ItemAll in All, it was Just Another Brick in the Wall: Determining the Efficacy and Legality of the Mexican Border Wall(2017-05) Jines, Lydia; Judson, Janis; Hood College Law & Criminal Justice; Hood College Departmental HonorsThe debate concerning the efficacy and legality of interstate barriers has experienced a revival as a result of the polarizing campaign rhetoric of Donald Trump. Although the concept of a Mexican Border Wall is not an entirely new concept in American conservative politics, Trump has presented a unique perspective on the necessity and feasibility of the Wall. Early campaign promises of the new administration suggested that “the Wall” would be paid for by the Mexican government. While Mexico’s paying for the Wall is no longer a promise Trump is capable of making, the Administration continues to argue for the construction of the barrier along the border. As a whole, the Trump Administration has faced early opposition to many proposals concerning immigration policy. Continued pressure has been placed on vows to build the Wall, prompting the inclusion of the barrier in this year’s proposed budget. This paper seeks to explore the reality facing any such construction in terms of efficacy and legality of interstate barriers. Historical barriers such as the Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall can be used to draw conclusions about the likely efficacy of the Mexican Border Wall in achieving its desired ends. The Israeli Separation Barrier in the occupied Palestinian Territory demonstrates the application of newly-developing international legal principles which render interstate barriers illegal. Finally, the historical obstacles facing previous American presidential administrations in the construction of similar barriers along the Mexican border suggest that such a venture is unrealistic and increasingly unnecessary in the face of new methods of unlawful immigration. This paper argues that while undocumented immigrants continue making their way into the country, recent evidence demonstrates that the construction of a wall would be ineffective to stop the influx (Warren & Kerwin 2017: 124). Legally, opinions by international courts suggest that the Mexican Border would be a violation of international law (International Court of Justice 2004) ItemGender-based Asylum Claims under International Refugee Law and U.S. Immigration Policy(2020-04-27) Dozlic, Jasmin; Eager, Paige; Bean, Teresa; Judson, Janis; Hood College Department of Political Science, Hood College Department of Law & Criminal Justice; Hood College Departmental HonorsThis paper explores the relationship between international refugee law and domestic U.S. asylum policy. In doing so, the inconsistencies in the application between international guidelines and domestic policies are highlighted. Furthermore, besides the inconsistencies between the two bodies of law, this paper will explore the discrepancies of the application in the U.S. owing to the administrative position of the adjudicatory mechanism responsible for asylum/refugee cases in the executive branch. This will be explored through the qualitative analysis of judicial decisions, constitutional frameworks, and other, both international and domestic, legal sources, and evidence. Thus, this paper will demonstrate how international treaties become an authoritative source of law, the evolution and inclusion of gender under intentional law, the incorporation of international legal provisions in U.S. law, and the inconsistent application across different presidential administrations. Conclusively, this paper highlights the necessity for Congress to introduce an independent framework to adjudicate refugee/asylum claims. This will allow for stability and consistency in an area of law tasked with protecting some of the most vulnerable groups of people.