United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 165

AMENDED DECLARATIONS by State of California re 75 . (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Wong, # 2 Amended Declaration of Wong) (Chuang, Christine) Modified on 6/6/2018 (York, M).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California THOMAS PATTERSON Senior Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL NEWMAN SATOSHI Y ANAI Supervising Deputy Attorneys General CHRISTINE CHUANG ANTHONY HAKL CHEROKEE DM MELTON LEE I. SHERMAN Deputy Attorneys General State Bar No. 272271 300 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 269-6404 Fax: (213) 897-7605 E-mail: Lee.Sherman@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Plaintiff, AMENDED DECLARATION OF TOM K. WONG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of California, in his official capacity; and XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez California, in his official capacity, Action Filed: March 6, 2018 Defendants. v. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 I, Tom K. Wong declare as follows: 2 1. 3 4 I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth below. 2. I am an Associate Professor with tenure at the University of California, San Diego 5 (UCSD). I work in the political science department, which is consistently ranked by U.S. News & 6 World Report as one of the top ten political science departments nationally. I am also the Director 7 of the International Migration Studies Program Minor at UCSD. 8 3. I am an expert on immigration. I have written two peer-reviewed books and 9 several peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and reports on this subject. My most recent 10 book analyzes 31,193 roll call votes on immigration-related legislation in Congress from 2005 to 11 present, which makes it the most comprehensive analysis to date on contemporary immigration 12 policies in the United States. 13 4. I received a Ph.D. in political science at the end of the 2010-2011 academic year. I 14 was a post-doctoral research fellow during the 2011-2012 academic year. I joined the political 15 science department at UCSD during the 2012-2013 academic year. I served as an advisor to the 16 White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (WHIAAPI), where I worked 17 on the immigration portfolio, during the 2015-2016 academic year. I was promoted to the rank of 18 Associate Professor with tenure at UCSD during the 2016-2017 academic year. 19 5. 20 this Declaration. Sanctuary Policies 21 22 I have attached a true and complete copy of my curriculum vitae as Exhibit A to 6. Whereas there are no universally accepted definitions of what sanctuary policies 23 are, these policies are generally understood to delimit the conditions under which local law 24 enforcement agencies engage in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Sanctuary policies 25 can, for example, restrict local law enforcement agencies from using resources for the purposes of 26 enforcing federal immigration law. Sanctuary policies can also restrict local law enforcement 27 agencies from responding to notification requests, wherein Immigration and Customs 28 Enforcement (ICE) issues a request to a local law enforcement agency to notify ICE of the 1 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 pending release of a suspected undocumented immigrant at least 48 hours prior to release. 2 Sanctuary policies can also restrict local law enforcement agencies from responding to 3 immigration detainers, wherein ICE issues a request to a local law enforcement agency to keep an 4 individual in custody for up to 48 business hours (and potentially beyond the time they would 5 have otherwise been released). Sanctuary policies can also delimit the conditions under which a 6 local law enforcement agency can transfer an individual into ICE custody. Moreover, sanctuary 7 policies can also delimit the conditions under which a local law enforcement agency can share 8 non-publicly available information about an individual with ICE when doing so is not required by 9 federal law. 10 7. As the California Values Act (SB 54) states, “California law enforcement agencies 11 shall not: Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, or 12 arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes,” which includes detaining an individual on 13 the basis of a hold request, responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or 14 other information unless that information is available to the public, and providing personal 15 information about an individual unless that information is available to the public, subject to 16 certain specified exceptions in the statute. The California Values Act is thus a policy that delimits 17 the conditions under which local law enforcement agencies engage in the enforcement of federal 18 immigration laws. The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy 19 20 8. Debates over sanctuary policies tend to center on the impact that these policies 21 have on crime. Those who are opposed to sanctuary policies often argue that these policies 22 increase crime. However, there is currently no evidence that I am aware of that meets rigorous 23 social science research standards that shows that sanctuary policies increase crime—evidence 24 showing that sanctuary policies increase crime does not exist. In fact, the existing scholarly 25 literature, including my own work, suggests that sanctuary policies can decrease crime, thereby 26 improving public safety. 27 28 9. I recently analyzed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dataset on sanctuary jurisdictions obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The FOIA 2 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 request was filed by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Using these data, I examined the 2 relationship between sanctuary policies and a broad range of indicators, including crime. My 3 results were published in a report entitled, The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the 4 Economy.1 5 10. These data show that crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties 6 compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. Moreover, the data show that economies are 7 stronger in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties—from higher 8 median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance, to higher labor 9 force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment. 11. 