Donald M. Kerwin
Donald Kerwin served as Vice President for Programs at the Migration Policy Institute. He is Executive Director of the Center for Migration Studies of New York, an educational institute of the Congregation of the Missionaries of St. Charles, Scalabrinians, that studies migration policy issues and safeguards the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees, and newcomers. During his MPI tenure, Mr. Kerwin coordinated the Institute’s national and international programs, and wrote and spoke extensively on legalization, refugee protection, labor standards enforcement, detention, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and executive action on immigration.
Prior to his MPI tenure, he worked for more than 16 years at the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), serving as Executive Director for nearly 15 years.
He is a 1984 graduate of Georgetown University and a 1989 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School.
This conference offers law and policy analysis and discussion on cutting-edge immigration issues.
MPI's symposium on citizenship examined immigrant civic and political participation, the notion of local voting rights for noncitizens, the concept and practice of dual citizenship, and the role of citizenship in immigrant integration.
This report assesses the performance of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the course of the agency’s first six years, examines the effectiveness of the three core immigration agencies within DHS—U.S Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The Catholic Church made headlines in March when of its U.S. cardinals spoke out against the House of Representatives' "enforcement only" bill. Donald Kerwin of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network explains the church's interest in immigration and its position on reforming immigration policy.
Although federal statute affords “the privilege of being represented,” to immigrants in removal proceedings, appointed counsel must be “at no expense to the government.” This report analyzes the “no expense” restriction and its effect on case outcomes. It then outlines a number of ways in which legal representation could be increased without significant federal funding.