Michael Gillman
Persons within Our Jurisdictions: the Illegal Immigrant’s Struggle for Justice
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," these words from Martin Luther
King, Jr. were penned as part of a reflection on justice in America as he sat in a cell in a
Birmingham jail.1 These words call out to humanity to be in solidarity with the suffering of the
vulnerable. At a more basic and practical level, they are warning to American society that
injustice should not be tolerated. The table could feasibly be turned and one might find oneself
on the wrong side of a lynch mob, or a jail cell, or a citrus grove. The 253 years of American
history has shown us that there is a pattern of the exploitation of classes for the benefit of the rich
and powerful. The American Indians have felt and continue to feel the sting of injustice and
subjugation. The same can be said of the African-Americans. Today, the exploited class is the
undocumented worker. This underclass of people is subjected to heinous examples of abuse and
exploitation. To make matters worse, these people are politically powerless and economically
devastated. To complete the cruel treble of helplessness, the immigrants suffer from a severe lack
of access to justice in the court system.
"Equality under the law" is the motto that is engraved on the American temple of justice.
This guiding principle of the American court system seeks justice that is impartial with regard to
financial, social, or ethnic/racial status. Unfortunately, the reality in America falls far short of
this noble ideal. An examination of the abuse and exploitation that is face by illegal immigrants
will show that they are members of a class that is most in need of justice in our society. Next, it
is worthy to investigate the barriers that have been placed in the path of the undocumented
1
Martin Luther King Jr., The Quotations Page, http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Martin_Luther_King_Jr./ (accessed
May 1, 2009).
1
workers. The final section will focus on the possible steps that could be taken to ensure that at
least more equality under the law is achieved.
The undocumented workers of America are in a precarious place. Because of their legal
status they intentionally operate in the shadows of our society. Thus, much of the injustice is kept
secret from the society at large. Immigrants are also deterred from bringing the injustice to light
in a judicial setting out of fear of deportation. I will address this fear further later on. The secret
unjust structures are also kept hidden intentionally by a largely apathetic public and a
uninterested media. When media attention is paid to the immigrant it seems to be in the format
adopted by talking heads such as Lou Dobbs who warn that our porous borders are causing a
national crisis. Meanwhile, in fields, factories, and sweatshops around the country, millions of
workers suffer in silence.
In 1960, CBS and Edward R. Murrow produced a TV documentary entitled, Harvest of
Shame. The camera crews and newsmen traveled to Belle Glade, FL to uncover the horrendous
living and working conditions of the African-American farm workers. They were living in
extreme poverty and degradation.2 One grower described the situation thus, “we used to own our
slaves, now we just rent them.”3 With the advent of the civil rights movement and the de facto
extension of the franchise to African-Americans, such unjust labor practices were no longer
acceptable. The large growers were able to survive, however, with the mass migration of a new
disposable work force: the illegal immigrant.
There was a preacher in Wimauma, FL who wanted to evangelize to a group of
farmworkers in a nearby field. When he approached their trailer, he noticed that the door had
2
Christine Evans, "Load of 'Shame' has shifted," Palm Beach Post, December 7, 2003,
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/ content/moderndayslavery/reports/belleglade1207.html (accessed May 1, 2009).
3
Leonard Doyle, "Slave labour that shames America," The Independent,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ slave-labour-that-shames-america-765881.html (accessed May 3,
2009).
2
been padlocked from the outside and the windows had been nailed shut. The farmworkers had
been locked into their hovel and were not allowed to come out. When the preacher asked why
they weren't allowed out, one of the workers told him that the contractor had bought them from a
coyote. The preacher eventually contacted the contractor who basically echoed the same story.
The workers owed him money and they weren't allowed to leave until the debt had been settled.
