The Rutgers Law Record

Rhetorical strategies, themes, and interpretive framing allow the speaker to control the narrative when presenting oral testimony in asylum cases. These formal elements help structure traumatic events and memories into a coherent story that will engage the judge and enable the court to see the situation from the asylum seeker’s worldview. In the context of asylum applications, even the most deserving claimant may be unable to deliver their testimony in a coherent or compelling manner without the assistance of an effective advocate, due to the severe trauma that he or she experienced – and the trauma that he or she must once again undergo by having to retell and relive these experiences in the courtroom. It is crucial, therefore, that immigration lawyers acting in these proceedings consciously utilize these rhetorical techniques in order to facilitate the delivery by their clients of narratives that are credible, humanizing, and persuasive to the court. It is equally important that the lawyers representing the Department of Homeland Security be sensitized in this area so they are able to separate out any genuine issues of material fact and law critical to a fair analyzation of the asylum claim.

View the entire article –>

In today’s internet driven world, virtual sports tournaments where competitors from across the globe use exercise machines connected via cyber technology are becoming increasingly popular. These competitions, in which athletes can participate from afar, have the potential to increase inclusion for athletes with disabilities. However, many virtual athletic competitions currently fall short of the mandate that organizers accommodate and reward disabled athletes in ways comparable to nondisabled athletes. Specifically, disabled athletes are far too often not equitably categorized into competitive classifications according to their impairments and disabilities. This discriminatory practice affects notions of fairness for disabled athletes. This note is the first to shed light on the regulatory and legal aspects of virtual sport tournaments and aims to recommend policy to ensure equity in those competitions for disabled athletes. Almost thirty years have passed since Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which recognizes that “physical and mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society.” The Paralympic Movement is also very clear about the importance of comparable opportunities for disabled and nondisabled athletes as essential for the inclusion of the former and for reducing disability stigma. We argue that when competition and award categories are delineated across nondisabled sports, it is imperative that opportunities are mirrored for disabled athletes.

View the entire article –>

This article compares and contrasts the cases of immigrant narratives within the United States and the Dominican Republic; as well as the socioeconomic changes that have sparked a backlash among populations ostensibly aggrieved due to globalization and immigrants showing up in their communities. The political leadership in both countries supports their constituents’ grievances against immigrants, who fear the loss of their historical privilege as the demographics in their country are at an alleged tipping point. This article highlights the policies, legislation, and discourses that have targeted immigrants and their children, and discusses the cross-pollination of ideas among xenophobic political movements across the Global North.

View the entire article –>

The movement about open access to scientific knowledge has inspired many important discussions among policy makers. Under the backdrop of this movement is an increasing realization that the trajectory of innovation for modern technologies is cumulative as new innovations rely on taking advantage of what came before. Institutional theories have identified two essential requirements for cumulative innovation: disclosure and access. In 1962, Kenneth Arrow first recognized that the patent marketplace is an important venue where exchanges of innovative ideas occur. However, because of high transaction costs in patent licensing, access to patented knowledge is often impeded. Previous literatures have largely focused on modifications to patent law doctrines, such as patent scope or infringement remedy, to promote cumulative innovation. This article instead argues that a patent pool, a different type of institution for innovation, can spur cumulative innovation by facilitating access to patented knowledge. The article explains that a patent pool reduces transaction costs of patent licensing by aggregating related patents and centralizing licensing negotiations. Moreover, because creating a patent pool as a common knowledge space requires collaboration among patent owners, the success of a patent pool often depends on whether patent owners can overcome collaborative failures. The collective action theory, which identifies appropriation and provision as two essential issues for collaboration, provides the basic framework for the design of patent pools. This article will then offer three main design suggestions: (1) appropriation limitation is not necessary for the long-term sustainability of a patent pool; (2) in order to induce patent owners to join a patent pool, a patent pool should establish mechanisms that fairly allocate licensing revenue and reduce transaction costs of licensing; and (3) grant-back provisions are desirable to prevent a patent pool from becoming obsolescent.

View the entire article –>

In January 2017, bail reform went into effect in New Jersey, turning the system from a resource-based assessment to a risk-based assessment. Indigent defendants, who previously could not post bail for minor crimes committed in the state, are no longer detained just because they cannot afford to pay. However, also in January 2017, President Donald Trump’s strict policies against undocumented immigrants went into effect. Since then, the priority to remove people from the country has increased and thus the number of immigration arrests has also increased. Formerly, undocumented immigrants who could not post bail and were convicted of crimes would serve their sentence before the removal process was started. But now, individuals who are released under the reformed bail policy are being picked up by immigration officials and possibly removed from the country before their criminal cases are resolved. This will result in some victims failing to get justice, which is ironic because the president has also created a special office for victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. This issue also puts some undocumented immigrants at a strange, unique advantage over American citizens who have no choice but to face their criminal charges and face the punishment that comes with their conviction.

This note will first discuss the old and new bail systems in New Jersey and explain why there was reform. The second section provides an overview of the deportation process for undocumented immigrants subjected to immigration detainers under both President Obama’s and President Trump’s enforcement policies. The last section is an analysis of how bail reform and President Trump’s immigration policies affects the criminal justice system within the context of undocumented immigrants.

View the entire article –>