{"id":97,"date":"2014-11-17T14:17:02","date_gmt":"2014-11-17T14:17:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/?p=97"},"modified":"2022-06-11T20:15:16","modified_gmt":"2022-06-11T20:15:16","slug":"crimmigration-coda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/2014\/11\/17\/crimmigration-coda\/","title":{"rendered":"Crimmigration Coda"},"content":{"rendered":"

Two weeks ago, I launched this blog with what I called an “immigration problem.”<\/a> The problem involved transforming an automatically generated network of Supreme Court immigration cases into a more accurate\u00a0and useful map\u00a0of\u00a0immigration doctrine. In subsequent posts, I chipped away at the problem and ended up with an admittedly incomplete yet arguably more accurate and useful\u00a0picture<\/a> of the evolution of the Court’s doctrine from the Chinese Exclusion Case<\/em> (1889) to Padilla<\/em> (2009).<\/p>\n

Today’s post presents a visual coda to the original problem. Last weekend, I was fortunate enough to talk shop with bona fide immigration scholar and advocate extraordinaire\u00a0Peter Markowitz<\/a>. He suggested that I try mapping\u00a0a different part of immigration\u00a0territory. This alternate territory concerns the dubious relationship between (a) the Court’s designation of immigration removal proceedings as civil rather than criminal; and (b) the Court’s now-rejected\u00a0“inherent powers”\u00a0theory. Here is what I came up with:<\/p>\n

\"05_Inherent_Powers_map\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This map is based on Markowitz’s\u00a02008 article<\/a> entitled “Straddling the Civil-Criminal Divide” published in in Harvard Civil Rights -Civil Liberties Law Review<\/a>. In this article,\u00a0Markowitz\u00a0argues that the Court in Fong Yue Ting<\/em><\/a> (1893) relied on the inherent powers theory to justify\u00a0its designation of removal proceedings as civil. Though the Court initially reaffirmed inherent powers in Curtiss-Wright<\/em><\/a> (1936), it started to reject the theory in Reid v. Covert<\/em><\/a> and then confirmed its rejection in cases like Afroyim<\/em> <\/a>(1967) and Verdugo-Urquidez<\/em> <\/a>(1990). This effectively negates\u00a0Fong Yue Ting<\/em>‘s original doctrinal justification and renders suspect its conclusion regarding the civil nature of removal.<\/p>\n

The map above demonstrates one way to tell this\u00a0complex story visually. I created it in\u00a0steps. First,\u00a0I generated a 3-degree citation network connecting Afroyim<\/em> and Fong Yue Ting<\/em> (2-degree connections are blue; 3-degree connections are brown). Then I filtered the network to include only those cases that contained the word “inherent.”This left some “stranded” cases — they lacked a connection\u00a0to either a parent or child in the network\u00a0— and so I edited those cases out by hand.<\/p>\n

Although the resulting map featured most of the cases from Markowitz’s article, my algorithm had notably failed to pick up Reid v. Covert<\/em>. This is because Afroyim<\/em> is not connected by three degrees of citation to Reid<\/em>. To fix this problem, I generated a 2-degree citation network connecting Verdugo-Urquidez<\/em> to McCulloch v. Maryland<\/em> (1819) (shown in red above). \u00a0 I chose Verdugo<\/em> because it was the latest reference I saw in Markowitz’s article to a case rejecting the inherent powers theory and I chose McCulloch<\/em> because I noticed Reid v. Covert<\/em> cited it extensively in its doctrinal discussion. After editing out the resulting network\u00a0to include only Verdugo<\/em>, Reid<\/em>, McCulloch<\/em> and Curtiss-Wright, <\/em>I then merged my two maps to come up with the image above.<\/p>\n

Readers can judge for themselves, but I think the result usefully visualizes the networks implicated Markowitz’s argument. Scholars interested in testing his thesis can easily access the text of\u00a0underlying cases by clicking on opinions of interest in the full-sized version of the map<\/a>. This demonstrates what I hope is another useful feature of the mapping tool — it can efficiently organize a complex doctrinal information in a way that can facilitate further inquiry.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two weeks ago, I launched this blog with what I called an “immigration problem.” The problem involved transforming an automatically generated network of Supreme Court immigration cases into a more accurate\u00a0and useful map\u00a0of\u00a0immigration doctrine. In subsequent posts, I chipped away … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":400,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/400"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":884,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97\/revisions\/884"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}