The preacher tried to pursue legal avenues to punish the contractor but his attempts were too late
and the migrant workers had followed the harvest to another state.4
Another story comes from a young woman who had been sexually assaulted out in the
fields where she worked. Though the attacker ran away before raping her, the woman was
seriously traumatized. Unfortunately, the woman spoke a rare Guatemalan dialect and no
translator could be found. The police officer in charge of her case worked hard to pursue the case
and find the victim but he had been fired from his job as a farmworker. In a cruel twist, the girl
who was assaulted was also fired.5
These woeful stories have no indication of being isolated incidents. They were told to
reporters of the Palm Beach Post who were conducting an exposé on the plight of illegal
immigrant workers in rural Florida. National research also shows signs of exploitation. One
study has shown that male, Mexican, legal immigrants make 41.8% more than illegal Mexican
immigrants. For women the numbers are essentially the same: legal Mexican immigrants make
40.8% more than those that are illegal. That same study has shown that legal Mexican
immigrants have better English skills, more education, and have lived in the United States for a
longer period of time as compared to illegal Mexican immigrants. This may seem to undercut the
4
John Lantigua, "Labor Under Lock and Fist," Palm Beach Post, November 7, 2003,
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/ moderndayslavery/reports/slave1207.html (accessed May 3, 2009).
5
Jane Daughterty and Christine Evans, "Sex slavery, rape await defenseless," Palm Beach Post, December 7, 2003,
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/moderndayslavery/reports/sex1207.html (accessed May 3, 2009).
3
impetus of the study, but the researchers also found that these job readiness factors only
accounted for 48.7% of the wage gap that was discovered (43% for women). The study
concluded that there was convincing evidence of systematic wage discrimination based on legal
status.6
It is clear that the illegal immigrant population is the target of great exploitation and
abuse, especially the rural farmworkers of Florida. In light of the gross injustice, some may be
surprised to know that illegal immigrants do, indeed, have many Constitutional rights. Illegal
immigrants have right to bring suit in court, including against their employers. They are
included in the definition of “employees” in federal labor laws, such as the National Labor
Review Act.7 The Supreme Court, in the case of Plyler v. Doe, strongly reaffirmed that illegal
immigrants were considered “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment. This meant that they
would be protected from state laws that sought to deny them “due process” or “equal protection
of the laws.” Plyler involved a Texas state law the withheld funding from school districts that
were allowing illegal immigrant children to attend public school. The state would disburse the
funds if the school districts charged the students tuition or if they simply barred them from
attending. Texas argued that the illegal immigrants should not be considered persons as it relates
to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court whole-heartedly rejected this claim and made a point
to indicate that “within the jurisdiction” was meant to be understood in geographic terms. That is,
if a person is inside the borders of the state then that state may not deny that person the due
process or equal protection. The Court ruled in favor of the immigrant children and invalidated
6
Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz, "Undocumented workers in the labor market:
An analysis of the earnings of legal and," Journal of Population Economics 12
(1999):112, http://www.search.ebscohost.com (accessed May 2, 2009).
7
Neil A. Friedman, "A Human Rights Approach to the Labor Rights of
Undocumented Workers," California Law Review 74, no. 5 (October 1986):pp.1717-1718, 10.2307/3480456
(accessed May 1, 2009).
4
the Texas school district funding scheme.8 This may have only been a pyrrhic victory for the
rights of illegal immigrants. The Court would not grant the “suspect class” distinction to illegal
immigrants. If a “suspect class,” such as a particular race, has been discriminated against by a
state statute, then the state must show that the statute was “narrowly tailored” to fit a
“compelling state interest.” When the Court applies this “strict scrutiny,” legislative acts are
almost always invalidated.9 The Court found that illegal immigrants cannot be considered a
suspect class because they willfully chose to break the law. They did recognize that the children
of the illegal immigrants had no choice in the matter and should therefore not suffer from their
parents’ sins. The Court recognized that there was no fundamental right to education either
implicitly or explicitly provided for in the Constitution. However, they did distinguish education
as being more important and more fundamental to American ideals than other social benefit
programs such as welfare and social security. Considering the innocence of the children and the
importance of education, the Court applied intermediate scrutiny finding that the consequences
of not educating an entire class of people could not be justified by a cost-saving argument put
forth by the State of Texas.10 The impact of this decision was no doubt groundbreaking. The
children of illegal immigrants would now be allowed to attend schools all over the country.
