Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

In defense of the failed Dream Act immigration bill

Published on Mon, Sep 27, 2010

The Immigration Policy Center writes:

Acknowledging the large numbers of illegal Europeans in the U.S., the government devised ways for them to remain in the U.S. legally. *Deserving* illegal European immigrants could benefit from various programs and legalize their status. The 1929 Registry Act allowed *honest law-abiding alien[s] who may be in the country under some merely technical irregularity* to register as permanent residents for a fee of $20 if they could prove they had lived in the U.S. since 1921 and were of *good moral character.* Roughly 115,000 immigrants registered between 1930 and 1940—80% were European or Canadian. Between 1925 and 1965, 200,000 illegal Europeans legalized their status through the Registry Act, through *pre-examination*—a process that allowed them to leave the U.S. voluntarily and re-enter legally with a visa (a *touch-back* program)—or through discretionary rules that allowed immigration officials to suspend deportations in *meritorious* cases. Approximately 73% of those benefitting from suspension of deportation were Europeans (mostly Germans and Italians).

Published in the Washington Times

VAWA

<This page is under construction>

Working with partner non-profits, the LAC convinced USCIS to adopt a policy that allows VAWA applicants to apply for adjustment of status under INA § 245(a) even if the applicant is present in the U.S. without inspection and admission or parole. This policy favorably impacts thousands of battered immigrants.

 

PBS "The New Americans"

These lesson plans for The New Americans for grades 7-12 are available on the Web or as PDF documents. The PDF format provides a downloadable printed version of the lesson plan; Adobe Acrobat is required.

View Link

Do any university presidents oppose the DREAM Act?

Published on Mon, Dec 13, 2010

Finally, I called up Wendy Sefsaf, communications director at Immigration Policy Center, a group that supports DREAM. She hadn't heard of any presidents issuing public statements against the legislation either, but she did have this to say about the lack of academic opposition: "It diminishes any argument that allowing undocumented students to go to college is bad for universities, in terms of economic impact, pushing other students out, or overcrowding. If it wasn't a good idea, universities and their presidents wouldn't be unanimously in support of it."

Published in the Boston Globe

Appointed Counsel for Children in Immigration Proceedings

Each year, the government initiates immigration court proceedings against thousands of children, but does not guarantee that those children have legal representation. Like adults, children who cannot afford to hire an attorney or find pro bono counsel are forced to navigate the complex and adversarial immigration system on their own, even though the government is always represented by a trained attorney.

CASES | RESOURCES

CASES

J.E.F.M. v. Holder

On July 9, 2014, the American Immigration Council, with co-counsel American Civil Liberties Union, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Public Counsel, and K&L Gates LLP, filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of children who are challenging the federal government's failure to provide them with legal representation as it carries out removal proceedings against them.

The complaint charges the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Health and Human Services, Executive Office for Immigration Review, and Office of Refugee Resettlement with violating the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions requiring a “full and fair hearing” before an immigration judge. It seeks to require the government to provide children with legal representation in their immigration proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, eight children between the ages of 10 and 17, are scheduled to appear in immigration court without any legal representation.Read more...

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 7

This issue covers mandamus actions, surviving spouse litigation, and the BIA's authority to enter a removal order.

Published On: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 | Download File

Learn about the International Exchange Center

Image: 
Tab Headline: 
Learn about the International Exchange Center

Who we are, what we do, and what is the J-1 visa?

 

To sell the repeal of birthright citizenship, Republicans like Vitter lie about scope of ‘baby tourism’

Published on Fri, Apr 08, 2011

I guess this is how Republicans do the Latino-outreach thing: Demonize Latino children, threaten to take away their birthright citizenship, and blatantly lie about the numbers of “anchor babies” being born by mothers coming here specifically to have citizen children.

Here’s Sen. David Vitter yesterday on Fox News, promoting his new federal bill to strip American-born children of undocumented immigrants of their birthright citizenship:

VITTER: It’s a very real problem. About 200,000 women come into this country annually from other countries legally, with a tourist visa, something like that, to give birth in this country so that child can automatically become a U.S. citizen. 200,000 a year!

I’m guessing that Vitter’s source for this number is either somewhere up his own nether regions, or those of hate groups such as FAIR and CIS that pump out fake statistics like this for eager Latino-bashers like Vitter and his three Senate colleagues to regurgitate into policy.

Because, as ABC News explained in their own report on this legislation:

Of the 4.2 million live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, only 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here.

Some of those mothers could be “baby tourists,” experts say, but many could be foreign college students, diplomatic staff, or vacationers. The government does not track the reasons non-resident mothers are in the United States at the time of the birth or their citizenship.

Indeed, as the story notes, the “anchor baby” problem is a statistical pimple:

“There’s no evidence that birth tourism is a widespread problem,” said Michele Waslin, a senior policy analyst with the Immigration Policy Center. “There are ways to dealing with that issue without such sweeping changes. This is like using a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.”Read more...

Published in the Crooks and Liar