Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

American Immigration Council v. ICE

Entire Document Production, August 13, 2012

Key Documents:

Pages 430 – 432, Pages 805 – 816, Pages 845 – 847, Page 859, Pages 876 – 879: 2010 Letter from immigration attorney, ICE response, and ICE redacted emails regarding Miranda warnings during 287(g) jail screenings

Pages 447 – 448: Talking points on right to counsel in ICE examinations prepared for then-Acting Principal Legal Advisor Barry O’Mellin in advance of the 2009 AILA Annual Conference; addresses access to counsel during 287.3 interrogation and the right to counsel during a worksite enforcement operation

Pages 736 – 747: Office of the Principal Legal Advisor power point: Interviewing Aliens of Interest in National Security Cases, 2009

Pages 782 – 783, Pages 788 – 789, Pages 830 – 831, Page 841: ICE redacted emails regarding right to counsel in I-213 examinations, in response to a question from AILA’s ICE Liaison Committee in 2009

Pages 817 – 820: ICE redacted emails regarding lack of access to counsel for workers arrested in a February 8, 2008 ICE worksite raidRead more...

Lawmakers target citizenship by birthplace

Published on Thu, Jan 06, 2011

Verdin’s comments sparked the first of several disruptions of the presentation by opponents of the proposal. Later Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council, also criticized the package. “The proposal presented today is clearly unconstitutional and an embarrassing distraction from the need to reform our nation's immigration laws,” he said in a statement. “It constitutes a vicious assault on the U.S. Constitution and flies in the face of generations of efforts to expand civil rights.”

Published in the Stateline

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 3, No. 4

This issue covers a recently filed naturalization delay class action, a damages suit against USICE employees for violating 4th and 5th Amendment rights during home raids, and a recent decision regarding the confidentiality of asylum applications.

Published On: Monday, April 14, 2008 | 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?

 

Why Is the U.S. Cutting Immigration Integration Programs?

Published on Mon, Mar 07, 2011

A new joint study by the Immigration Policy Center, the British Council, and the Migration Policy Group on immigrants’ integration into countries around the world shows that the United States has some fairly strong integration policies for documented immigrants, ranking a respectable ninth out of 23 countries surveyed in North American and Europe.

In particular, the study found that the United States’ anti-discrimination laws are extremely good—the best out of all the countries surveyed. And despite the politically convenient xenophobia that rears its ugly head on a regular basis in American politics, we’re not too bad at moving new immigrants from total strangers to full participants in society.

According to a statement released by the three groups:

The U.S. also ranked high on the access to citizenship scale because it encourages newcomers to become citizens in order to fully participate in American public life. Compared with other countries, legal immigrants in the U.S. enjoy employment opportunities, educational opportunities, and the opportunity to reunite with close family members.

There’s also a pretty nifty page on the Migrant Integration Policy Index site where you can play around with visual representations of the data.

But immigrants and immigrant advocates shouldn’t celebrate just yet—state and federal budget cuts could give those great integration programs the axe.

Immigrant services are getting slashed at both the state and federal level. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) proposed cutting its immigrant services from $8.6 million in 2010 to $2.5 million in 2011. Progress Illinois reports that this would translate to over 47,000 fewer immigrant families losing access to state-funded services—despite the fact that Latino and Asian populations in the state have jumped by more than 33 percent in the last decade.Read more...

Published in the Campus Progress

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 9

This issue covers the Supreme Court's decision Gonzales v. Thomas and Possible Legal Challenge over DOL "45-Day Letters."

Published On: Sunday, April 23, 2006 | Download File

Budget hogs up Congress’ attention

Published on Sun, Apr 24, 2011

The 112th Congress had a full plate to start the year.

Debates and votes were expected on energy, climate change, education, national security, immigration, trade agreements and transportation. And there was the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

But for the most part, lawmakers have been consumed with cutting the federal budget deficit – which might top $1.6 trillion this year – since convening in January.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said the focus on all things fiscal began with the November elections, when voters gave Republicans control of the House and a larger minority in the Senate.

“The overwhelming interest of citizens in this country in these budget matters … almost impelled that this would likely be the case, that we would be spending almost all the time discussing some part of spending, taxes, budget stability, debt and the future of all this,” Lugar said in a recent interview.

Freshman Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd, blames the previous Congress, which failed last year to approve a budget for fiscal 2011. After a series of short-term spending extensions, legislators finally passed an appropriations bill April 14, more than six months into the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

The 2011 budget, which spends about $3.8 trillion, “took up an awful lot of our time this year. We could have been dealing with next year’s budget, energy, tax policy,” said Stutzman, a member of the House Budget Committee.

After a two-week spring recess, Congress will reconvene in May and dive back into the fiscal fray. It must soon vote on whether to raise the $14.3 trillion national debt ceiling that the government is about to reach. Lawmakers also will be tussling over a half-dozen budget proposals for fiscal 2012, including a version approved April 15 by the House. They will battle over whether to cut spending for the military, Medicare and Social Security.Read more...

Published in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

BRAND X IN IMMIGRATION CASES

ARCHIVED ISSUE PAGE (LAST UPDATED JULY 2012)

The Supreme Court's Brand X decision allows agencies to offer an interpretation of a statute that differs from a published circuit court decision. An agency may do so, however, only where the underlying statute is ambiguous. This Litigation Issue Page provides an overview of the Supreme Court's holding and identifies circuit court immigration decisions that have applied Brand X and immigration agency decisions that have addressed Brand X.

What is Brand X?|Application of Brand X in Circuit Court Immigration Cases|Discussion of Brand X in Agency Cases and Rules|Court Remands and Brand X

What is Brand X?

Brand X is a Supreme Court decision that deals with whether the courts must defer to an agency interpretation of a statute that conflicts with a circuit court's prior interpretation of a statute. The full case name and citation is National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005). According to Brand X, in limited circumstances, an agency may disagree with a circuit court decision and offer a different interpretation of a statute. However, it may do so only where the statute is ambiguous. In a situation where the court of appeals' decision is based on the unambiguous reading of the statute (decided under step I of the Chevron analysis), an agency interpretation that is contrary to a prior circuit court decision will not trump the circuit decision in that circuit.Read more...