21 January 2022
Novak Djokovic and the Australian Migration System
The cancellation of tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa by the Australian government last week highlighted some of the legal contestations and confusion surrounding vaccination mandates, but also gave a glimpse of Australian migration and public law. There is hope that the proceeding will provide some momentum for the reform of its most controversial aspects. Continue reading >>
0 
29 November 2021
M.H. v. Croatia: Shedding Light on the Pushback Blind Spot
In the recent judgment of M.H. v Croatia, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized for the first time the pushback of migrants and asylum-seekers from Croatia. The case centers around the death of six-year-old Afghan Madina Hussiny, who was struck by a train after she and her family members were denied access to asylum, instructed by police officers to follow train tracks towards Serbia and pushed back from Croatian territory without individualized examinations of their circumstances. Her tragic death in Croatia — like that of Alan Kurdi in Greece or of Mawda in Belgium — put European audiences face-to-face with the unjust and deadly impact of Europe’s immigration policies. Continue reading >>03 March 2021
Harsh immigration policy leads to a historic impeachment trial in Denmark
In early February 2021, the Danish Parliament took the extraordinary step of initiating an impeachment trial against Inger Støjberg, Minister of Immigration between 2015 and 2019. In 2016, the Minister issued a directive about the separation of asylum-seeking couples, where one partner is under 18, without exception, and the administration carried it into effect. This directive was later declared clearly illegal according to both Danish administrative law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Continue reading >>27 August 2020
Why Proceduralism Won’t Save Us from Trump
Can procedural rules rein in the Trump Administration? Many people got their hopes up that they can and will, especially after the United States Supreme Court announced its decision on the DACA rescission. Trump's Department of Homeland Security, however, has announced that it intends to begin dismantling DACA yet again. Continue reading >>
0
19 June 2020
Arbitrary and capricious
On dreamers, Trump, the US Supreme Court and the difference between a Rechtsstaat and an authoritarian regime. Continue reading >>
0
19 June 2020
Willkürlich und launenhaft
Über Dreamer, Trump, den US Supreme Court und den Unterschied zwischen einem Rechtsstaat und einem autoritärem Regime. Continue reading >>
0
19 December 2018
Distracting from the Actual Crisis: The Proposed Asylum Ban
On November 9, 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice issued a joint interim rule in conjunction with a proclamation from the White House seeking to restrict the eligibility of persons applying for asylum protection in the United States. This interim rule, which is currently stayed by federal court litigation, is yet another attempt by the Administration to remove humanitarian protection for the most vulnerable in direct violation of both domestic and international legal obligations. Continue reading >>
0
01 February 2017
Sanctuary Cities and the Trump Administration
The current clash between the Trump administration and the so-called “sanctuary cities” on immigration is not qualitatively new. There have been other attempts by the local level in the United States to position itself as an alternative political force vis-à-vis the federal government. Due to the political style of the new administration and all the drama attached to it, the conflict may, however, reach new simmering heights. It may also be more dangerous for the social cohesion of the United States as a political entity. Continue reading >>
0
04 October 2016
The Invalid Anti-Migrant Referendum in Hungary
After an unprecedented and partially illegal attempt to bring Hungarian voters in line against the EU refugee quota, the referendum launched by the government is invalid, as only around 40 percent turned out to vote. This was an own goal made by the Orbán government, which after overthrowing its predecessor as a result of a popular referendum made it more difficult to initiate a valid referendum. Continue reading >>17 September 2010