This comment examines the Constitutional rights of Indochinese refugee-parolees. The author begins by discussing the gap in rights between permanent residents and parolees. Permanent residents have "entered" the county and therefore receive certain rights. Parolees have not "entered" the country according to the Supreme Court's decision in Leng May Ma v. Barber and therefore do not receive the same rights. The author argues that the gap between the rights of permanent residents and refugee-parolees must be narrowed. The author also argues that Leng May Ma is inapplicable to refugee-parolees who are not temporary visitors as a parolee is. The author also supports the argument with a description of the Congressional reaction to Leng May Ma and the Presidential rejection of Leng May Ma . The author calls on Congress or the courts to increase the current constitutional protections granted to Indochinese refugee-parolees.
Frank S. Clowney III,
Extending the Constitution to Refugee-Parolees,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol15/iss1/10