Diss., 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 273-284).

"Family unity" is often upheld as the principle of U.S. immigration policy, central to the making and self-understanding of the U.S. as a "nation of immigrants." However, family-based immigration system was only born of struggles of immigrant families against the regime of restriction. As the era of open immigration ended in the U.S. in 1921, there emerged a fundamental tension between claims of immigrant families and the regime of immigration restriction. Much of what current immigration law recognizes as family, or how it matters, originated in the post-1921 era, born out of struggles by immigrant families. This dissertation examines the period between 1921 and 1978 from two perspectives. One is as an era of the three-tiered regulatory system created in the 1920s that lasted until the 1960s to the 1970s: 1) quotas restriction applied to European immigrants 2) exclusion of Asian immigrants, and 3) administrative regulation of immigration from Mexico without a firm ceiling. Another is as the formative years of contemporary immigration control that lasts today. The three-tiered system marked by explicit ethno-racial hierarchization closed first in 1965 by abolition of the quotas system in the Eastern Hemisphere, and finally in 1978 when Congress placed all countries including the Western Hemisphere under a worldwide ceiling. But the end of the quotas era was not a return to an era of open immigration, but an onset of alternative form of immigration restriction and regulation. With particular attention to linkage between ideas about family and ethno-racial composition of the U.S., the dissertation will discuss how claims of family, selective admission and restriction of family immigration, created, reinforced, and unmade the three-tiered immigration restriction regime. To date there has been no comprehensive historical study of the concept of the "family" in immigration law -- how it is defined, who is eligible as a family member and who is not, under what conditions families may be united or separated, and how family-based policies varied according to ethno-racial origin. This lack has resulted in a static and naturalized view of the family rather than a dynamic and contested concept in immigration law and policy. This dissertation explains the changes in definitions of family in immigration, deportation, and nationality law during the quotas era, shows how they are the product of challenges raised by immigrant families, and how they were inherited to the era of formally neutral and at the same time global immigration restriction.

This thesis investigates the often neglected Mexican perspective on US immigration policy, contending that effective immigration policy can only be reached through a bilateral, multidimensional approach that incorporates the Mexican perspective. To delineate this perspective, I examine the historical, economic and socio-cultural views of immigration to the US in Mexico. I then evaluate the immigration policies pursued by both the US and Mexican governments through the lens of these Mexican perspectives. I show that current immigration policies and approaches are seriously flawed from the Mexican point of view, and stress that both governments must work to incorporate the Mexican perspective into the current debate over immigration reform in the United States.