NL&partners Studio Legale

06/04/2021

Under Italian law, a divorce is the legal dissolution of the marriage, which puts an end to the spouses’ legal duties and responsibilities deriving from the marriage (Giambrone). Italian divorce law is heavily regulated by the Italian Civil Code in an overarching no - fault system, and anyone may apply for divorce in Italy if the marriage took place there or if one of the parties is Italian or a resident in Italy (Giambrone). For situations which involve one or more foreign citizen residing in Italy, who were either married in another country or represent multiple nationalities, in the case of divorce, foreign national and supranational EU law may take precedence over Italian law (Boccadutri).
There are two types of legal separation in Italy, and divorce proceedings can occur by mutual agreement or on a contested basis. In either case, the couple must appear before the president of the Italian local court with an official statement of separation, after which a choice of reconciliation or a formal separation for one year will be granted (Giambrone). Legal separation does not terminate the marriage, it does however apply to the separation of joint ownership of assets between parties (Giambrone). Furthermore, under legal separation granted by the local court the duty of cohabitation under the matrimonial home is interrupted and the duty of marital fidelity is no longer applicable (Giambrone). Consensual separation stems from a mutual agreement between husband and wife, which then must be approved by the court (Giambrone). Judicial separation, on the other hand, involves court hearings where discussions are initiated before an agreement is reached, in which the judge determines which spouse is responsible for the failure of the marriage (Giambrone). In the former case, both the spouses agree on the terms of the divorce before filing a joint application for divorce with the court (Giambrone). Within the judicial separation proceedings, parties come to a temporary
determination of their personal and financial circumstances (Giambrone). Through the process of court hearings, necessary interim orders related to the attribution of the family home, custody and visitation rights, and ancillary relief will also be made (Giambrone).
In the cases where marriages were celebrated abroad between Italian citizens, or between foreign citizens residing in Italy, or between an Italian and a foreign citizen, or else between partners with more than one citizenship, EU regulation will begin to take precedence (Boccadutri). Such marriages are regulated in Italy by law 218 of 1995, integrated by European Regulation n.1259 of 2010 (Boccadutri). Transnational marriages are primarily regulated based on the principal locus regit actum, or by the laws of the place in which they were celebrated (Boccadutri). Furthermore, law 218/1995 of the regulation of marriages is also applicable to divorces for foreign citizens residing in Italy or Italian citizens residing abroad (Boccadutri).
Through the integration of European Regulation 1259/2010, a single set of rules were established for determining which national law to apply to proceedings for divorce or judicial separation in cases involving spouses of multiple nationalities and residencies (“Applicable Law on Divorce and Judicial Separation”). If the spouses do not choose the law that should apply to their divorce or judicial separation, the case will be subject to the law of the country. However, spouses may enter into a formal agreement choosing which national law shall apply to their divorce or judicial separation (“Applicable Law on Divorce and Judicial Separation”). For instance, in cases of consensual divorce, divorce can be regulated by the applicable law of the country where couples have spent most of their married life, the law enforced in the country where the couple have resided in their last period together if at least one of the spouses still resides there when they apply for divorce, and the law of the country of which at least one of the spouses has citizenship at the beginning of the divorce procedures (Boccadutri).
The law of the country where the divorce application is filed is more often utilized in contested judicial proceedings of the country of origin (Boccadutri). In case of judicial divorce, the law of the country where both spouses have usual residency takes precedence over other sources of law (Boccadutri). The law of the country where spouses last resided together, unless more than one year has passed from the time they resided there to the divorce application, and provided that one of the spouses still resides there, and the law of the country of which both spouses are citizens at the moment of their divorce application are most applicable for contested transnational divorces (Boccadutri). More specifically, because Italian divorce is preceded by legal separation and not all countries apply the same rule, those who reside in Italy but married in a country that allows couples to divorce without going through the legal separation phase, may divorce before an Italian judge by way of foreign decision (Boccadutri). They may do so if they submit a consensual request to end their marriage without undergoing a legal separation.