However, the precedential impact of the case is that laws discriminating against illegal
immigrants will not receive strict judicial scrutiny. Rather, these laws will be reviewed using the
lowest level of scrutiny, the rational-basis review. Under this level, the state statute must be
8
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202
9
Randall Walton Bland, Constitutional Law in the United States (San Francisco: Austin & Winfield, 1999), 592
10
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202
5
“rationally related” to a “legitimate” state interest. Most laws that are reviewed under this level
of scrutiny are upheld.11
This decision has allowed states to deny illegal immigrants discretionary social services
because of the distinction that is made about education. Unfortunately, the children who are
innocent suffer from a lack of a vital social safety net. This sad fact seemed to have escaped the
Court. Children with citizen status have access to welfare and Medicaid but the children of
illegal aliens do not. This does not seem to be in keeping with the text nor the spirit of the
Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection clause, which states that a state must not “deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Notice, there is nothing about
citizen status or whether or not the laws are constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the state.
It is less than convincing to argue that it is permissible to discriminate between poor sick
children based on legal status. Would this nation tolerate the denial of state benefits to children
who have parents that are felons? Surely not.
However, the application of rational basis scrutiny does not indicate a death sentence for
the rights of illegal immigrants. Some state statutes have been struck down even when the lowest
level of scrutiny is applied.12 In United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, the court
ruled that a restriction of the food stamps program that only allowed households comprised of
related peoples to receive aid was ruled unconstitutional under rational basis review. The Court
looked to the legislative history of the bill and found that the statute was meant to deny food
stamps to hippies who were living together. The Court saw no reason for such a statute except to
harm a politically unpopular group. The cost savings argument was not sufficient to justify the
11
Bland, 592
12
Melanie E. Meyers, "Impermissible Purposes and the Equal Protection
Clause," Columbia Law Review 86, no. 6 (October 1986): 1187, 10.2307/ 122656 (accessed May 2, 2009).
6
state action.13 Then in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, the court ruled that a law
requiring a special permit to build and operate a home for the mentally retarded was struck down.
The Court viewed the statute as mere reproduction of societal prejudices that were present in the
Cleburne property owners.14 In Romer v. Evans, a gay man sued the state of Colorado after a
constitutional amendment made it illegal for a local government to institute a policy that forbid
employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The state argued that they were trying to
protect the religious convictions of employers in the state. The Court saw this argument as
unconvincing and irrational. The Court again deemed the force behind the law to be one that
seeks to harm a particular minority group.
These cases are a glimmer of hope for the Constitutional claims of illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately, developments in the last five years have further complicated the Constitutional
issues in regards to illegal immigrants. Historically, illegal immigrants have been granted the
workplace rights that citizens enjoy. They are able to bring suit against employers in order to
seek damages due to illegal or negligent labor practices. However, the issue was complicated in
2002 when the Court handed down their decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v.
National Labor Relations Board. This case involved an illegal immigrant who was fired for
participating in union activities, a clear violation of federal labor laws. The man who was fired
then sought to receive back pay for lost wages as a result of his illegal dismissal. An
administrative law judge ruled that this back pay could not be awarded because it contradicted
the Immigration Reform and Control Act. This law makes it illegal to knowingly hire an illegal
immigrant and, also, for an illegal immigrant to produce false documents in order to secure
13
Robert I. Correales, "Workers' compensation and vocational rehabilitation benefits for undocumented workers," Denver
University Law Review 81, no. 2 (Winter 2003), http://wf2dnvr11.webfeat.org/ (accessed May 2, 2009).