10 The FOIA data include 2,492 counties nationwide that ICE distinguishes by their 11 “Current Detainer/Notification Acceptance Status.”2 Of California’s fifty-eight counties, fifty- 12 three are characterized by ICE as either not willing to accept notification or detainer requests. Of 13 these fifty-three: one is characterized as not willing to accept notification and detainer requests; 14 six are characterized as willing to accept detainer requests, but not notification requests; eleven 15 are characterized as willing to accept notification requests, but not detainer requests; and thirty- 16 five are characterized as “Considering, but (currently) not willing to accept (I-247N) Notifications 17 and/or (I-247D) detainers.” The FOIA data were current as of December 2016, which precedes 18 the introduction, passage, and enactment of the California Values Act. Altogether, out of these 19 2,492 counties, 608 are sanctuary jurisdictions, meaning jurisdictions that do not accept 20 notification or detainer requests. Data on crime come from the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting 21 Program and data on social and economic indicators come from the American Community Survey 22 (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. I use coarsened exact matching (CEM) to statistically match sanctuary 23 counties to comparable non-sanctuary counties. CEM is a method used for improving causal 24 inferences that estimates the sample average treatment effect on the treated, or SATT. CEM 25 statistically matches sanctuary counties to comparable non-sanctuary counties; compares 26 27 28 1 Wong, Tom K. 2017. The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy. Center for American Progress: Washington, DC. 2 These counties are home to 92 percent of the total population in the United States and 95 percent of the total foreign-born population in the United States. 3 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 differences in outcomes between sanctuary counties and the matched non-sanctuary counties; 2 allows us to evaluate these differences while controlling for differences in the size of the total 3 population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population 4 that is Hispanic/Latino; and then uses the results of the analysis to estimate the effect that being a 5 sanctuary county has on crime and our other outcomes of interest. 12. 6 The table below reports the results of the CEM analysis. In the table, “SATT” 7 indicates the sample average treatment effect on the treated and “SE” indicates the standard error 8 of the estimate. A p-value of less than .05 is considered statistically significant. 9 10 Crimes Per 10,000 People SATT SE p-value -35.5 5.9 0.000 11 13. 12 The data are clear: crime is lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable 13 non-sanctuary counties. There are 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties 14 compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly statistically significant (p < 15 .001), which means that it is systematic and non-random. 14. 16 This result was reported in the Washington Post in a January 27, 2017 article 17 entitled, “Trump says sanctuary cities are hotbeds of crime. Data say the opposite.” 3 The finding 18 of 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non- 19 sanctuary counties measures crime using both property crimes and violent crimes per the FBI 20 Uniform Crime Reporting Program data. The Washington Post was also specifically interested in 21 murders. After further analyzing the data, the data showed that there were approximately 1 fewer 22 murders per 100,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary 23 counties. 15. 24 These results were also used by the Washington Post in a February 8, 2017 article 25 that fact checked President Trump’s statement that sanctuary policies “breed crime.” The article 26 concludes, “It’s one thing to raise concerns about the impact of sanctuary policies, but Trump 27 3 28 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/27/trump-says-sanctuary-cities-are-hotbeds-of-crimedata-say-the-opposite/?noredirect=on 4 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) (continued…) 1 goes too far declaring that the cities ‘breed crime.’ He not only makes a correlation, but also 2 ascribes a causation, without facts to support either.” 4 16. 3 Whereas my work on the effects of sanctuary policies focuses at the county level, 4 there is other research that shows that there is no statistically significant relationship between 5 sanctuary policies and increased crime at the city level. 5 Regarding research on the effects of 6 sanctuary policies at the city level, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in remarks delivered on July 7 12, 2017, stated, “According to a recent study from the University of California, Riverside, cities 8 with these policies have more violent crime on average than those that don’t.”6 After learning 9 about these remarks, I helped bring them to the attention of the authors of the University of 10 California, Riverside study. The authors quickly penned an article in The Hill writing, “As the 11 lead authors of this study, we find it necessary to address this claim, since it is factually 12 inaccurate […] Our study found no relationship between sanctuary policies and crime […] There 13 was no statistically significant effect for these policies on property crime or violent crime.” 7 14 17. 15 indicators. 16 In addition to crime, my research also examined a range of social and economic SATT Median Household Income 4352.7 Median Household Income—White, non-Latino 2836.1 Median Household Income—Latino 1328.9 Poverty -2.337 Poverty—White, non-Latino -1.361 Poverty—Latino -2.966 Food Stamps/SNAP -2.559 SSI -0.879 Children Under 18 in Households w/Public Assistance -4.967 Labor Force Participation 2.456 Labor Force Participation—White, non-Latino 2.546 Labor Force Participation—Latino 1.241 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SE p-value 575.1 0.000 568.3 0.000 736.4 0.000 0.306 0.000 0.222 0.000 0.721 0.000 0.296 0.000 0.127 0.000 0.548 0.000 0.345 0.000 0.339 0.000 0.741 0.094 24 25 26 27 28 4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/08/trumps-claim-that-sanctuary-cities-breedcrime/?utm_term=.921292fbdf67 5 Gonzalez, Benjamin, Loren Collingwood, and Stephen Omar El-Khatib. “The politics of refuge: Sanctuary cities, crime, and undocumented immigration.” Urban Affairs Review (2017): 1078087417704974. 6 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-delivers-remarks-las-vegas-federal-state-andlocal-law 7 http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/342043-how-conservative-media-and-jeff-sessions-got-it-wrongon 5 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) Employment-to-Population Ratio Employment-to-Population Ratio—White, non-Latino Employment-to-Population Ratio—Latino Unemployment Unemployment—White, non-Latino Unemployment—Latino 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 18. 