Tag Archive | "International Affairs"

NAFTA’s failure could create an immigration crisis in the United States

Source: Farm Futures

Source: Farm Futures

Although the controversy surrounding the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) typically revolves around jobs and trade, NAFTA impacts more than just trade relations; it also has a major influence on immigration patterns in the United States. President Trump threatened to include immigration control as part of NAFTA re-negotiations when he recently tweeted “[t]hey must stop the big drug and people flows, or I will stop their cash cow, NAFTA.”[1] Although Trump’s statements on NAFTA and immigration are making headlines, relying on Mexico to help curb immigration flow is nothing new. Mexico has been assisting the United States’ for decades and assistance only increased after NAFTA entered into force in 1994. In the past, the U.S. often seemed to have the upper hand in its immigration agreements with Mexico, however, with the recent developments over NAFTA, this may be changing.

Though its effectiveness is hotly debated, NAFTA did improve the economies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico; Mexico’s economy was particularly boosted.[2] From this arose a relationship of mutual reliance on the part of both Mexico and the United States. Mexico’s economic reliance on the United States put it in a position where it is often expected to alter its immigration laws and border policies at the request of the United States. In turn, as the United States has continued to ask for Mexico’s cooperation; it has become increasingly reliant on Mexico to assist in reducing the number of migrants coming to the United States’ southern border. In particular, the recent mass migration of Central American migrants exemplifies how the United States’ role as the dominant economic power in the region impacts Mexico’s immigration laws and policies.

Past Mexico – United States relations

The passage of NAFTA liberalized Mexico’s trade with the United States and Canada, and provided a significant boost to its economy.[3] In addition to opening its borders to trade, Mexico began cooperating with the United States more on border security.[4] For example, in 1997, in exchange for economic aid, Mexico worked with the United States to warn migrants of the dangers of smuggling and border crossing in Operation Gatekeeper III.[5] In 2007, another joint operation, La Merída, focused efforts on drug trafficking rather than on human smuggling.[6]

In 2014, the number of unaccompanied minors and families arriving at the United States’ southern border surged, the majority of whom were from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.[7] Fleeing extreme poverty or gang violence, the number of unaccompanied minors increased by 77% with 38,759 arrivals in 2013 compared to 68,541 in 2014.[8] For families, the number surged 361%, with 14,855 apprehended in 2013 to 68,445 in 2014.[9] For the most part, those arriving were fleeing from extreme poverty or gang violence.[10] President Barack Obama described the event as a humanitarian crisis.[11]

In response to this crisis, President Obama negotiated a deal with the Mexican government to help strengthen its border in an attempt to prevent migrants from reaching the United States. The result was the implementation of Programa Fontera Sur (Southern Border Program), which is in part financed by the United States.[12] Prior to the program’s implementation, security was uneven along Mexico’s southern border.[13] Along some parts of the border there was a high tolerance for those crossing into Mexico, both temporary visitors, but also for those passing through on their way to the United States; other sections, however, were significantly more secure.[14] With the implementation of Programa Frontera Sur, Mexico’s southern border security radically changed. Mexico became an immigration “enforcer” for the United States, stepping up detentions and deportations significantly.[15] For example, Mexico increased its deportation of migrants by 35% from 2013 to 2014.[16] This included 18,169 children in 2014, a 117% increase from the number of children deported in 2013.[17] Meanwhile, the number of apprehensions and deportations at the United States’ border substantially decreased.[18]

The program is unpopular in Mexico and has been condemned internationally. Mexican scholar and activist Sergio Aguayo, told NPR that “We are now the servants of the U.S. in this role.”[19] Mexico’s significant increase in deportations is also criticized as being hypocritical.[20] Further, the program has also been criticized for human rights abuses, as well as the criminalization of migrants.[21]

Outsourcing border control is not uncommon and developed countries are increasingly relying on less developed, transit states for border control.[22] However, the relationship between the United States and Mexico is distrustful, and should not be equated to similar a structure within the European Union, which has moved beyond using merely economic interests.[23]