14
Meyers, 1188
7
employment. The National Labor Review Board reversed this decision citing previous policy
that held that the most effective way to enforce the IRCA was to compel employers to treat all
their employees the same. The decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court.15
The Court ruled, by a 5-4 decision, that the awarding of backpay would be to contradict
the IRCA. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist reasoned that the continued illegal
presence of the dismissed worker in the country does not allow him to accumulate backpay
because his employment was illegal in the first place. He argued that allowing backpay in this
case “would encourage the successful evasion of apprehension by immigration authorities,
condone prior violations of the immigration laws, and encourage future violations.” The Hoffman
decision, however, did seek to limit its general reach. Justice Rehnquist asserted the NLRB’s
authority to impose other sanctions on Hoffman Plastic Compounds thereby affirming the fact
that illegal immigrants do have workplace rights regardless of the way in which they may have
obtained their employment.16
The Harvard Law Review described the interests at stake in this case as a balancing
between immigration enforcement and the labor rights of undocumented workers.17 In the case
of Hoffman, the Court yielded to enforcement interests. The result of this decision has had a
rippling effect in State courts, and as many scholars feared, the impetus of the decision reached
beyond NRLB’s power with respect to remedial penalties.18 Many state courts have held, based
on the Hoffman decision, that the IRCA exempts State laws that may provide for any type of lost
15
16
Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB 535 U.S. 137
Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB 535 U.S. 137
17
Harvard Law Review Editorial Staff, "Developments in the Law: Jobs and Borders ," Harvard Law Review 118, no. 7 (May
2005), 2221 http://wf2dnvr11.webfeat.org/ (accessed May 2, 2009).
18
Ibid 2229
8
wages.19 These decisions move outside of the realm of the workplace. A man in Florida was
injured while operating a forklift and decided to sue pursuant to products liability law. The
district court ruled that, since he was not a legal resident, to reward any future lost wages would
be a violation of the IRCA.20 Many other decisions have limited the rights of illegal immigrants
to seek lost wages because of a presumed preemption of IRCA.
Another unintended effect of the Hoffman decision has the potential to seriously limit the
illegal immigrant’s access to the court system. Because the legal status of a plaintiff is relevant
to the awarding of backpay or lost wages, the determination of legal status has become part of
the discovery procedures. Considering this fact, employers and their lawyers can now
effectively use the threat of deportation as a way of deterring claims.21 The effect of employers’
attorneys being able to inquire as to the legal status of their employee in litigation has had a
chilling effect throughout the country. Also, though it is illegal for an employer to threaten to
deport employees if they bring suit against him, an employer can now skirt this law by telling his
employees that they will be compelled to provide proof of their legal status if they pursue
litigation.22 Illegal immigrants who were already wary of bringing suit against employers will
now most likely choose not to. If they can be deported as a result of the litigation then it is not
worth the trouble.23 Legal scholars have suggested that Fifth Amendment rights extended into
labor law proceedings.24 This would allow undocumented workers to protect themselves from
self-incrimination. The reach of the Hoffman case has yet to be determined, but a few courts have
19
Ibid 2229
Harvard 2231
21
Harvard 2234
20
22
Keith Cunningham-Parmeter, "Fear of discovery: immigrant workers and the Fifth Amendment," Cornell International Law
Journal 41, no. 1 (Winter 2008): 47
23
24
Ibid 30
Ibid 30
9
stretched beyond its logical underpinnings. A landscaping employee in New York brought suit
against his boss for not paying him for work that he had done. The court ruled that because the
employer/employee contract was illegal, the worker could not claim the wages. This emerging
legal landscape is very hostile toward illegal immigrants. Without a clear pronouncement from
the Supreme Court on the rights of illegal immigrants, this atmosphere of hostility is likely to
continue. The lower courts took a relatively limited decision in Hoffman and have used it to all
but deny all workplace rights to illegal immigrants. These decisions and implications create
serious barriers to justice for undocumented workers.