Ultimately, provided that the following measures of Article 64 under Law 218/1995 are met, a foreign decision declaring a divorce is recognized in Italy without the need for any further proceedings (Russo, Andrea and Benedetta Rossi). The judge who issued the decision must have been empowered to do so, the defendant was notified of the proceedings and their right to a defense was not violated, the parties appeared before the court and the trial is not defective according to the foreign local law, the decision is no longer appealable under the foreign local law, the decision is not contrary to another non-appealable Italian decision, there are no Italian proceedings still pending between the same parties concerning the same matter, and the decision does not go against the rules of Italian public order (Russo, Andrea and Benedetta Rossi).
Moreover, the matter only needs to be brought before the Court of Appeal if the foreign decision is not recognized, the recognition is challenged, or enforcement of the foreign decision
is required (Russo, Andrea and Benedetta Rossi). The requirements for official recognition of a divorce in Italy, evaluated by an Italian judge, will only not be recognized if a judgement is irreconcilable to judgements given in previous proceedings in Italy, or contrary to public policy (Russo, Andrea and Benedetta Rossi). Most importantly, pending separation proceedings will be halted, and therefore if a foreign divorce is at one point not admissible in any current EU member state, the Italian court of appeal can directly declare divorce, to show that the marital bond between the spouses is terminated (Russo, Andrea and Benedetta Rossi).
(article by Allace Miklautz, trainee at NL&partners Studio Legale).

19/06/2020

How Pandemics Affect the Movement of People
Pandemics, by nature, thrive on the movement of people. They require vulnerable people to contract the disease then travel to a new area and infect that native population. Therefore, both immigration and even temporary travel over borders will generally be the first thing affected by policy efforts to halt the spread of the virus. The evolution of epidemiology, the study of the spread and control of diseases, has demonstrated that a disease must be both contagious and deadly to become a pandemic. Viruses can only be stopped by collective international action to stop the spread, rendering the attempts of individual cities and countries to hinder the movement of people ineffective in stopping the broader spread of the disease as each country is able to protect its citizens in any way they see fit in order to prevent the spread of illness.
Historically, policy related to pandemics is not able to be made into a full law because the pandemic will be faster than the legislative process. Therefore, much of the measures set in place by governments are temporary and not as absolute as a law but must be followed by citizens nonetheless. Before the creation of the World Health Organization (WHO), there was neither an international body dedicated to solving the problem of pandemics nor were governments making laws on how to deal with them which left individual communities to use their discretion in stopping the spread. Epidemics originating on foreign soil tend to be accompanied by the idea that immigrants are spreading the virus to the native-born citizens.
In the summer of 1916, Polio broke out in New York City despite having been around for thousands of years as there was evidence that it existed during the time of the Egyptians. The Italian and Eastern Europen Jewish communities in New York were specifically targeted in these attempts to pin the expedited rate of infection within the United States borders on an immigrant group despite a lower contraction rate than the native-born US citizens. There was no halt to immigration but rather an addition to the nationalism, anti-Italian, and anti-Semitism that those communities faced. In 1955, the shot version of the polio vaccine was made available and the disease has been eradicated in the majority of the world. In order to travel or even go to school, it is required to have the polio vaccine, and many countries require that it is administered to people who are travel from areas where it is still prevalent.
In 1918, the Spanish Influenza originated mainly from the agricultural centers of the United States despite some of the earliest cases in Spain itself. The disease then spread around the world as a result of the influx of immigrants entering the country as well as the constant movement of soldiers during World War I. The virus attacked mostly healthy young people and was fairly contagious. It attacked immigrant communities as they tended to live in very cramped spaces but did not slow the influx of immigrants overall. The disease screening processes to enter the United States and other countries become more robust but there was no serious legislation to enforce those subtle changes.
The World Health Organization was created in 1948 to create an international body that was dedicated to assessing public health risks and issuing guidelines that helped to rectify the problem to countries. Their original mission was threefold: to control epidemics, to provide field services, and to regularize the medical equipment available internationally. They focused on malaria, venereal diseases, infant mortality, and tuberculosis. The purpose of the WHO was to issue guidelines that helped countries to improve the public health of their nation, to prevent pandemics, and to help contain them when they do break out. However, the member states of the organization are not required to heed any of the advice that the WHO gives them.
The created the Global Public Health Intelligence Network in 1997 to monitor the internet (i.e.blog post or social media share) for any sign of an epidemic that has not been published publically by a national government. They designed this program after an Ebola outbreak went on for three months in 1995 in the Congo unbeknownst to the WHO. In addition, the Global Outbreak Alert Response Network provides emergency response teams to prevent the spread of disease which are facilitated by local medical programs around the world. The WHO has standardized international coordination to prevent pandemics and promote strong global public health in place of the scattered individual response that was commonplace before their creation.