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.017 Median household income is approximately $4,353 higher in sanctuary counties .001). Median household income for White, non-Hispanic/Latino households is also statistically significantly higher in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. Median household income for Hispanic/Latino households is also statistically significantly higher in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. 19. The poverty rate is approximately 2.3 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly statistically significant (p < .001). The poverty rate for White, non-Hispanics/Latinos is also statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. The poverty rate for Hispanics/Latinos is also statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. 17 18 0.369 0.359 0.733 0.159 0.129 0.425 compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly statistically significant (p < 11 12 3.103 3.165 0.939 -1.056 -0.829 1.015 20. Public benefits usage is also lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 8 usage is approximately 2.6 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly statistically significant (p < .001). Supplemental Security Income (SSI)9 usage is approximately 0.9 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly statistically significant (p < .001). Moreover, the percentage of children under 18 in households with public assistance is approximately 4.9 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly statistically significant (p < .001). 26 27 28 8 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistanceprogram-snap 9 Supplemental Security Income: https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/ 6 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 21. Labor force participation is approximately 2.5 percent higher in sanctuary counties 2 compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly statistically significant (p < 3 .001). Labor force participation is calculated by dividing the number of people who are employed 4 or who are currently looking for work by the working-age population (16 or older). Labor force 5 participation among White, non-Hispanics/Latinos is also statistically significantly higher in 6 sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. While labor force 7 participation among Hispanics/Latinos is, on average, higher in sanctuary counties compared to 8 comparable non-sanctuary counties, this result is not statistically significant (p = .094). 9 22. The employment-to-population ratio is approximately 3.1 percent higher in 10 sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly 11 statistically significant (p < .001). The employment-to-population ratio is calculated by dividing 12 the number of people in the labor force who are employed by the working-age population. The 13 employment-to-population ratio among White, non-Hispanics/Latinos is also statistically 14 significantly higher in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. While 15 the employment-to-population ratio among Hispanics/Latinos is, on average, higher in sanctuary 16 counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties, this result is not statistically significant 17 (p = .200). 18 23. Unemployment is approximately 1.1 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared 19 to comparable non-sanctuary counties. This result is highly statistically significant (p < .001). 20 Unemployment is the percentage of those who are in the labor force, but who are currently not 21 employed. Unemployment among White, non-Hispanics/Latinos is also statistically significantly 22 lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. However, 23 unemployment among Hispanics/Latinos is higher in sanctuary counties compared to comparable 24 non-sanctuary counties, this result is not statistically significant (p = .017). 25 24. 26 • 27 28 Altogether, the data indicate that: Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties; 7 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) • 1 Those who are opposed to sanctuary policies continue to argue that these policies 2 increase crime; however, evidence showing that sanctuary policies increase crime does 3 not exist; • 4 It is important to note that there is also no clear evidence that shows that crime is 5 lower when local law enforcement officials do the work of federal immigration 6 enforcement10; • 7 Local economies—from higher median household income, less poverty, and less 8 reliance on public assistance, to higher labor force participation, higher employment- 9 to-population ratios, and lower unemployment—are stronger in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. 10 The “Chilling Effects” of Interior Immigration Enforcement 11 25. 12 In 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) articulated its 13 position on the role of state, tribal, and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in enforcing 14 federal immigration law as follows: “local law enforcement should not be involved in the 15 enforcement of civil immigration laws since such involvement would likely have a chilling effect 16 on both legal and illegal aliens reporting criminal activity or assisting policy in criminal 17 investigations.”11 18 26. In 2006, the immigration committee of the Major Cities Chiefs Association 19 (MCCA), a professional association that includes many of the largest LEAs in the United States, 20 concluded: 21 “Immigration enforcement by local police would likely negatively effect and 22 undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant 23 communities. If the undocumented immigrant’s primary concern is that they will 24 be deported or subjected to an immigration status investigation, then they will not 25 come forward and provide needed assistance and cooperation. Distrust and fear of 26 27 28 10 Miles, Thomas J., and Adam B. Cox. “Does immigration enforcement reduce crime? Evidence from secure communities.” The Journal of Law and Economics 57, no. 4 (2014): 937-973. See also, Treyger, Elina, Aaron Chalfin, and Charles Loeffler. “Immigration Enforcement, Policing, and Crime.” Criminology & Public Policy 13, no. 2 (2014): 285-322. 11 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=209673 8 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 contacting or assisting the police would develop among legal immigrants as well. 2 Undoubtedly legal immigrants would avoid contact with the police for fear that 3 they themselves or undocumented family members or friends may become subject 4 to immigration enforcement. Without assurances that contact with the police 5 would not result in purely civil immigration enforcement action, the hard won 6 trust, communication and cooperation from the immigrant community would 7 disappear. Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would 8 result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create 9 a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts.”12 10 27. 11 12 Recent research provides evidence of the “chilling effects” described by the IACP and MCCA. 28. 13 I recently conducted a representative survey of undocumented Mexican nationals 14 in San Diego County. 13 The survey was fielded between September 2017 and November 2017 15 and includes 594 respondents. In the survey, I embedded an experiment in order to better 16 understand how interior immigration enforcement impacts undocumented immigrants. In the 17 experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In one group (n = 298 18 respondents), questions were prefaced with, “If the San Diego Police Department and the San 19 Diego County Sheriff’s Department said they WILL NOT WORK WITH ICE on deportation 20 raids, would you be more or less likely to…” In the second group (n = 296 respondents), 21 questions were prefaced with, “If the San Diego Police Department and the San Diego County 22 Sheriff’s Department WERE WORKING TOGETHER WITH ICE on deportation raids, would 23 you be more or less likely to…” An experiment such as this is superior to analyzing observational 24 survey data (i.e., survey data that is not based on an experimental design) because asking 25 12 26 27 28 https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/MCC_Position_Statement.pdf A survey is considered representative if the survey sample accurately reflects the larger population of interest. Representativeness results when the survey sample is randomly selected from the larger population of interest so that each respondent has an equal probability of selection. This requires creating a sample frame (i.e., enumerating the larger population of interest). The sample frame from which respondents were randomly selected includes approximately 73,000 undocumented Mexican nationals in San Diego County. 13 9 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 respondents about one scenario is insufficient for determining how their behavior may or may not 2 change based on the second scenario; asking respondents about one scenario and then the second 3 scenario would likely produce biased results because responses related to the first scenario would 4 likely influence responses to the second scenario (e.g., “I said I would do this in the first scenario, 5 so maybe I should say I wouldn’t do that in the second scenario”); random assignment to one of 6 the two groups balances the two groups across the broad range of covariates (e.g., age, gender, 7 etc.) that need to be controlled for in observational analysis; and random assignment to one of the 8 two groups means that differences in responses can be casually attributed to the variation in the 9 two scenarios (i.e., the treatment effect that results when local law enforcement officials do the 10 work of federal immigration enforcement). Respondents were asked about reporting a crime they 11 witnessed to the police; reporting a crime they were a victim of to the police; using public 12 services that require them to disclose their personal contact information; doing business that 13 requires them to disclose their personal contact information; participating in public events where 14 police may be present; placing their children in after-school or day-care programs (among those 15 with children); and looking for a new job. The table below provides the exact text. 16 If the San Diego Police Department and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department [said THEY WILL NOT WORK WITH ICE] / [WERE WORKING TOGETHER WITH ICE] on deportation raids, would you be more or less likely to… Report a crime that you witnessed to the police? Report a crime that you were a victim of to the police? Use public services (e.g., go to City Hall) that required you to give your personal contact information? Do business (e.g., open a bank account, get a loan) that required you to give your personal contact information? Participate in public events where police may be present? Place your children in an after-school or day-care program? Look for a new job? 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29. If local law enforcement officials “WERE WORKING WITH ICE” to do the work 25 of federal immigration enforcement, 60.8 percent of undocumented immigrants are less likely to 26 report a crime they witnessed to police (p < .001) and 42.9 percent are less likely to report being a 27 victim of a crime to police (p < .001). 28 10 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 30. 1 If local law enforcement officials say “THEY WILL NOT WORK WITH ICE” to 2 do the work of federal immigration enforcement, 71.8 percent are more likely to report a crime 3 they witnessed to police (p < .001) and 70.8 percent are more likely to report being a victim of a 4 crime to police (p < .001). 31. 5 6 These results appeared in the Washington Post in an April 27, 2018 article entitled, “Sanctuary cities don’t ‘breed crime.’ They encourage people to report crime.” 14 32. 7 These results are consistent with the IACP and MCCA positions described above. 8 They are also consistent with previous research that shows that undocumented women who are 9 victims of violent crimes 15 and undocumented women who are victims of sexual assault or 10 domestic violence16 are less likely to report crimes if law enforcement officials are also doing the 11 work of federal immigration enforcement. 33. 12 13 Moreover, if local law enforcement officials “WERE WORKING WITH ICE” to do the work of federal immigration enforcement: • 14 69.9 percent are less likely to “Use public services (e.g., go to City Hall) that required you to give your personal contact information”; 15 • 16 63.9 percent are less likely to “Do business (e.g., open a bank account, get a loan) that required you to give your personal contact information”; 17 • 18 68.3 percent are less likely to “Participate in public events where policy may be present”; 19 • 20 42.9 percent are less likely to “Place your children in an after-school or day-care program” (among those with children); and 21 22 • 23 34. 52.1 percent are less likely to “Look for a new job.” These results are also consistent with a growing number of studies on how interior 24 immigration enforcement impacts undocumented immigrants. Several of these studies examine 25 14 26 27 28 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/04/24/sanctuary-cities-dont-breed-crime-theyencourage-people-to-report- crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8360b5956ae5 15 Messing, Jill Theresa, David Becerra, Allison Ward-Lasher, and David K. Androff. “Latinas’ perceptions of law enforcement: Fear of deportation, crime reporting, and trust in the system.” Affilia 30, no. 3 (2015): 328-340. 