Power dynamics and the liberal paradox

But why is Mexico helping the United States given the controversy and criticism? The answer is multifaceted. First, the United States has been the dominant power in the region, if not the world, for years.[24] As such, it typically enjoys a fairly high level of power over other states, as is the case with Mexico. Part of the United States’ strength is its stability, predictability, and involvement in multilateral agreements.[25] The United States’ stability and reliability as the dominant power, combined with the economic growth that Mexico enjoyed under NAFTA meant that it was in Mexico’s best interest to the United States “dirty work.”[26]

Further, Mexico’s economic reliance on its more powerful neighbor makes Mexico more likely to cooperate, even when it is not in full agreement. Of particular importance is the improvement in Mexico’s economy due to NAFTA as well as Mexico’s heavy reliance on remittances. Nearly 12 million Mexican immigrants were living in the United States in 2014.[27] That year, remittances from the United States brought in 24 billion USD, 2% percent of Mexico’s GDP.[28] James Hollifield points out that developing states are reluctant to “provoke a conflict with a receiving state . . . for fear of losing remittances.”[29] Not cooperating with the United States could risk not only Mexico’s economic ties with the United States, but also the ability of Mexico’s citizens to stay in the United States and send back remittances.

This economic reliance requires that Mexico cooperate due to the existence of a “liberal paradox” within the United States.  Hollifield describes the liberal paradox: “the economic logic of liberalism is one of openness, but the political and legal logic is one of closure.”[30] In part, this is because migration poses a risk to a state’s sovereignty.[31] Thus, a migration state, caught in this liberal paradox, is one that opens or closes its borders for the benefit of the state, rather than to benefit the migrant.[32]

This fear over loss of sovereignty was readily apparent during the 2014 migrant crisis, and continues to exist today. The rhetoric since 2014 has been largely anti-immigrant with fears that migrants will accompany job loss or an increase in crime.[33] Therefore, when the number of migrants arriving overwhelmed the United States border, the US looked to Mexico and Mexico was in little position to object.

United States – Mexico Relations Today

The ability of the United States to rely on Mexico for its border security needs may be changing. The election of President Trump has called into question the predictability of the United States. As President Trump has implied on multiple occasions, Mexico can no longer definitively rely on the United States to uphold NAFTA.[34] Additionally, the new administration, rather than offering economic aid to Mexico for southern border security, has called for Mexico to pay for a wall to be built along the United States – Mexico border.[35] Unsurprisingly, Mexico objected to this.[36] The United States has also increased the deportation of immigrants living in the interior of the country, which will likely affect the amount of remittances sent back to Mexico.[37]

This is a sign that the United States may be losing influence and control over the region. Although President Trump has threatened to make NAFTA contingent on Mexico’s immigration enforcement,[38] the United States likely needs NAFTA to remain dominant. Without the stability, predictability, and participation in multilateral agreements such as NAFTA, its less likely the United States can insist that Mexico continue to protect its southern border for the United States. Without the assurance of an economic benefit, Mexico is rethinking its interest in continuing to cooperate with the United States on border security and has begun using migration as a tool.[39] As Mexico’s economic minister stated, without NAFTA “[t]here would be no incentive to continue collaborating on important issues for North American security such as migration issues.”[40]

For now, NAFTA and Mexico’s border security program remain in place. NAFTA may be re-negotiated, which would give the United States the chance to once again solidify its place as the region. However, the continual shifts in the United States’ support for NATO, NAFTA, and the Worth Trade Organization, as well as the generally decreasing stability and predictability of the current administration, demonstrates that the United States can no longer be counted on as the dominant power. One part of ensuring stability is the ability to properly regulate migration.[41] That is, the United States’ stability relies in part on its ability to regulate migration. For Mexico, that means that a somewhat unstable United States is in greater need of regulating migration, which is clear based on President Trump’s call to include immigration in NAFTA. This gives Mexico an opportunity to impact United States’ policy through the creation of a migration state, where it opens or closes its borders based on the how Mexico will benefit from a decrease in power of the United States.

Alison Sheets is a Staff Editor with the Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, and a 1L at the Sturm College of Law.


[1] Trump Says May Tie Mexican Immigration Control to NAFTA, Reuters (last visited April 23, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-nafta-trump/trump-says-may-tie-mexican-immigration-control-to-nafta-idUSKBN1HU1ZE.

