O que o caso Texas vs. Estados Unidos nos dirá sobre o direito de imigração nos Estados Unidos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5102/rdi.v13i2.3901Keywords:
Direito de Imigração, Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, regulamentação, Poder ExecutivoAbstract
O objetivo do texto é apresentar como a política de imigração dos Estados Unidos, estabelecida pelo Poder Executivo, poderá ser impactada por uma decisão do Poder Judiciário. Para tanto, parte do caso Texas vs. Estados Unidos, para explicar o que está em jogo e quais os argumentos constitucionais e de política utilizados por cada parte para tentar derrubar ou manter a política lançada pelo Presidente Obama. Ao final, são ponderadas as preocupações humanitárias refletidas nos Planos do Poder Executivo e as consequências da decisão do Poder Judiciário sobre os direitos humanos.References
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL. Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law. Report 09.09.11. Disponível em: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/understanding-prosecutorial-discretion-immigration-law. Acesso em: 05 jun. 2016.
BUBANY, Charles P.; SKILLERN, Frank F. Taming the dragon: an administrative law for prosecutorial decision. Criminal Law Review, v. 13, p. 473-505, 1976.
CROW, Melissa. Symposium: Back to immigration basics – Why the DAPA/DACA case is simpler than it seems, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 10, 2016, 12:55 PM). Disponível em: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/ symposium-back-to-immigration-basics-why-the-dapadaca-case-is-simpler-than-it-seems/. Acesso em: 20 fev. 2016.
DELAHUNTY, Robert J.; YOO, John C. Dream on: The Obama administration’s non enformcement of immigration laws, the Dream Act, and the Take Care clause. Texas Law Review, v. 91, p. 781- 857
EASTMAN, John. Symposium: Barack Obama is not king, SCOTUSblog. Feb. 11, 2016, 1:19 PM. Disponível em: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/symposium-barack-obama-is-not-king. Acesso em: 20 fev. 2016.
GARVEY, Todd. The Take Care Clause and Executive Discretion in the Enforcement of Law. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, p.1-38, 2014. Disponível em: https:// www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43708.pdf . Acesso em: 20 fev. 2016.
HOEFER, Michael; RYTINA, Nancy; BAKER, Bryan. Estimativa da população de imigrantes sem autorização vivendo nos Estados Unidos. Escritório de Estatísticas do Departamento de Segurança Nacional. Disponível em: http:// www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ ois_ill1pe 2011.pdf. Acesso em: 20 fev. 2016.
MANUEL, Kate M.; GARVEY, Todd. Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Enforcement: Legal Issues. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, p. 1-28, 2013. Disponível em: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924. pdf. Acesso em: 20 fev. 2016.
National Archives and Records Administration. Constituição dos Estados Unidos. Disponível em: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html. Acesso em: 15 jan 2016. NEUMANN JUNIOR, Richard K. The New Era of Administrative Regularization: controlling prosecutorial discretion through the Administrative Procedure Act. University of Daytona Law Review, v. 3, n. 1, p. 23-57, 1978.
OBAMA, Barack. Pronunciamento à nação em 20.11.2014. Disponível em: https://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2014/11/20/remarks-president-address-nation-immigration. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2016.
PAMPLONA, Danielle Anne. O Supremo Tribunal Federal e a decisão de questões políticas. Curitiba: Juruá, 2011.
PEW RESEARCH CENTER. What do we know about illegal immigration from Mexico? Disponível em: http:// www.pewresearch.org/fact-ank/20t15/11/20/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/. Acesso em: 25 jan. 2016.
Supreme Court of the United States. Blog, United States v. Texas. Disponível em: http://www.scotusblog.com/ case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/. Acesso em: 25 fev. 2016.
Supreme Court of the United States. Caso Heckler vs. Cheney. Disponível em: https://supreme.justia.com/ cases/federal/us/470/821/case.html. Acesso em: 15 fev. 2016.
Supreme Court of the United States. Caso Kendall vs. Estados Unidos ex rel. Stokes. Disponível em: https:// www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/37/524. Acesso em: 05 fev. 2016.
Supreme Court of the United States. Caso Texas vs. Estados Unidos. Disponível em: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/. Acesso: em 25 fev. 2016.
SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES. Caso Arizona vs. Estados Unidos. Disponível em: https:// www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182. Acesso em: 25 fev. 2016.
The Supreme Court of United States. Arguments Transcripts. Argument Session: April 18, 2016, p. 46. Disponível em: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-674_h3dj.pdf. Acesso em: 05 jun. 2016.
THE UNITED STATES Department of Homeland Security. Immigration and Nationality Act. Disponível em: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html. Acesso em: 05 jun. 2016.
THE UNITED STATES. Administrative Procedure Act. Disponível em: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.
pdf. Acesso em: 20 fev. 2016.
THE UNITED STATES. The United States Constitution. Disponível em: http://constitutionus.com. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2016.
WADHIA, Shoba Sivaprasad. The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law. 31 Immigration & Nationality Law Review, p. 961-1017, 2010.
WERMUTH, Maiquel Ângelo Dezordi. Direito penal (do autor) e imigração irregular na União Européia: do “descaso” ao “excesso” punitivo em um ambiente de mixofobia. Revista de Direito Internacional, v. 8, n. 2, p. 167-204, 2011. Disponível em: http://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/index.php/rdi/article/view/1548. Acesso em: 05 jun. 2016. WILSON, James. Lectures on Law Part 2, in Collected Works.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright over their work and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which allows others to share the work with acknowledgement of the work's authorship and its initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