16 Vishnuvajjala, Radha. “Insecure communities: how an immigration enforcement program encourages battered women to stay silent.” Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice 32, no. 1 (2011). 11 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) (continued…) 1 the impact of state-level laws. For example, research on California’s Proposition 187, which was 2 passed in 1994, showed that tuberculosis patients who feared that going to a physician would 3 result in an immigration enforcement action were four times more likely to delay seeking care. 17 4 Research on Arizona’s SB 1070 showed that Mexican-origin adolescent mothers were less likely 5 to take their babies to the doctor following the passage of the law in 2010 18 and that SB 1070 6 negatively affected health-seeking behaviors among Hispanics/Latinos by increasing fear, 7 decreasing resident’s mobility, and by decreasing trust in public institutions. 19 Similarly, research 8 on Alabama’s HB 56 showed a decline in the use of county public health services among 9 undocumented immigrants in the wake of the passage of the law in 2011, including services for 10 communicable diseases and sexually transmitted infections, even though the utilization of these 11 services was allowed under the law.20 Other studies have examined the impact of local policies, 12 such as the 287(g) program. For example, a study of the public health effects of the local 13 implementation of the 287(g) program found that Hispanic/Latino expectant mothers sought 14 prenatal care later during pregnancy, and with lower quality care, than non-Hispanic/Latino 15 expectant mothers.21 More generally, research has shown how fear of separation due to 16 deportation can have far-reaching and negative impacts not only on undocumented immigrants, 17 but also on American citizen children in mixed-status families. As it relates to health, research has 18 shown that fear of deportation decreases Medicaid use among the eligible American citizen 19 children of noncitizen parents. 22 As it relates to education, research has shown that children in 20 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Asch, Steven, Barbara Leake, and Lillian Gelberg. “Does fear of immigration authorities deter tuberculosis patients from seeking care?” Western Journal of Medicine 161, no. 4 (1994): 373. 18 Toomey, Russell B., Adriana J. Umaña-Taylor, David R. Williams, Elizabeth Harvey-Mendoza, Laudan B. Jahromi, and Kimberly A. Updegraff. “Impact of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law on utilization of health care and public assistance among Mexican-origin adolescent mothers and their mother figures.” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. S1 (2014): S28-S34. 19 Hardy, Lisa J., Christina M. Getrich, Julio C. Quezada, Amanda Guay, Raymond J. Michalowski, and Eric Henley. “A call for further research on the impact of state-level immigration policies on public health.” American Journal of Public Health 102, no. 7 (2012): 1250-1253. 20 White, Kari, Justin Blackburn, Bryn Manzella, Elisabeth Welty, and Nir Menachemi. “Changes in Use of County Public Health Services Following Implementation of Alabama’s Immigration Law.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 25, no. 4 (2014): 1844-1852. 21 Rhodes, Scott D., Lilli Mann, Florence M. Simán, Eunyoung Song, Jorge Alonzo, Mario Downs, Emma Lawlor et al. “The impact of local immigration enforcement policies on the health of immigrant Hispanics/Latinos in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health 105, no. 2 (2015): 329-337. 22 Vargas, Edward D. “Immigration enforcement and mixed-status families: The effects of risk of deportation on Medicaid use.” Children and Youth Services Review 57 (2015): 83-89. 12 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) (continued…) 1 mixed-status families face greater barriers to educational success 23; that the American citizen 2 children of undocumented parents often share the risks and limitations associated with 3 undocumented immigration status24; and that the stress caused by immigration raids can sap the 4 attention of students and thus affect their academic performance. 25 5 35. 6 • Altogether, the data indicate that: When local law enforcement officials do the work of federal immigration 7 enforcement, undocumented immigrants are less likely to report crimes to the police, 8 even when they are victims; • 9 The chilling effects that result when local law enforcement officials do the work of 10 federal immigration enforcement are far reaching: 69.9 percent are less likely to “Use 11 public services (e.g., go to City Hall) that required you to give your personal contact 12 information”; 63.9 percent are less likely to “Do business (e.g., open a bank account, 13 get a loan) that required you to give your personal contact information”; 68.3 percent 14 are less likely to “Participate in public events where policy may be present”; 42.9 15 percent are less likely to “Place your children in an after-school or day-care program” 16 (among those with children); and 52.1 percent are less likely to “Look for a new job. • 17 A growing body of evidence makes clear that interior immigration enforcement has 18 negative implications for a wide range of help-seeking behaviors—for example, 19 inhibiting access to critical health services—which not only affects undocumented 20 immigrants, but American citizen children in mixed-status families. Conclusion 21 36. 22 There is no clear evidence to suggest that sanctuary policies “breed crime” (or that 23 crime is lower when local law enforcement officials do the work of federal immigration 24 enforcement). 25 26 27 28 23 Mapp, Susan, and Emily Hornung. “Irregular immigration status impacts for children in the USA.” Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 1, no. 2 (2016): 61-70. 24 Enriquez, Laura E. “Multigenerational Punishment: Shared Experiences of Undocumented Immigration Status Within Mixed‐Status Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 77, no. 4 (2015): 939-953. 25 Capps, Randolph, Rosa Maria Castaneda, Ajay Chaudry, and Robert Santos. “Paying the price: The impact of immigration raids on America’s children.” (2007). 13 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 2 3 37. Instead, the data show that crime is lower in sanctuary counties compared to comparable non-sanctuary counties. 