[2] Lorenzo Caliendo and Fernando Parro, Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA, 1 The Review of Economic Studies 3 (2015).

[3] Id.

[4] Ann Kimball, The Transit State: A Comparative Analysis of Mexican and Moroccan Immigration Policies 12 (Univ. of San Diego Ctr. for Iberian and Latin American Studies and Ctr. for Comparative Immigration Studies Working Paper No. 150, 2007),  https://ccis.ucsd.edu/_files/wp150.pdf.

[5] The Wall Around the West: State Borders and Immigration Controls in North America and Europe 62 (Peter Andreas and Timothy Synder, eds., 2000).

[6] Raquel Aldana, Won Kidane, Beth Lyon, and Karla McKanders, Global Issues in Migration Law 103 (2013).

[7]  U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children FY 2014 (2015).

[8]  Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Tom Dart, Child migrants at Texas border: an immigration crisis that’s hardly new, The Guardian (July 9, 2014), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/us-immigration-undocumented-children-texas.

[11] Id.

[12] Aaron Korthuis, Outsourcing Refoulement: The United States and the Central American Refugee Crisis, Yale Journal of International Law (2016).

[13] Mexico’s Other Border Security, Migration, and the Humanitarian Crisis at the Line with Central America, The Washington Office on Latin America (2014).

[14] Id.

[15] Border Statistics Update: Mexico’s Increased Enforcement Matches U.S. Border Efforts, The Washington Office on Latin America (May 20, 2015), https://www.wola.org/2(015/05/border-statistics-update-mexicos-increased-enforcement-matches-us-border-efforts/.

[16] Clay Boggs, Mexico’s Southern Border Plan: More Deportations and Widespread Human Rights Violations, The Washington Office on Latin America (Mar. 19, 2015).

[17] Id.

[18] Carrie Kahn, Mexican Crackdown Slows Central American Immigration To U.S., NPR (Sept. 12, 2014), https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/12/347747148/mexican-crackdown-slows-central-american-immigration-to-u-s.

[19] Id.

[20] John Holman, Mexico’s ‘invisible wall’, a Migrant Double Standard, Aljazeera (Feb. 16, 2107), https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/mexico-invisible-wall-migrant-double-standard-170214213612822.html.

[21] Boggs, supra note 16.

[22] The Wall Around the West: State Borders and Immigration Controls in North America and Europe 63 (Peter Andreas and Timothy Synder, eds. 2000).

[23] Id.

[24] G. John Ikenberry, Getting hegemony right, The National Interest 18 (2001).

[25] Id. at 20-21.

[26] Kahn, supra note 19.

[27]Jie Zong and Jeanna Batalova, Jeanna, Mexican Immigrants in the United States, Migration Policy Institute (Mar. 17, 2016), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states.

[28] Id.

[29] James F. Hollifield, The Emerging Migration State, 38 The International Migration

Review 885, 893 (2004).

[30] Id. at 887.

[31] Id.

[32] See Id. at 893.

[33] Emily Stewart, Trump campaign ad says Democrats are “complicit” in murders committed by undocumented immigrants, Vox (Jan. 21, 2018), https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/1/21/16916480/trump-complicit-ad.

[34] Jessica Trisko Darden, A NAFTA renegotiation may have some unexpected consequences on US immigration and border security, Business Insider (May 5, 2017), http://www.businessinsider.com/nafta-renegotiation-trump-mexico-implications-2017-5?r=UK&IR=T.

[35] Donald Trump’s Mexico wall: Who is going to pay for it?, BBC News (Feb. 6, 2017), http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37243269.

[36] Mexican opposition candidates slam Trump wall ahead of campaign, Reuters (Feb. 18, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-election/mexican-opposition-candidates-slam-trump-wall-ahead-of-campaign-idUSKCN1G2061.

[37] Miriam Valverde, Have deportations increased under Donald Trump? Here’s what the data shows, Politifact (Dec. 19, 2017), http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/19/have-deportations-increased-under-donald-trump-her/.

