1. Asad identifies two ways by which Judges justify their decisions in immigration courts. List and explain them. Provide one example of each way as part of your explanation. In your opinion, should Judges continue using both ways to adjudicate cases involving noncitizens or use only one approach (state that particular approach). Justify your opinion relying upon the evidence Asad presents in his paper.
2. Pick a side, and respectfully argue your point out to the following motion: “noncitizens, irrespective of their age, in proceedings in immigration courts should be guaranteed a constitutional right to legal counsel by the federal government.” You can disagree, agree, or stay neutral. Either way, be sure you have clearly argued your point out. Do not forget to rely on the evidence Asad has presented in his paper and evidence in the second youtube video.
3. Based on the materials, explain what the quota system in immigration proceedings means. Be sure to discuss the advantages and disadvantages, and argue whether we should continue using the quota system or not in our immigration courts.
Asad, A. L. (2019). Deportation decisions: Judicial decision-making in an American immigration court. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(9), 1221-1249.
Asad (2019).pdf
Videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfZtqHtNyTYLinks to an external site.????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fB0GBwJ2QALinks to an external site.????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSmSzBwxY0Links to an external site.????
This assignment has two parts: explain Asad’s two ways judges justify immigration-court decisions (with examples and your opinion), and argue a position on whether noncitizens should have a federal constitutional right to counsel. Rely on Asad’s evidence throughout.
Key takeaways
- Identify and explain Asad’s two modes of judicial justification, with an example each.
- Give your reasoned opinion on which approach(es) judges should use.
- Part 2: argue a clear position on the right-to-counsel motion.
- Support both parts with the evidence in Asad’s paper.
- Be clear and respectful in argumentation.
Part 1: Asad’s two modes of justification
List and explain the two ways Asad identifies that immigration judges justify their decisions, giving one concrete example of each as drawn from his paper. Then state your opinion: should judges continue using both, or rely on one (name it)? Justify your view using Asad’s evidence.
Part 2: The right-to-counsel motion
Take a side on whether noncitizens — regardless of age — should be guaranteed a federal constitutional right to legal counsel in immigration proceedings. Build the argument: the due-process and fairness case for guaranteed counsel (complex law, high stakes, children unable to self-represent) versus concerns about cost and immigration law being civil rather than criminal. Agree, disagree, or stay neutral, but argue it clearly.
Format
Rely on the evidence Asad presents, and write respectfully and precisely.
The post Asad identifies two ways by which Judges justify their decisions in immigration courts appeared first on Writeden.