38. Moreover, when undocumented immigrants are told that local law enforcement 4 officials are “NOT WORKING WITH ICE on deportation raids,” they are more likely to report 5 crimes they witness, as well as crimes they are victims of, to police. 6 39. This affirms the position of the IACP and the MCCA: when undocumented 7 immigrants feel secure enough to cooperate with law enforcement, it makes it easier for law 8 enforcement officers to do their jobs. 9 10 11 40. Thus, by delimiting the conditions in which local law enforcement officials in California will work with ICE, laws such as the California Values Act can improve public safety. 41. Furthermore, as research continues to uncover how interior immigration 12 enforcement impacts not only undocumented immigrants, but also American citizen children in 13 mixed-status families, it is becoming increasingly clear that laws such as the California Values 14 Act—by mitigating the negative implications on help-seeking behavior among undocumented 15 immigrants, which results when local law enforcement officials do the work of federal 16 immigration enforcement—can positively affect the lives of all Californians. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 18 true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 31, 2018 in San Diego, California. 19 20 ______________________________ TOM K. WONG 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 Am. Decl. of Tom K. Wong in Supp. of Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) EXHIBIT A Wong: CV (9/2017) TOM K. WONG, PH.D. Email: tomkwong@ucsd.edu | Google Voice: (619) 354-9913 Website: www.tomwongphd.com | bit.ly/tomkwong_citations ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS 2017 - ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, POLITICAL SCIENCE University of California, San Diego 2012 - 2017 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, POLITICAL SCIENCE University of California, San Diego OTHER POSITIONS 2013 - DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION STUDIES PROGRAM MINOR University of California, San Diego 2016 ADVISOR, IMMIGRATION PORTFOLIO WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON ASIAN AMERICANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS EDUCATION 2011 PH.D. IN POLITICAL SCIENCE University of California, Riverside Focus in Comparative Politics, International Relations, and Research Methods Dissertation: Immigration Control in the Age of Migration 2005 B.A. IN POLITICAL SCIENCE University of California, Riverside Focus in International Relations Magna Cum Laude BOOKS (2) Tom K. Wong. 2016. The Politics of Immigration: Partisanship, Changing Demographics, and American National Identity. Oxford University Press. NPR, ABC News/Yahoo.com, LA Times, Univision, Monkey Cage (1) Tom K. Wong. 2015. Rights, Deportation, and Detention in the Age of Immigration Control. Stanford University Press. Oxford Law blog JOURNAL ARTICLES (7) Tom K. Wong, Angela Garcia, and Carolina Valdivia. forthcoming. “The Political Incorporation of Undocumented Youth,” Social Problems (conditional accept). (6) Tom K. Wong and Hillary Kosnac. 2017. “Does the Legalization of Undocumented Immigrants in the US Encourage Unauthorized Immigration from Mexico? An Empirical Analysis of the Moral Hazard of Legalization,” International Migration vol. 55 no. 2: 159-173. i Wong: CV (9/2017) (5) Tom K. Wong and Angela Garcia. 2016. “Does Where I Live Affect Whether I Apply? The Contextual Determinants of Applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),” International Migration Review vol. 50 no. 3: 699-727. C-Span, Associated Press (4) Tom K. Wong, Donald Kerwin, Jeanne M. Atkinson, and Mary Meg McCarthy. 2014. “Paths to Lawful Immigration Status: Results and Implications from the PERSON Survey,” Journal of Migration and Human Security vol. 2 no 4: 287-304. NBC News.com (3) Tom K. Wong. 2014. “The Politics of Interior Immigration Enforcement,” California Journal of Politics and Policy vol. 6 no 3: 381-399. (2) Tom K. Wong and Justin Gest. 2013. “Organizing Disorder: Indexing Migrants’ Rights and International Migration Policy,” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal vol. 28 no 1: 257-269. (1) Tom K. Wong. 2012. “The Politics of Interior Immigration Control in the United States: Explaining Local Cooperation with Federal Immigration Authorities,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies vol. 38 no. 5: 737-756. BOOK CHAPTERS (4) Tom K. Wong. 2014. “Conceptual Challenges and Contemporary Trends in Immigration Control.” In Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective (3rd edition), edited by James F. Hollifield, Philip Martin, and Pia Orrenius. Stanford University Press. (3) Tom K. Wong. 2014. “Nation of Immigrants or Deportation Nation? Analyzing Deportations and Returns in the United States, 1892-2010.” In The Nation and Its Peoples: Citizens, Denizens, and Migrants, edited by John S.W. Park and Shannon Gleeson. Routledge. (2) James F. Hollifield and Tom K. Wong. 2014. “The Politics of International Migration: How Can We ‘Bring the State Back In’?” In Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines (3rd edition), edited by Caroline B. Brettell and James F. Hollifield. Routledge. (1) Karthick Ramakrishnan and Tom K. Wong. 2010. “Partisanship, Not Spanish: Explaining Municipal Ordinances Affecting Undocumented Immigrants.” In Taking Local Control: Immigration Policy Activism in U.S. Cities and States, edited by Monica W. Varsanyi. Stanford University Press. WORKS UNDER REVIEW/IN PROGRESS (SELECTED LIST) Tom K. Wong and Justin Gest. “Looks Skin Deep: Do Immigrant Legislators Better Represent Immigrant Interests?” Tom K. Wong and Carolina Valdivia. “In Their Own Words: A Nationwide Survey of Undocumented Millennials,” Working Paper 191, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. New York Times, Washington Post, The Hill, La Opinión, Univision, NBC News.com Tom K. Wong. “President Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration and the 2016 Presidential Election.” This project uses a nationally representative survey of Latinos (n = 820) and Asians (n = 950) fielded in late to analyze how knowing someone who is undocumented and potentially eligible for legal ii Wong: CV (9/2017) status via programs like DAPA affects the civic engagement of Latino and Asian citizens. The survey was fielded by GfK and commissioned w/Dan Hopkins and Efren Perez. Tom K. Wong. “Mobilizing Low-Propensity Voters of Color” and “Governing Diversity.” These projects examine how demographic changes are reshaping the American electorate and how policymakers are responding. The former project includes multiple voter mobilization experiments utilizing direct voter contact run during the 2016 presidential cycle. These experiments analyze interventions designed to convey the urgency of voting to Latino, Asian, and immigrant-origin voters using political discourse around immigration policy and refugee admissions. w/Justin Gest. “International Migrants Bill of Rights.” This project aims to create cross-national indicators on government respect for and recognition of the human rights of migrants. Funding from the World Bank (obtained by Gest) will be used to pilot a 58 item index across 5 countries. REPORTS Tom K. Wong et al. 2017. DACA Recipients’ Economic and Educational Gains Continue to Grow. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Tom K. Wong. 2017. The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Tom K. Wong et al. 2016. New Study of DACA Beneficiaries Shows Positive Economic and Educational Outcomes. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Tom K. Wong et al. 2015. Results from a Nationwide Survey of DACA Recipients Illustrate the Program’s Impact. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Tom K. Wong. 2014. Statistical Analysis Shows that Violence, Not Deferred Action, Is Behind the Surge of Unaccompanied Children Crossing the Border. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Tom K. Wong et al. 2013. Undocumented No More: A Nationwide Analysis of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. C-Span, Associated Press OTHER PUBLICATIONS Tom K. Wong. 2017. “The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy,” Migration and Citizenship: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Migration and Citizenship vol. 5 no. 2. James F. Hollifield and Tom K. Wong. 2012/2013. “International Migration: Cause or Consequence of Political Change,” Migration and Citizenship: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Migration and Citizenship vol. 1 no. 1. Tom K. Wong. 2012. “The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.” In The Encyclopedia of Transitional Justice, edited by Lavina Stan and Nadya Nedelsky. Cambridge University Press. Karthick Ramakrishnan, Dino Bozonelos, Louise Hendrickson, and Tom K. Wong. 2008. “Inland Gaps: Civic Inequalities in a High Growth Region,” Policy Matters vol 2 no 1. iii Wong: CV (9/2017) Karthick Ramakrishnan and Tom K. Wong. 2007. “Immigration Policies Go Local: The Varying Responses of Local Governments to Undocumented Immigration.” Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity, and Diversity. Working Paper Series on Immigration. RESEARCH GRANTS (AS A FACULTY MEMBER) • • • • • • • • • • • • $341,127, Multiple Funders, “U.S. Immigration Policy in the 21 st Century,” 2017-2019 $22,500, UCSD USMEX Fellowship, 2016-2017 $16,000, UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, 2015-2016 $365,000, MacArthur Foundation, 2015-2017 (partially awarded, terminated after the DAPA program was enjoined by the Supreme Court) $25,000, UCSD Frontiers of Innovation Scholars Program Grant, 2015-2016 $15,000, UCSD Faculty Career Development Program Grant, 2014-2015 $30,000, Unbound Philanthropy, 2014 $100,000, Department of Homeland Security, 2013 $30,000, Center for American Progress, 2013 $10,000, UCSD Center for International, Comparative, and Area Studies Grant, 2013 $10,000, UCSD Academic Senate, 2013 $1,500, UCSD Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Grant, 2013 TEACHING AT UCSD • • • • • • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Teaching Award, 2014-2015 The Politics of Immigration (upper-division, 280 students) International Human Rights Law: Rights of Migrants (upper-division, 200 students) The Politics of Multiculturalism (upper-division, 100 students) Immigration Politics and Policy (graduate seminar, 4 students) Undergraduate Honors Seminar (upper-division, 15 students) INVITED PRESENTATIONS (SELECTED) 2018 | “Migrant Rights Database.” Comparative Politics Workshop, University of Chicago, April 25, 2018. Author Meets Critics. Center for the Study of International Migration, UCLA, March 2, 2018. 2017 | “The Future of U.S. Immigration Policy in the Age of Trump.” Citizenship and Equality Colloquium, University of Colorado, November 16, 2017. “The Determinants and Effects of Sanctuary Policies.” Cornell University, November 9-10, 2017. “The Determinants and Effects of Sanctuary Policies.” Presentation at the 2017 APPAM Fall Research Conference, Chicago, IL, November 2-4, 2017. iv Wong: CV (9/2017) “Immigration and the U.S. Constitution.” Seminar at the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution at James Madison’s Montpelier, Orange, VA, July 31-August 2, 2017. “The Determinants of U.S. Immigration Policy.” University of California, Santa Barbara, June 1, 2017. “Paths to Legal Status for Undocumented Immigrants.” Presentation at the CLINIC annual conference, Atlanta, GA, May 25, 2017. “The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy.” Presentation at the Sanctuary Cities Convening, New York City Council, New York, NY, March 27-28, 2017. “The Future of U.S. Immigration Policy in the Age of Trump.” Yankelovich Center for Social Science Research, University of California, San Diego, March 15, 2017. “Child Migration.” World Migration Report workshop, International Organization for Migration (IOM) Geneva, Switzerland, March 9-10, 2017. “The Politics of Immigration.” American Academy of Arts and Sciences, San Diego Program Committee, University of California, San Diego, February 9, 2017. 2016 | “Post-Election Panel.” Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS), University of California, San Diego, November 21, 2016. “Mobilizing Immigrant Communities in the Age of Trump.” Tulane University, October 14, 2016. “Immigrant Integration and the Obama Administration: DACA, DAPA, and Implications for the 2016 Presidential Election.” Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UCLA, April 28, 2016. “Mobilizing Low-Propensity Voters of Color: Towards an Electorate That Reflects a Changing America.” Presentation at the Asian Americans Advancing Justice conference, Los Angeles, CA, March 31, 2016. “Immigrants in American Society.” Presentation at KPBS, San Diego, CA, March 21, 2016. “Immigration Policy.” Presentation to Mi Familia Vota, Riverside, CA, January 14, 2016. 2015 | “The European Refugee Crisis.” Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS), the European Studies Program, the Lifelong Learning Program of the EU, and the Scholars Strategy Network (SSN), University of California, San Diego, October 27, 2015. “U.S. Immigration Politics and the 2016 Presidential Election.” Presentation at the Wilson Center, Washington DC, October 26, 2015. “The Political Incorporation of Undocumented Youth.” Presentation at the “Challenging Borders” conference, University of California, Riverside, October 23, 2015. “The Consequences of Inequality: Why Does it Matter and How.” Symposium on Capital in the 21st Century with Thomas Piketty, University of California, San Diego, October 22, 2015. v Wong: CV (9/2017) “U.S. Immigration Politics and Policy.” Presentation at the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana, October 13, 2015. “UC National Summit on Undocumented Students.” University of California Office of the President, May 7-8, 2015. “Irregular Migration.” Presentation at the “Politics and Policies of International Migration: Europe and the U.S.” conference, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, April 28-29, 2015. “Opportunities and Limits of the Executive Actions Proposed by President Obama.” Presentation at the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico City, Mexico, April 13-14, 2015. “Administrative Relief Implementation and Impact Project.” Presentation at the Center for Migration Studies (CMS), New York, NY, March 25, 2015. “Research Roundtable.” Presentation at the “Ready America: Implementing Immigration Action” conference, Washington DC, February 9-11, 2015. 2014 | “Insights from Implementing DACA for Administrative Relief.” Presentation at the National Immigrant Integration Conference, Los Angeles, CA, December 16, 2014. “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” American Immigration Council (AIC), Washington, D.C., November 7, 2014. “Immigration Policy and the November 2014 Midterm Elections.” California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC), October 29, 2014. “The Many Paths to Legal Status: Results and Implications from the PERSON Survey.” Presentation to the Center for Migration Studies (CMS), New York, NY, September 29, 2014. “The Congressional Politics of Interior Immigration Enforcement.” Presentation at the “Migration During Economic Downturns” workshop, German Historical Institute, Washington, DC, April 4-5, 2014. “Mapping DACA Renewals.” Presentation to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), March 13, 2014. “Latino Politics: Left, Right, or Down the Middle?” Presentation at the Hispanic Radio annual conference, San Diego, CA, March 10, 2014. 2013 | “Undocumented No More: A Nationwide Analysis of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS), University of California, San Diego, October 2, 2013. “DACA Turns 1.” Presentation at the Center for American Progress, Washington, DC, August 15, 2013. [Televised on CSPAN] “The Prospects for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” Presentation at the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico City, Mexico, August 12, 2013. vi Wong: CV (9/2017) “A Look at the Stats: How Will Congressional Representatives Vote on Comprehensive Immigration Reform?” Presentation at the “Changing Face of America” conference, University of California, Berkeley, May 3, 2013. “Will Comprehensive Immigration Reform Pass? Predicting Legislative Support and Opposition to CIR.” Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS), Univeristy of California, San Diego, April 29, 2013. “Race, Ethnicity, the 2012 Elections, and the Politics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” Presentation at the Beyond the Headlines speaker series, UCLA, February 26, 2013. “International Migrants Bill of Rights (IMBR) Initiative.” Georgetown Law School, Washington, DC, February 8-9, 2013. 2012 | “Immigration Policy After the 2012 Elections.” Center for the Study of International Migration, UCLA, November 16, 2012. “PBS Need to Know 2012 Election Special: America by the Numbers.” Presentation for KPBS at the Jo and Vi Jacobs Center, San Diego, CA, October 10, 2012. “Immigrants in American Society.” Presentation at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) field office, Dallas, TX, March 6, 2012. 2011 | “The Radical Right and the Politics of Immigration Control in Europe.” University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, June 16-17, 2011. “Conceptual Challenges and Contemporary Trends in Immigration Control.” Presentation at the “Immigration Policy in an Era of Globalization” conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, TX, May 18-20, 2011. “Enforcing Like a State: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Politics of Immigration Control.” Presentation at the University of California Center for New Racial Studies conference, UCLA, April 21, 2011. “Immigration Enforcement in the Age of Obama.” Center for Ideas and Society, University of California, Riverside, March 8, 2011. 2010 | “The Politics and Determinants of Immigration Control: Evidence from 25 ImmigrantReceiving Democracies.” Department of Political Science and the Center for Research on Immigration, Population, and Public Policy, University of California, Irvine, December 1, 2010. “States, Irregular Migrants, and a Theory of Selective Immigration Control: Evidence from European Gateway Cities.” Presentation at the “Beyond Arizona: Laws Targeting Immigrants in the US and Europe” conference at the Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity, and Diversity, University of California, Berkeley, October 25, 2010. 2009 | “Immigration Control in Industrialized Democracies: What Explains Their Variations.” Presentation at Metropolis, an initiative of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ottawa, Canada, December 2, 2009. vii Wong: CV (9/2017) PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES • • • • • • • • • • • • Reviewer: National Science Foundation, American Journal of Political Science, American Politics Research, Du Bois Review, International Migration, International Migration Review, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, Journal of Politics, Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, Law & Social Inquiry, Political Research Quarterly, Russell Sage Foundation, Social Identities, Social Problems Advisory Board, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS), 2012-present Advisory Board, Integrated Voter Engagement study, 2016-present Advisory Board, Unbound Philanthropy, 2015-2017 APSA, Executive Committee, Migration and Citizenship Section, Treasurer, 2012-2015 APSA, Migration and Citizenship Section Program Chair, 2018 Editorial Board, Journal of Migration and Human Security (JMHS), 2014-present Editorial Board, Politics, Groups, and Identities (PGI), 2016-present Executive Committee, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS), 2015-present MPSA, International Relations and Domestic Politics Section Program Chair, 2016 WPSA, (Im)Migration and Citizenship Section Program Chair, 2015, 2017 WPSA, Dissertation award committee, 2016 viii

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?