After the creation of the World Health Organization, there were a number of new pandemics that took the world by storm and shaped the way the organization runs today. In 1981, there were some cases of HIV/AIDS amongst the homosexual community in San Francisco and Los Angeles which would soon spread to the rest of the country and then the world. The virus is thought to have originated from a similar virus strain in West Africa. There were earlier cases in the 1950s and 60s but they did not become epidemics like the outbreak in the 1980s. This disease created both anti-immigrant and anti-gay sentiment which made federal action slow and ineffective. In 1987, there was a ban placed on people who were HIV-positive attempting to enter the United States for any purpose which was not lifted until 4 January 2010. However, after the ban was lifted people stopped being checked as widely which can lead to a spike in cases. By testing universally and treating people, the stigma and the contraction rates will dramatically decrease. There was little funding and research for vaccines or cures on the virus until it began affecting children who received it from their parents or through blood transfusions. The WHO began a comprehensive plan in 1987 -- 6 years after the first outbreak -- to help fundraise, raise awareness, put together legislative policy, and fight the virus itself. Migrants tend to have a larger risk of contracting the HIV virus in their home countries due to stigma, and lack of resources. Before 2015, the majority of migrants with HIV had it prior to immigrating; however, recent cases amongst migrant communities are contracted in their host countries despite knowing what they have to do to protect themselves from the virus. The stigma, coming from immigration bans and lack of action, attached to using HIV preventive measures and services can often be a deterrent to migrants.
In 2003, the SARS outbreak (a related strain to COVID-19) gave the world a taste of an international respiratory pandemic. The original cases were reported in 2002 but the outbreak began in March 2003. There was a travel alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) placed on Hong Kong, Guangdong Province in China which spread around the world due to travelers coming from those areas. On 29 March the travel advisory is moved to all of mainland China and Singapore. Testing began on all passengers and crew members who were both shipping goods and traveling commercially from those areas. On 22 April 2003, the CDC issued a travel advisory fro Toronto, Canada after there was an outbreak in a hospital there. On 5 July 2003, the WHO announced that the virus was contained despite no blanket travel bans on travelers from those areas. The Bush administration approved the use of force to detain passengers who could possibly carry SARS despite allowing them to enter the country. The method of intercepting incoming flights and testing passengers allowed the US and Canada to prevent large scale outbreaks without having to ban anyone from moving around the world. Testing everyone who could have contact with the virus then treating them immediately proved to be the most effective route.
In terms of COVID 19, the international community has been very judicious in who has freedom of movement in order to curb the spread of the virus. The virus originated in Wuhan, China at the very end of 2019 and the city was placed under lockdown on 23 January 2020, and later the rest of Hubei province. On 30 January 2020, the WHO announces a global public health emergency. At this time, the virus has spread to Thailand, South Korea, and the United States among other places. On 31 January 2020, foreign nationals who had recently been to China were banned from the United States. Cases begin popping up all around the world in South Korea, Italy, Spain, and Iran among others. 9 March 2020 Italy is placed on lockdown countrywide and various European countries began to shut their borders, especially to Italians including Austria, and Spain. On 11 March 2020, the WHO declares COVID 19 an international pandemic, and all travel from 26 European countries to the United States is banned. At this time, the virus epicenter bounded around the United States staying in New York then to Philadelphia and to the rest of the United States. During this time, various countries have imposed either full or partial lockdowns throughout the world. Brazil never shut down despite a huge spike in infection rates because President Jair Bolsonaro believes that it is everyone’s destiny to die at some point. In the middle of May, Italy and the rest of Europe began to reopen gradually with many social distancing regulations still in place. Travel throughout Europe began again on 3 June and outside of Europe on 15 June. The restrictions on countries in the Americas have just begun to reopen as well despite evidence showing that they have not even reached their peaks. The New York Times reports more than 7.9 million infections and over 434,000 deaths worldwide. Despite the hope that the virus has been contained, there is also a constant threat of a second wave of COVID 19.