The state courts had expanded the ruling to deny illegal immigrants awards that state
statutes had provided them. The balance between labor rights and immigration enforcement is
being overcome by enforcement justifications. The logical next step is for state legislatures to
enact law that denies immigrant rights in the workplace in the name of curbing illegal
immigration. Many states have explicitly excluded illegal immigrants from their state workers’
compensation programs.25 The unique structure of workers’ compensation programs is worth
noting here. In most states, the employers purchase insurance from private companies who have
been contracted by the state to carry out the program. The employers pay for the insurance by
increasing the cost of the good produced or the service rendered, or by decreasing the wages of
their workers. The inclusion of illegal immigrants in workers’ compensation programs has no
economic effect on the state.26 Therefore, it would be hard to argue this case in an equal
protection setting using precedent that the state may restrict social programs to only citizens. The
question then arises: what is the purpose of excluding illegal immigrants from these programs?
State courts should not be able to apply a stretched thin preemption argument based on Hoffman.
25
26
Correales 378
Correales 409
10
That decision involved the awarding of payment to a worker that he could have earned had he
not been fired. For good reason, there is no precedent for revoking the earned wages of an illegal
immigrant. Workers’ compensation accrues to the worker at the moment of his injury.27
This exclusion of undocumented workers would be hard to justify constitutionally. The
state may argue that the Court’s ruling in Hoffman precludes the inclusion of illegal immigrants
in a state worker’s compensation program because the paying out of a claim would be a violation
of the IRCA. Based on the logic of some same court decisions, this argument may be valid. The
real distinction between Hoffman and workers’ compensation is the difference between pay that
has been earned through work and backpay for missed work (due to an illegal firing). As was
noted before, workers’ compensation would have already been paid for the particular employee
and may even been taken out of his or her paycheck. The workers’ compensation is owed to the
employee when he or she is injured. To deny workers’ compensation to that employee would be
the taking of a benefit that was earned by work. Normally, a business would want to include all
of its employees in a workers’ compensation program because it protects the employee from
potentially costly lawsuits. Unfortunately, illegal immigrants are not only reluctant to bring suit
but they are often unable to for financial reasons. The employers know this and consider it a
reasonable risk. The Equal Protection clause should prohibit this exclusion, even while applying
the rational basis test. The law seeks to exclude a class of people from a state program without a
legitimate state interest. Unless the immigration deterrent rationale for creating a dangerous
work environment can possibly be considered legitimate. The fact that these laws have not been
struck down exposes some harsh truths about the illegal immigrant’s access to the courts.
27
Ibid 412
11
Another, perhaps more daunting, barrier is the economic disadvantage of the illegal
immigrant in the civil court system. Leaving their countries of origin because of a lack of
economic options, the vast majority of illegal immigrants have very little money. Launching a
civil suit can be very expensive. It is estimated that Americans spend $90 billion a year on
private legal fees.28 With this exorbitant spending, the poor are at a distinct disadvantage in civil
proceedings. Even the middle class are underserved because of financial limitations. Research
suggests that between 40% - 60% of the civil needs of the middle class are unmet for this reason.
For the poor, an estimated 80% are not addressed.29 Taking into account the deterrent factors
that dissuade illegal immigrants from pursuing civil actions and the lack of disposable income, it
seems reasonable to suggest that the illegal population is especially underserved.
Congress has put into effect measures that would increase representation for the poor. In
1974, the Legal Services Corporation was established in order to narrow the gaping financial gap
in the civil courts system. This organization awards federal funds to localized legal aid groups in
a competitive grant format.30 In 1996, Congress passed legislation that imposed restrictions on
the way the federal dollars could be spent. One of the restrictions denied the use of federal
funding in the representation of illegal immigrants.31 This legislation also significantly cut the
budget of the LSC32 and required that the federally funded programs be “physically and
28
Deborah L. Rhode, "Access to Justice in the United States," in The State of Access: Success and Failure of Democracies
to Created Equal Opportunities, ed. Jorrit De Jong and Gowher Rizvi (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press, 2008),
245.
29
Ibid 229
30
"LSC: What is LSC?" LSC: America's Partner For Equal Justice, http://www.lsc.gov/about/lsc.php (accessed May 3,
2009).