[38] Trump Says May Tie Mexican Immigration Control to NAFTA, Reuters (last visited April 23, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-nafta-trump/trump-says-may-tie-mexican-immigration-control-to-nafta-idUSKBN1HU1ZE

[39] Darden, supra note 35.

[40] Julian Borger and David Argen, Mexico will not accept Trump’s immigration plans, says foreign minister, The Guardian (Feb. 22, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/22/mexico-trump-immigration-foreign-minister-luis-videgaray.

[41] Hollifield, supra note 30 at 903.

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, Alison Sheets, DJILP StaffComments (0)

Trump Versus the World

Photo Credit: Skye Gould/Business Insider

Photo Credit: Skye Gould/Business Insider

With the recent change of government in the United States (“U.S.”), there have been considerable reactions on the international level. To begin, many nations have expressed their incredible disdain for the choice of president, ranging from petitions to protests to motions to reduce trade with the U.S. Second, there is discussion of there being improper relationships between the U.S. government and the Russian Federation government, creating suspicion amongst the domestic population. Third, the executive orders resulted in outrage both domestically and internationally. Therefore, if the current US government continues to remain in power, it may result in broken treaties, sanctions, or worse, war.

During the presidential campaign in the U.S., many nation-states, began to discuss the future of their own nation with their political relation to the U.S. if Trump were to win the presidency. In the United Kingdom (“U.K.”), a petition was launched by a freelance journalist, Suzanne Kelly called for the banning of Trump and thus, the petition was taken to parliament for debate.[1] The parliament carried out heated discussions in regard of the whether to ban Trump from ever visiting the U.K. in response to the petition.[2] Many parliament members declared Trumps’ words as hate speech and feared how his ideas would increase tension between different communities[3]. There are some parliament members that are in support of Trump or in support of merely letting the U.S. determine their own fate.[4] After the election, despite the invitation to Trump from Prime Minister May, the Speaker of the House and other parliament members continued voicing their disapproval of the president, leading to the delay of any potential visit by Trump.[5] In the end, the U.K. government will have to determine whether a visit or ban will bring greater consequences to their country.

Other nations, such as Mexico, have taken more drastic responses by protesting the US presidency and the Mexican President himself, refuses to meet with Trump after heated tweets between the two parties.[6] Also, Trump desires to either renegotiate NAFTA or completely remove the U.S. as a party because of his belief that it sends U.S. jobs to Mexico, further infuriating the people of Mexico.[7] Not only does Trump preach that the Mexicans are stealing U.S. jobs, but he promised to build a wall with the Mexican tax dollars.[8] In response, both the Mexican government and the people came out in force against Trump.[9] On February 12, an estimated 20,000 protesters took to the streets in Mexico City to voice their objection to the U.S. president.[10] Organizers of the event stated, “they wanted to send a message that Mexico was united against Trump.”[11] The government appeared to heed their people’s displeasure of the U.S. president and set in motion a bill that would sever the corn trade with the U.S. and instead trade with Brazil and Argentina.[12]  With Mexico being the third largest goods trading partner, continued unflavored actions taken by Trump will only further hurt the U.S. rather than Mexico.[13] Unfortunately, if Trump continues his path of destruction, both the U.K. and Mexico may only be the beginning of allies turning against the U.S..

With the recent resignation/firing of Flynn, the former National Security Advisor to Trump, continued rumors regarding Trump and many other republican members being involved with the Russian government.[14] After Trump was declared the winner of the U.S. presidency, rumors began about the election being rigged with the assistance of Putin and his oligarchy, which eventually were proven valid.[15] The Obama Administration enforced sanctions against Russia for their violation of the U.S. democracy system, but with evidence of Flynn and Trump communicating with the Kremlin both after the election and inauguration, there are concerns for U.S. national security.[16] Continuous investigations have been performed on the Trump presidency and personnel, revealing more and more conveyance with the Kremlin, however Trump continues to deny any involvement or knowledge the actions taken, regardless of the mounting evidence.[17] Congress continues their debate and probing of Trump and his people, however, Trump criticizes them heavily for such actions, declaring those scrutinizing him “un-American”, increasing the mounting tension between the two branches of government.[18] However, with the recent discovery of the Russian spy ship off the eastern coast, both government officials and the public grow weary of Trump and his intentions despite his declaration of having no contact with Russia.[19] Debates are occurring all over the U.S. to determine how to respond to the ship and the high likelihood of Trump’s involvement with Putin and other Russian personnel.[20] Unfortunately, with no middle ground being reached in congress and no clear answer or response tactic from Trump, the ship remains off the coast, constantly reminding the U.S. people of a the national security threat Russia maintains over them.[21] Therefore, unless measures are taken by either the Judicial Branch, Legislative Branch, or the states, U.S. national security may be at great risk for either an invasion or all-out war with the Russian Federation.