South Korea and New Zeland imposed very strict stay-in-place orders as wells as universal testing and their infection rates have been significantly lower than countries that have not like the US and Brazil. The US and Brazil have had different responses; however, neither imposed extreme lockdowns and do not universally test for the virus which has prolonged the virus and puts way more people at risk. In South Korea and New Zealand, they have begun reopening as a result of no cases; whereas, the US and Brazil are opening out to restart the economy which will lead to the second wave of cases.
Overall, a pandemic is not a problem that can be solved by sporadic action in certain parts of the world; it requires both universal recognition and action in order to be stopped. Depending on how the disease is contracted and the contagiousness of the disease, immigration and the movement of people even within the country might need to be halted in order to prevent the spread to vulnerable populations. An emphasis on testing and treatment will create less of a stigma involved with contracting the diseases and helps people to protect themselves. There needs to be an emphasis on preserving public health rather than the economy because it demonstrates that a government cares about its people rather than profits. Working together as an international community to stop the spread of disease is the only way to preserve lives.
(thanks to our trainee Madeline Urbine)

09/06/2020

Immigration by nature has always been extremely fluid and unpredictable in terms of when and how many people are moving at any given time. The United Nations has made it clear in its 1951 Convention on Refugees that everyone has the right to migrate but countries do not have to accept refugees or immigrants. Therefore, countries may accept immigrants for a host of reasons, obligation is not one of them, however. In times that deviate from the status quo, such as an economic recession or environmental crisis, immigration is often one of the first things to be affected because it is not a program that benefits the citizens of that nation.
Immigrants, by nature, are an easy group to target with federal policies during economic crises because they are not citizens and they must abide by the laws or chance deportation. However, migrants and people, who generally work low paying jobs due to lack of interest by citizens, actually benefit the economy more than the wealthy because they are generally not making large investments which means that the majority of their money is used right after it is made. This concept is called the “velocity of money” which is a determinant of a healthy economy when people are more inclined to spend their money. In terms of immigration, they are an added workforce and generally increase the velocity of money. The notion of limiting immigration during an economic crisis and the good that they do for economies is incongruent.
In 1929, the stock market in the United States crashed, which had ramifications for economies around the world. In 1924, the United States passed the Immigration Act which excluded Asians from migrating to the United States and set a quota on the number of immigrants coming from everywhere other than Canada and Latin America. Before this, Asian immigrants fed the majority of the low paying and labor workforces. Because they were excluded from this act, Latin Americans, but specifically Mexicans, filed those vacancies. However, after World War 1 and into the 1920s, there was anti- Mexican sentiment because Americans believe that they were ‘stealing jobs.’ sentiment only heightened in the midst of the Great Depression due to astronomically high unemployment rates. Because of this, the United States and the Mexican governments worked together to repatriate nearly 1.5 million Mexicans between 1929 and 1935, some of whom were actually US citizens but were sent to Mexico nonetheless. The US government decided that the removal of lawful immigrants would be more cost-effective than keeping them enrolled in welfare programs. Later, Mexicans were invited back into the US in anticipation of World War II in order to help fill the workforce to aid the war effort.
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, many immigrants personally felt the effects. The H1-B Visas were still available; however, many companies that were bailed out were required to hire citizens rather than immigrants in a federal campaign to increase jobs. There was also increased immigration control enforcement at the border, in workplaces, and by local authorities. Legislation and state budget cuts also disproportionately affected migrant communities because they lower funding for programs from which they benefitted.
Italy has always been considered a nation of emigrants; however, due to economic boom and geographical location, it became a beacon for many migrants to enter into Europe during the 1990s. In 1990, the Martelli law was which is the basis for modern Italian immigration legislation and created a framework for processing immigrants, and gave criteria for people entering the country. However, there was a disconnect between how the laws were explicitly written versus how they were enforced. Many immigrants stayed by overstaying a tourist visa which would later be regularised along with a large number of other immigrants who had done the same. In 1998, the Turco-Napolitano Law passed and in 2002 the Bossi-Fini Law was passed which both aided in increasing the gap between law and enforcement as they both claimed to be tougher on irregular immigrants but also granted amnesty to a huge number of people who overstayed their visas.
