Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

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

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 21

This issue covers Supreme Court developments, a class action to restore SSI benefits to immigrants, suits challenging anti-immigrant ordinances, and federal court jurisdiction to review an L-1A extension denial.

Published On: Thursday, December 7, 2006 | Download File

Practice Advisories

Image: 

These advisories provide in depth analysis on a variety of immigration law issues.

Collaborative Learning at the Kauffman Foundation

May, 2010

Usually we select one trainee or intern as our Exchange Visitor of the Month. For May, we have decided to highlight a group of trainees. While the majority of our trainees and interns are the only J-1 visa holders at their host companies, some companies choose to have many trainees or interns at once. This is the case with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, Missouri, an organization that, according to its mission statement, “works nationwide to catalyze an entrepreneurial society in which job creation, innovation, and the economy flourish.” Read more...

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

Supreme Court tosses challenge to Calif. tuition law

Published on Mon, Jun 06, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a California law that allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition rates, a decision that gave a boost to supporters of a similar law approved this year in Maryland.

California’s 2001 law, which grants in-state college rates to students who attended a California high school for three years and graduate, was challenged by a conservative immigration group that argued the provision conflicted with federal law. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case and did not comment on that decision.

A California court had previously upheld the law.

The law is similar to one signed in May by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Opponents of Maryland’s law are attempting to gather 56,000 signatures to suspend its provisions and put it on the ballot so that voters can decide its fate next year. Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin have comparable tuition laws.

Opponents said last week they had cleared an early hurdle in the petition drive, securing more than the 18,500 signatures initially needed to keep the effort alive. Del. Patrick L. McDonough, has said he expects opponents will also file a lawsuit to stop the law. McDonough, a Baltimore County Republican, was not immediately available for comment.

Those in favor of the law cheered the court’s decision.

The state law "is absolutely lawful under federal law and the California decision is just one more in a litany of court finding making that declaration," said Kim Propeack with the immigration advocacy group CASA de Maryland.Read more...

Published in the Baltimore Sun