Trump established a series of new executive orders shortly after taking office. The most controversial ones’ deal with the deportation of all “illegal” immigrant and the banning of any form of immigration from seven Arab countries. The executive order concerning the deportation of illegal immigrants expanded the power of ICE by providing several new categories of qualification of deportation under the guise of merely removing the “‘bad dudes’” as Trump states.[22] There are strong criticisms that the order’s intention is to remove all illegal immigrants, regardless of whether they have a criminal record or not.[23] In fact, it was calculated the order could result in the “deportation of 11 million illegals.”[24] An action that is generating a variety of responses, from those desperate to find a way to stay in the U.S. to racists coming out of the wood work to voice their hatred to the immigrants.[25] This order has had negative effects internationally, especially in Mexico, but the effects are mainly being felt in the U.S.. Millions of parents of U.S. citizens are facing deportation, ripping them away from their families and lives they have spent years building in the supposedly “land of dreams.”[26] Not only are families being torn apart, there are potential economic consequences of the action with the removal of so many individuals, ranging from loss of workforce and supplementing the economy.[27] Many cities have noted that Trump and the ICE officials are targeting specific neighborhoods and communities, indicating that the order was merely a smoke screen to further Trump’s racist agenda and disregard of the potential aftermath of his actions.[28] Also, cities that have declared sanctuary for the immigrants are now facing denial of federal funds, adding pressure for them to conform to the executive order.[29] If this continues, the U.S. will not only be divided in the context of families, but in terms of the U.S. people in regard for those in support and those against the order.

The second order, signed just days after his inauguration, Trump revoked indefinitely admission of Syrian refugees and other refugees from six other nations.[30] Like the order that came later, this order received mixed reactions across the U.S. and the world. First, many of the current refugees in the U.S. and those attempting to enter are facing potential removal or denial, despite having already made it to the U.S. or been granted refugee status.[31] These individuals are fearful of the prospect to be forced to return to the warzone or being separated from their families.[32] As a result of this ban and the effects it has had on thousands of individuals, the ACLU and other U.S. lawyers have stepped forward to provide legal support and guidance through the process, as well as declare a legal battle with the Trump Administration.[33] Not only have lawyers stepped up to provide assistance for the refuges and other immigrants, judges across the judicial circuits declared the ban unconstitutional and move for the removal of the order.[34] Unfortunately, many polls have revealed that there are a great deal of U.S. citizens support the ban, creating fiction amongst the population.[35] Not only does Trump receive some support domestically, he is encountering encouragement abroad to continue with such bans.[36] With Trump getting continued support to attempt a new form of the ban both domestically and internationally, it is unlikely that Trump will revoke any such ban, in fact, is more likely to execute more.[37] In the end, the orders from Trump will only hurt the U.S., whether it be domestically or internationally.

In conclusion, the current president of the United States is following through on his promises he declared during his presidential campaign. The United States use to be the positive voice and influence in the world under the Obama Administration. President Obama, to the best of his ability, improved both domestic and international relations of the U.S., always exhausting every prospective outcome to seek out the best action for all parties involved. Now, the progress that has been seen in the last 8 years is unraveling within a matter of months. Within days of his inauguration, the path of destruction began, denying people the right to enter or remain in the U.S., enticing the revoking of trade agreements and potentially alliances, and risking national security with Russia. As discussed, if Trump continues to remain in his position, there is no positive outcome for the U.S. or the world. In fact, it is very likely that we will lose almost all our allies and will end up in war with Russia, China, or a combination of nations that no longer wish to follow the U.S. under its’ current leadership. Therefore, hopefully, either the federal legislative or judicial branches or state governments will rise and halt the destruction. If not, the consequences will be even more severe than they are currently.

