Skip to Content



GOP aims to bolster immigration enforcement, but little change is likely

Published on Thu, Nov 04, 2010

“The new leaders of the House have made it clear that they’re going to continue to push an enforcement-only strategy,” said Mary Giovagnoli, director of pro-reform Immigration Policy Center. “It’s going to be a hard couple of years.”

Published in the New Mexico Independent

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 3, No. 6

This issue covers a suit challenging the transfer of detainees following the ICE raid in Iowa, a suit seeking to recover fees paid by TPS registrants, the settlement agreement in a natz delay/SSI restoration class action, a Supreme Court decision in a criminal sentencing case, and en banc review of an aggravated felony decision.

Published On: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 | Download File

S.B. 1070 imitators facing challenges throughout the U.S.

Published on Fri, Jan 21, 2011

The American Immigration Council reports:

This week, another batch of state legislators in Nebraska, Indiana, Colorado and Texas dipped their toes in the enforcement-only waters, but found themselves facing an even louder chorus of opposition from their communities.

In South Carolina, the farming lobby is putting pressure on lawmakers considering “papers please” Arizona-style legislation to also consider farmers who need seasonal labor. Last week, amidst questions on the bill’s legality, South Carolina legislators sent an Arizona copycat bill (SB 20 ) to committee for further discussion. This week, however, the American Farm Bureau said it would pursue a policy that “assists the federal government in helping states create programs that give growers access to enough legal labor”—that is, temporary legal status.


Published in the Florida Independent

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 11

This issue covers LCCR's efforts to obtain remedies for individuals mistreated by immigration officials, Supreme Court update, and courts to consider who can apply for waivers of removability.

Published On: Monday, May 22, 2006 | Download File

The economic ignorance of immigration restrictionists

Published on Fri, Mar 25, 2011

By Walter Ewing

Prominent immigration restrictionists such as Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) like to pretend that federal and state governments could simply deport their way out of massive budget deficits and high unemployment. By this flawed line of economic reasoning, removing unauthorized immigrants from country would magically free up both jobs and budgets. In reality, removing millions of workers, consumers, and taxpayers would cause national and state economies to contract, resulting in fewer total jobs and less tax revenue. In addition, it would cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to locate, round up, detain, and deport the 11 million unauthorized men, women, and children now living in the United States.

This is not a recipe for economic recovery; it is a recipe for economic disaster.

Restrictionists who champion the deport-them-all approach to unauthorized immigrants have been relying of late on a deeply flawed 2010 report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which makes implausible claims about the costs of unauthorized immigrants. The FAIR report and the restrictionists who rely upon it overlook the fact that unauthorized immigrants are not only workers, but consumers as well. Unauthorized workers spend their wages in U.S. businesses — buying food, clothes, appliances, cars, etc. — which sustains the jobs of the workers employed by those businesses. Businesses respond to the presence of new workers and consumers by investing in new restaurants, stores, and production facilities. The end result is more jobs for more workers. For instance, a new report from the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) and the Center for American Progress (CAP) Rising Tide or a Shrinking Pie: The Economic Impact of Legalization Versus Deportation in Arizona estimates that the economic output and consumer spending of unauthorized workers in Arizona sustains 581,000 jobs.Read more...

Published in the The Hill

"Arriving Aliens" & Adjustment of Status


In 1997, the former INS adopted a regulation that barred all "arriving aliens" who were in removal proceedings from adjusting status. See former 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8); § 1245(c)(8). At the same time, INS adopted a regulation broadly defining the term "arriving alien." As a result, under 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8) and § 1245.1(c)(8), almost all parolees in removal proceedings were barred from adjustment of status. Several courts struck down these regulations barring adjustment as ultra vires to the statute. On May 12, 2006, the government issued an interim rule deleting the absolute bar on an "arriving alien's" ability to adjust status in removal proceedings. Under the interim rule, USCIS has jurisdiction to adjudicate the adjustment application. Litigation under the interim rule has focused on the BIA's blanket denial of all motions to reopen, remand or continue a removal case while USCIS is adjudicating the adjustment application.

Latest Developments|Additional Resources

The American Immigration Council’s LAC would like to hear how USCIS is handling the adjustment applications of “arriving aliens” in removal proceedings who are now eligible to apply for adjustment with USCIS under the interim rule. Please contact to let us know what has happened in your clients' cases.

Latest Developments

BIA Requests Briefing on the Issue of Whether USCIS Can and Will Decide an Adjustment Application of an "Arriving Alien" Under a Final Order of RemovalRead more...

Small Town or Big City, Ju Jiaqi Does It All

October, 2009

The Exchange Visitor Program is proud to announce Ju Jiaqi as this month’s Exchange Visitor of the Month. Each month, we select an exchange visitor who has made an effort to get involved in his/her community and explore American culture. Read more...

A coalition is uniting to improve the tone of the immigration debate

Published on Sat, Apr 30, 2011

Sunshine. Smiling people. Horizons as big as our opportunities.

Scenery as amazing as our optimism. That was the old Arizona.

Intolerant. Unwelcoming. Dangerous. Controversial.

That's the new image of Arizona.

If you don't think that image is right for our state, you might want to check out a new group in town called the Real Arizona Coalition. It includes some high-profile members from business, community and faith organizations who are ready to say, "Enough, already" - although they would probably say it more diplomatically.

This group is not about being in your face. It is about trying to get to your heart. Arizona's heart.

It's about remembering what made Arizona a destination. (Hint: It wasn't just the weather.) It's about honoring all the people who helped build the state and tapping that diversity to solve some big, big problems. Together.

This is a courageous concept. Despite all the talk of a new era of civility, wedges remain a powerful political tool to separate people and build alliances based on fear and dislike of the other guy.

Illegal immigration is one of those wedges. Two-thirds of Americans say the current system is broken. But the desperate, radical efforts to solve this national problem in Arizona's Legislature are largely responsible for Arizona's bad image.

Senate Bill 1070 made Arizona a punch line for political satirists. Reckless talk about headless bodies in the desert didn't help the state's image, either.

Once lauded for its friendliness and famous for its growth and tourism, Arizona saddled itself with a heavy load of bad publicity just as it was beginning the long, hard climb out of the Great Recession.

It matters to visitors.

"Bad news travels faster than good news," says Marc Garcia of the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Bad news does not attract tourists.

It matters to entrepreneurs and investors.

Published in the Arizona Republic