The federal government has broad authority over the admission of non-U.S. nationals (aliens) seeking to enter the United States. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may exclude such aliens without affording them the due process protections that traditionally apply to persons physically present in the United States. Instead, aliens seeking entry are entitled only to those procedural protections that Congress has expressly authorized. Consistent with this broad authority, Congress established an expedited removal process for certain aliens who have arrived in the United States without permission.

The first analysis of decisions at all four levels of the asylum adjudication process : the Department of Homeland Security, the immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the United States Courts of Appeals. The data reveal tremendous disparities in asylum approval rates, even when different adjudicators in the same office each considered large numbers of applications from nationals of the same country. After providing a thorough empirical analysis, the authors make recommendations for future reform. From publisher description.

Since its initial publication in 1992, this casebook has been adopted at 172 U.S. law schools. It mixes theory, policy, and politics with practice-oriented materials that deal in doctrine, planning, and problem-solving. The authors make heavy use of policy analysis, fact problems, and simulation exercises. The teacher's manual contains detailed analyses of all the policy questions, fact problems, and simulation exercises, as well as synopses of all the cases, sample syllabi, and other teaching suggestions.The new edition replaces the combination of the 4th edition and the 2007 Supplement. It incorporates the sweeping changes of the past two years.Highlights include:The various elements of comprehensive immigration reformNew policy materials on the immigration debate and official EnglishA revamped chapter on undocumented immigrants, including a new section on the desirability and constitutionality of state and local interventionsNew developments on wor