31
David S. Udell, "The Legal Services Restrictions: Lawyers in Florida, Virginia, and Oregon describe the costs," Yale Law
and Public Policy review 17 (1998): 338
32
"Legal Services Corporation: Appropriation Acts and Conference Reports FY 1996-2007," Legal Services Corporation:
America’s Partner for Equal Justice, https://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/LSCAppropriations1996-2007.pdf (accessed May 3,
2009). page 3
12
financially separate” from those activities that are not eligible for federal funds.33 These
restrictions have imposed great burdens on legal aid organizations because if they want to
continue to serve illegal immigrants then they are required to purchase new facilities. They also
have an increase in administrative costs as a result of the required separation. In fact many legal
aid organizations were no longer able to provide representation to illegal immigrants because of
the increased cost.34 Additionally, the legislation also restricted the claim on attorneys fees that
could be awarded to attorneys engaged in cases funded by the LSC.35 These legal fees were used
to cover the costs of running the organizations and not necessarily for the compensation of
attorneys.36 Companies no longer had as much of a disincentive to pursue litigation against a
poor person. If a corporation knows that they will not have to pay legal fees to the defendant’s
attorney then they are more likely to pursue litigation that they normally would avoid.37 This, of
course, requires the legal aid community to spend additional money to defend their clients
against such badgering litigation. At the time that the 1996 restrictions went into effect, Florida
Rural Legal Services had over 4,000 clients who were not citizens.38 All of these clients had to
look for representation elsewhere. Unfortunately, the overall effect of the separation
requirements and attorney’s fees restrictions greatly decreased the amount of money that was
available for legal aid, in general. This has effectively destroyed an immigrant’s access to justice.
There is a bill pending in Congress that would greatly reduce the harmful impact that the
1996 legislation has had on the legal aid community. This bill would increase the funding to
33
Udell, 338,339
Udell, 348, 351
35
Ibid, 356
36
Ibid, 359
37
Ibid, 359,360
38
Ibid, 356
34
13
$750,000,000 a year for the next five years.39 This number is equal to the real dollar amount that
was budgeted for the program in 1981.40 The bill also removes the restrictions on the collection
of attorney’s fees.41 If passed, these changes will greatly increase the access to the civil courts for
the poor. Regrettably, the restrictions on representation of illegal immigrants will be
maintained.42
There is not a class of people in America who face more serious problems accessing
justice than the illegal immigrant population. They are discriminated against in the distribution of
public benefits, excluded from workers’ compensation programs, denied federally funded legal
aid, and not granted the right to counsel in deportation hearings. All these factors keep illegal
aliens in poverty and susceptible to abuse and exploitation at the hands of their employers. The
federal government has chosen not to enforce the illegal immigration laws that are on the books.
It is not ethical to continue a policy of denial of rights and unjust working conditions in order to
discourage illegal immigration. Moreover, despite the deplorable circumstances that many illegal
immigrants face, there has been no indication that the creation of a hostile work environment has
stopped the flow of illegal immigration.
In order to live up to the ideal of “equal justice under law,” this country must seriously
consider the plight of the undocumented workers. The Supreme Court jurisprudence, subsequent
state court decisions, state laws, and federal policies have created an atmosphere where justice is
most unequal. The Supreme Court must rediscover its unique ability to defend the rights of
people when a society is intent on denying those rights. In 1954, the Court made a distinct break
39
"Text of S.718 as Reference Change Senate - Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009," OpenCongress,
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s718/text (accessed May 3, 2009).
40
"Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009," Brennan Center for Justice,
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/ civil_access_to_justice_act_of_2009/ (accessed May 3, 2009).
41
Ibid
42
"Senate measure improves access to civil justice for low income Americans," Tom Harkin: Iowa's Senator,
http://harkin.senate.gov/pr/ p.cfm?i=310576 (accessed May 3, 2009).