The 2007 economic crisis continued to muddle the migration policies in Italy as they continued to criminalize undocumented migrants and grant more selective regularizations. During this time the government introduced the “entrance and irregular residence crime’ which fined migrants for entering Italy irregularly. In 2009, amenities were only granted to migrants working in the care industry, and in the middle of the 2012 economic crisis criteria were created for employers of irregular immigrants. The quotas in 2008 were frozen for work purposes so as to preserve the number of jobs for the Italian workforces. The patrols on the Mediterranean, Mare Nostrum, were strengthened to hinder the amount of immigrants entering the country which was ended in 2014 but Triton, took its place which was originally less funded but received triple the funding 2015. Overall, the Italian government attempted to end immigration into the country both through internal pressures and through the externalization of borders in the way of patrols on the Mediterranean. The type of immigrant has changed as the majority used to come to Italy in search of work while they migrate now for familial reasons which is a byproduct of the economic crisis that Italy faced.
Economic migrants are at the mercy of both the economic opportunities in their home countries as well as the financial wellbeing of their host country. Because they are not citizens in the host country, they are not protected during times of recession because the government generally wants to save funds for the taxpayers even though migrants significantly help the economy as well as their individual job field. Legislation on migrants during times of national financial hardship is irregular in terms of the good they do for the economy (Thanks for the article to our trainee Madeleine Urbine)

29/05/2020

The United States has a long history of imposing American values on the regions surrounding them, specifically Latin America and the Middle East which destabilizes the area and decreases the quality of life for the people of those nations. However, xenophobia, the fear of immigrants, has led the United States to deny many of these asylum seekers and refugees entrance into the nation despite endorsing the conflict because it was beneficial to the United States.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Theodore Roosevelt shifted American international policy from the “Monroe Doctrine” to the ‘Big Stick Policy.” Posed by President James Monroe in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine aimed to separate the Western Hemisphere from the Eastern Hemisphere (or the Old and New Worlds). It endeavored to end any new colonization in the Western Hemisphere and stated that colonizers, especially Europeans, would be met with American military action. After this document, the United States limited its involvement in international affairs and conflicts until 1901 when Theodore Roosevelt unveiled his new approach to international affairs: Big Stick diplomacy. His famous line -- “Speak softly, and carry a big stick” -- basically raising and maintaining a massive and highly capable military to coerce other nations into bending the American agenda, without making any explicit threats toward the target country.
The beginning of the American involvement in Latin America occurred in 1902 when the American government passed the Platt Amendment which placed Cuba under US protection and allowed them to intervene in Cuban Affairs (BBC). Then, in 1903, American President Theodore Roosevelt brokered a deal between Panama and Colombia that established Panamanian independence from Columbia. Roosevelt insisted on being given protectorate rights to Panama and its land area that would lead to the Panama Canal due to its future influence on the trade routes and the potential profits that it would guarantee for the American economy (People’s World). Then, in 1914, the United States occupied Veracruz, Mexico which allowed them to protect their interests in the rich oil fields located nearby by placing an arms embargo on both sides of the Mexican Revolution to suppress the conflict. Then, once that plan proved to be futile, the government of the United States then supported the rebel side of the revolution (Yockleson). The United States government orchestrated the outcome of the conflict in order to protect their own interest. Later, in 1954, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) trained the Guatemalan army and carried out a military coup against the Guatemalan president, Jacobo Arbenz, leading to a decades-long civil war with casualties nearing 200,000 people (Farah). In 1964, the United States launched a coup against President Joao Goulart in Brazil whose position was taken by a military dictator (People’s World). Then, in 1973, the United States overthrew the democratically-elected Chilean President Salvador Allende who was replaced by General Pinochet, a notorious dictator (People’s World). (This is not a full timeline of American foreign policy in Latin America.)
Overall, the United States began to transition its approach to international foreign policy from exclusion to inclusion. The beginning of the twentieth century was characterized by Theodore Roosevelt’s emphasis on increasing power abroad and shaping the regions around them into allies, which they did by exercising a lot of force and their own value on Latin America in particular. By the middle of the 1900s, there was a switch from solely engaging in foreign affairs to instead actively attacking Communism and preventing its spread to the Western Hemisphere, based on American fears of communist Russia in the burgeoning Cold War. In their many attempts to slow the spread of Communism, they destabilized the region by imposing their own beliefs and topping regimes with differing viewpoints.
