Housing the
Colonized: Reurbanization and the
Promise of Spacial Equity
Norrinda
Hayat, University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law
Socio-economic
status is being framed by some as the next frontier in the fight for fair housing.
The influx of white elites in cities nationwide, the attendant displacement of
historical populations, the provision of housing vouchers to these displaced
persons and the well-documented evidence of impediments to utilizing housing
vouchers has caused some scholars to renew calls to have “source of income”
protection added to the federal Fair Housing Act. Doing so, however, will not
likely increase mobility, curtail residential segregation or improve the
quality of housing masses of blacks live in. Even in cities where local law
already prohibits discrimination based on source of income, extreme patterns of
racial segregation persist with the vast majority of blacks isolated in poor
housing. Substituting a race equity strategy with an economic one at the
federal level is likely to be equally ineffective. This is because, as I argue
in an earlier piece, discrimination against voucher holders is a proxy for race
discrimination. Instead of focusing on the illusion of mobility, this article
articulates a spatial equity theory that calls for state and local governments
to direct significant resources to majority-minority neighborhoods and house
residents fairly and affordably in place.
Destigmatizing
Disability Under U.S. Immigration Law: A Proposal for a Construction of
Disablement Based on Dignity as Opposed to Dependency
Medha D.
Makhlouf, The Pennsylvania State University—Dickinson Law
In U.S. immigration law,
disability has served as the basis to exclude noncitizens from entry and
eventual citizenship. Although the law has evolved to accommodate individuals
with disabilities in some ways, significant legal barriers still exist. This article
examines the strengths and limitations of adopting a destigmatizing account of
disablement in the immigration law. Such an account would characterize
disablement as normatively neutral rather than linking it to inescapable
disadvantage. Among the limitations of adopting a destigmatizing account is the
potential adverse effect of bolstering arguments to further restrict
immigrants’ eligibility for publicly funded health care and other
health-promoting public benefits. This would be devastating to many immigrants
with disabilities who depend on the social safety net due to expensive health
care needs and social constructs that limit their participation in the labor
market. The final section of the article proposes a construction of disablement
that (1) characterizes immigrants with disabilities as valuable and
contributing members of society; and (2) emphasizes collective responsibility
for carrying the costs of disability in order to equalize the well-being of
immigrants and citizens with disabilities, as well as to move toward functional
equality for immigrants with and without disabilities