Kylie Frantz is the Cite & Source Editor for the Denver Journal for International Law & Policy and a visiting 3L at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, originally from Drake University Law School.

[1] Block Donald J Trump from UK Entry, UK Government and Parliament (June 9, 2016), https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003; Donald Trump UK State Visit to be Debated in Parliament, CNN.com, Jan. 31, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/donald-trump-parliament-state-visit-debate/index.html.

[2] British Lawmakers Debate Banning Donald Trump from the UK for ‘Hate Speech’, CNN.com, Jan. 18, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/europe/uk-parliament-debates-trump-ban/

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] UK Speaker ‘Strongly Opposed’ to Trump Speech in House of Parliament, CNN.com, Feb. 6, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/uk-speaker-opposes-trump-parliament-speech/.

[6] Mexicans March Against Trump: ‘Bad Hombre for the Whole World’, CNN.com, Feb. 13, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/12/americas/mexico-trump-protest/; Mexican President Cancels Meeting with Trump, CNN.com, Jan. 27, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/mexico-president-donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-border-wall/.

[7] David Jackson & Donovan Slack, Trump Soft Pedals NAFTA Criticism with Canadian PM, Says Mexico the Issue,

[8] David Agren, Mexicans March to Protest Trump – But Also Their Own Leaders and Politicians, Wash. post.  (Feb. 12, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/mexicans-march-to-protest-trump–but-also-their-own-leaders-and-politicians/2017/02/12/6cc9b29a-efcc-11e6-a100-fdaaf400369a_story.html?utm_term=.20f86df74b7a.; Mexico Protestors March Against Trump’s Immigration Policies, BBC.com, Feb. 13, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38952359; Mexico: We Will Not Pay for Trump Border Wall, BBC.com, Jan. 26, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38753826.  

[9]  David Agren, Mexicans March, Wash. post.  (Feb. 12, 2017); Mexico Protestors March, BBC.com, Feb. 13, 2017.  

[10] Mexicans March Against Trump, CNN.com, Feb. 13, 2017.

[11]  Mexico Protestors March, BBC.com, Feb. 13, 2017.

[12] Patrick Gillespie, Mexico is Ready to hit the U.S. Where it Hurts: Corn, Money.CNN.com, Feb. 13, 2017, http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/13/news/economy/mexico-trump-us-corn/.

[13] Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Office of the President, Mexico/United States Trade Facts, https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico.

[14] Flynn’s Firing Raises Questions that won’t go Away, The Economist (Feb. 16, 2017), http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21717034-what-are-presidents-ties-russia-and-does-he-have-control-over-his; Major Garrett, Trump Blames Media, Intelligence Community for Flynn Firing, Brushes off Russia Concerns, CBSNews.com, Feb. 16, 2017, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-blames-media-intelligence-community-for-flynn-firing-brushes-off-russia-concerns/.

[15] Flynn’s Firing, The Economist (Feb. 16, 2017); CIA: Russia Interfered with U.S. Elections, Snopes.com, Dec. 10, 2016, http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/10/cia-russia-interfered-with-u-s-elections/; Jeremy Diamond, Russian Hacking and the 2016 Election: What you need to know, CNN.com, Dec. 16, 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/russian-hack-donald-trump-2016-election/.

[16] Flynn’s Firing, The Economist.

[17] Michael S. Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, & Matt Apuzzo, Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence, N.Y. Times (Feb. 14, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html; Erin Kelly, 5 ways Congress is Investigation Russia-Trump ties, USA Today (Feb. 17, 2017), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/17/5-ways-congress-investigating-russia-trump-ties/98001652/.

[18] Steve Holland & Patricia Zengerle, U.S. Lawmakers push for Answers on Trump Team’s Russia ties, Reuters.com, Feb. 16, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-idUSKBN15U1IK.