In response to the influx of immigrants into the United States and especially immigrants from Latin America, a host of immigration laws have been passed. The main law the governs foreign-born people looking to live in the United States was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which created national quotas of the amount of people who are allowed into the country each year as well as maintaining the ability to stop immigration when deemed necessary by the President and standards to the amount and type of people who are permitted residency in the United States. This law also elaborated on the ability to become a naturalized citizen as well as defined the characteristics of people that could be deported (UCIS). Since this passage of this law, all other immigration laws in the United States were created as a means to further decipher the guidelines set by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. In 1980, the Refugee Act removed refugees from those counted in the immigration quotas which highlighted the difference between migrating voluntarily as immigrants and involuntarily as refugees (AILA). In the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the government made companies legally responsible for knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants and protected employees from biased hiring based on nationality (AILA). This law was rewritten in 1996, 2002, and 2006 to expand upon ways to further protect the country from threats of terrorism and irregular immigration by tightening restrictions on the characteristics of immigrants, the hiring of immigrants, and increasing border security (Cohn).
The most consequential immigration reform since the 1952 law is the Immigration Act of 1990 which separated immigration in different categories with their own individual quotas and instituted Temporary Protected Status that excluded certain people from being deported for a finite amount of time. This act also redefined the outdated conditions of deportation and of temporary visas (AILA). There have been a number of laws protecting certain groups with Temporary Protected Status such as Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Chinese immigrants (AILA). In 2012, President Obama signed an executive order protecting foreign-born children brought to the United States involuntarily from being deportation relief and a work permit. This order, due to its status as an executive order rather than a law, has been contested widely and will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the summer of 2020. A majority of Trump-era immigration policies were enacted by executive order rather than a law that was passed by Congress. A main focal point of the administration has been the separation and detention of families, which has been extremely destructive to those relationships. On 25 January 2019, the American president signed an executive order on border security which began to the construction of the border wall, increased Border Patrol officers, began to the construction of more detention facilities, and limited access to asylum. That same day, he signed an executive order on Interior Enforcement which placed sanctions on funding for sanctuary cities (cities that refused to deport people within their limits), expanded criteria for deportation, and increased the number of ICE Agents. On 27 January 2019, he signed an executive order that suspended visas to certain countries, specifically those with a Muslim majority, and increased vetting for all forms of immigration into the US as well as suspending the refugee program and banning Syrian refugees (CMS).
The approach used by the United States when handling foreign affairs has created a migration crisis. In many areas that they come in contact with have become destabilized upon the desertion of American forces, creating absences of power that led to the installation of dictators, similar to Chile, Brazil, and Guatemala after the United States intervened in their elections. This approach to immigration policy and the approach to international affairs taken by the United States are incongruent in their level of involvement. Abroad, the United States is heavy-handed while at home, they are more reserved in helping the people who are looking to escape the conflict propagated by the US.

1. “AILA - Current Immigration Laws.” American Immigration Lawyers Association, www.aila.org/infonet/current-immigration-laws.
2. Cohn, D’Vera. “How U.S. Immigration Laws and Rules Have Changed through History.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 30 Sept. 2015, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/30/how-u-s-immigration-laws-and-rules-have-changed-through-history/.
3. “Immigration and Nationality Act.” USCIS, 10 Sept. 2013, www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/immigration-and-nationality-act.
4. Ink, Social. “President Trump's Executive Orders on Immigration and Refugees.” The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS), 23 Apr. 2020, cmsny.org/trumps-executive-orders-immigration-refugees/.
5. People’s World. “Before Venezuela: The Long History of U.S. Intervention in Latin America.” People's World, 25 Jan. 2019, www.peoplesworld.org/article/before-venezuela-the-long-history-of-u-s-intervention-in-latin-america/.
6. “The United States Armed Forces and the Mexican Punitive Expedition: Part 1.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1997/fall/mexican-punitive-expedition-1.html.
7. The Washington Post, WP Company, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/guatemala11.htm.
8. “Timeline: US-Cuba Relations.” BBC News, BBC, 11 Oct. 2012, www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-12159943
(credits to Madeleine Urbine)

Current U.S. immigration law is based on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ("INA," codified at 8 U.S.C. §1101 et.seq.), which has been amended many times over the last 40 years. Included are some of the most important and recent amendments to the INA.