Professor Won Kidane has done me a great honor by reviewing Everyday Law for Immigrants. Authors pray their work is not ignored; they can only dream that colleagues will take it seriously. From that viewpoint, Professor Kidane has blessed me twice. The Seattle University Law Review has also graciously allowed me an opportunity to respond to his thoughtful critique. That Professor Kidane found seeds for scholarly discourse within a book intended primarily for nonacademics is a testament to his comprehensive understanding of U.S. immigration law and how it functions on the ground.

This brief response will focus on two interrelated themes that arise out of the “immigration as contract” motif. First, I examine Professor Kidane’s claim that current U.S. immigration policy operates more like a unilateral or adhesion contract than a bilateral one. Second, I explore the notion that due process is at risk when one views immigration policy through a contract prism.