[19] Christine Hauser, Trump, the Russian Ship, and Suspicious Minds, N.Y. Times (Feb. 16, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/russian-ship-vessel-usa.html; Ryan Browne and Barbara Starr, Russian Spy Ship Lurks off Connecticut Coast, CNN.com, Feb. 16, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/russian-spy-plane-off-connecticut-coast/.

[20] Hauser, Trump, the Russian Ship, N.Y. Times (Feb. 16, 2017).

[21] Id; Browne, Russian Spy Ship, CNN.com, Feb. 16, 2017.

[22] Tal Kopan, Trump’s Executive Orders Dramatically Expand Power of Immigration Officers, CNN.com, Jan. 28, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-immigration-detention-deportations-enforcement/;

[23] Id.

[24] Julia Jacobo & Lauren Pearle, Trump’s Order may mark 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants for Deportation: Experts, ABCnews.com, Jan. 26, 2017, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-order-mark-11-million-undocumented-immigrants-deportation/story?id=45050901.

[25] Id.

[26] Karma Allen, Fearing Deportation, Undocumented Mother of four Takes Refuges in Denver Church, ABCnews.go.com, Feb. 16, 2017, http://abcnews.go.com/US/fearing-deportation-immigrant-mother-takes-refuge-denver-church/story?id=45525882; Astrid Galvan & Jacques Billeaud,  Phoenix Immigrant Mother Deported to Mexico amid Protests, Chi. Tribune (Feb. 9, 2017), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-phoenix-immigrant-mother-deported-20170209-story.html.

[27] Max Ehrenfreund, The Potentially Severe Consequences of Trump’s Deportation Plans, N.Y. Times (Nov. 14, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/14/what-donald-trumps-deportation-plans-would-do-to-american-businesses/?utm_term=.70c47189722a;

[28] Under Trump Order, Immigration Agents raid ‘Target-rich’ communities in Texas, elsewhere, DallasNews.com, Feb. 11, 2017, http://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2017/02/10/trump-order-immigration-agents-raid-target-rich-communities-texas-elsewhere.

[29] Oliver Laughland, Carrie Wong, & Sabrina Siddiqui, ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Endangered by Trump Order Threatening to cut Federal Funds, The Guardian, (Jan. 25, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/sanctuary-cities-trump-executive-order-immigration

[30] Dan Merica, Trump Signs Executive Order to keep out ‘Radical Islamic Terrorists’, CNN.com, Jan 30., 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/index.html.

[31] Id; Krishnadev Calamur, What Trump’s Executive Order of Immigration Does – and Doesn’t Do, The Atlantic Daily (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-muslims/514844/

[32] Jared Malsin, ‘It’s Tearing FaMilies Apart.’ 6 Stories of Lives on hold due to Trump’s visa ban, Time Magazine (Feb. 2, 2017), http://time.com/4649876/donald-trump-visa-ban-executive-order-lives/.

[33] Jonah Engel Bromwich, Lawyers Mobilize at Nation’s Airports After Trump Order, N.Y. Times (Jan. 29, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/lawyers-trump-muslim-ban-immigration.html; Liam Stack, Donations to ACLU and Other Organizations Surge After Trump’s Order, N.Y. Times (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/aclu-fund-raising-trump-travel-ban.html.

[34]  Michael D. Shear, Nickolas Kulish, & Alan Feuer, Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees amid Chaos and Outcry Worldwide, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html.

[35] Scott Clement, Americans are more Split on the Trump Travel Ban Than You Might Think, Wash. Post (Feb. 13, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/americans-arent-rejecting-trumps-immigration-ban-outright-but-it-has-a-tough-road-ahead/?utm_term=.2784814b18e5; Richard Pérez-Peña, Trump’s Immigration Ban Draws Deep Anger and Muted Praise, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/trumps-immigration-ban-disapproval-applause.html.

[36] Pérez-Peña, Trump’s Immigration Ban, N.Y. Times (Jan. 28, 2017).

[37] Id; Shear, Judge Blocks Trump Order, Wash. Post (Feb. 13, 2017).

Posted in 1TVFA Posts, 2Featured Articles, Kylie FrantzComments (0)

University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Posts by Date

May 2018
« Apr