14
from its previous equal protection jurisprudence. In Brown vs. Board of Education, they declared
that “separate is inherently unequal,” in direct contradiction to the ruling Plessy v. Ferguson. It is
time for the Court to send out another bold and largely unpopular decision that will give illegal
aliens the equal protection of the laws that they deserve.
Bibliography
Bland, Randall Walton. Constitutional Law in the United States . San Francisco: Austin & Winfield, 1999.
“Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009.” Brennan Center for Justice. http://www.brennancenter.org/
content/resource/civil_access_to_justice_act_of_2009/ (accessed May 3, 2009).
Correales, Robert I. “Workers’ compensation and vocational rehabilitation benefits for undocumented
workers: reconciling the purported conflicts between state law, federal immigration law, and
equal protection to prevent the creation of a disposable workforce.” Denver University Law
Review 81, no. 2 (Winter 2003). http://wf2dnvr11.webfeat.org/ (accessed May 2, 2009).
Cunningham-Parmeter, Keith. “Fear of discovery: immigrant workers and the Fifth Amendment.” Cornell
International Law Journal 41, no. 1 (Winter 2008).
Daughterty, Jane, and Christine Evans. “Sex slavery, rape await defenseless.” Palm Beach Post,
December 7, 2003. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/moderndayslavery/reports/
sex1207.html (accessed May 3, 2009).
Doyle, Leonard. “Slave labour that shames America.” The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/
news/world/americas/slave-labour-that-shames-america-765881.html (accessed May 3, 2009).
Evans, Christine. “Load of ‘Shame’ has shifted.” Palm Beach Post, December 7, 2003.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/moderndayslavery/reports/belleglade1207.html
(accessed May 1, 2009).
Friedman, Neil A. “A Human Rights Approach to the Labor Rights of Undocumented Workers.” California
Law Review 74, no. 5 (October 1986): 1717-1718. 10.2307/3480456 (accessed May 1, 2009).
Harvard Law Review Editorial Staff. “Developments in the Law: Jobs and Borders .” Harvard Law Review
118, no. 7 (May 2005). http://wf2dnvr11.webfeat.org/ (accessed May 2, 2009).
15
King, Martin Luther, Jr. The Quotations Page. http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/
Martin_Luther_King_Jr./ (accessed May 1, 2009).
Lantigua, John. “Labor Under Lock and Fist.” Palm Beach Post, November 7, 2003.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/hp/content/moderndayslavery/reports/slave1207.html
(accessed May 3, 2009).
“Legal Services Corporation: Appropriation Acts and Conference Reports FY 1996-2007.” Legal Services
Corporation: America’s Partner For Equal Justice. https://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/
LSCAppropriations1996-2007.pdf (accessed May 3, 2009).
“LSC: What is LSC?” LSC: America’s Partner For Equal Justice. http://www.lsc.gov/about/lsc.php
(accessed May 3, 2009).
Meyers, Melanie E. “Impermissible Purposes and the Equal Protection Clause.” Columbia Law Review 86,
no. 6 (October 1986): 1184-1209 . 10.2307/1122656 (accessed May 2, 2009).
Rhode, Deborah L. “Access to Justice in the United States.” In The State of Access: Success and Failure of
Democracies to Created Equal Opportunities, edited by Jorrit De Jong and Gowher Rizvi, 229-249.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press, 2008.
Rivera-Batiz, Francisco L. “Undocumented workers in the labor market: An analysis of the earnings of
legal and.” Journal of Population Economics 12 (1999): 112. http://www.search.ebscohost.com
(accessed May 2, 2009).
“Senate measure improves access to civil justice for low income americans.” Tom Harkin: Iowa’s Senator.
http://harkin.senate.gov/pr/p.cfm?i=310576 (accessed May 3, 2009).
“Text of S.718 as Reference Change Senate - Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009.” OpenCongress.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s718/text (accessed May 3, 2009).
Udell, David S. “The Legal Services Restrictions: Lawyers in Florida, Virginia, and Oregon describe the
costs.” Yale Law and Public Policy review 17 (1998): 337-368.
16