Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

American Immigration Council v. DHS and USCIS

Entire Document Production, February 6, 2012

Key documents:

Pages 2-4: Seating policy- Email directives from 2010 and 2011 regarding policy of allowing attorneys to sit next to their clients and concern that some field offices are not incompliance.

Pages 67-74: Representation overseas- Email correspondence regarding representation of refugees overseas (note that USCIS did not release the “old counsel opinion” referenced in an email).

Pages 117-118, Pages 1670-1671: Directive to review AIC and AILA’s proposed revisions to the AFM

Pages 967-968: Stalled review of the AFM: email correspondence indicating there is “a lot of interest” in amending the counsel provisions of the AFM and an explanation that the amendment process was stalled in 2007.

Page 1355: “Just trying to get this right – esp. given I-797 fiasco”- A redacted 2011 email (probably regarding amendments to the AFM) with the title “Just trying to get this right – esp. given I-797 fiasco.”Read more...

Sen. Robles' immigration bill could become national model

Published on Thu, Jan 06, 2011

Robles' bill could also be a blueprint for other states. After Arizona passed a heavy-handed law making it a state crime to be in the country illegally, copycat bills sprang up all over the United States. Now 25 states, including Utah, have made similar proposals. Robles' bill, could have a similar impact, said Wendy Sefsaf, communications director for the American Immigration Council, a Washington D.C. based think tank.

"I think Utah is setting an example for the rest of the country by being solution oriented in a way that other states aren't," she said. "The legislation coupled with the Utah Compact has really made Utah stand out."

Sefsaf said she regularly refers inquiring legislators to Utah. Robles said she's already fielded phone calls from curious legislators in Texas, Ohio, Kansas and Florida — among others.

"If Utah pulls this off, the rest of the country will be watching with interest," Sefsaf said. "There are a lot of states out there looking for an alternative to what Arizona has done."

Published in the Dessert News

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 3, No. 3

This issue covers the Supreme Court's decision to hear an asylum case involving the persecutor bar, attorneys' fees in naturalization delay suits, pending circuit court cases addressing whether anti-immigration state and local laws are preempted by federal law, and a recent decision regarding evidence that the BIA did not mail a decision.

Published On: Thursday, March 20, 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?

 

The 2012 Budget and Our Unsecured Border

Published on Thu, Mar 03, 2011

President Obama is taking heat from all sides this week for his 2012 budget proposal, which proposes increased funding for immigration enforcement and border militarization. While immigrant rights advocates are predictably up in arms over the proposal, House Republicans are (somewhat uncharacteristically) demanding significant cuts to border security funding -- on the grounds that the Obama administration's efforts to secure the border have been ineffective and fiscally irresponsible.

Obama's future immigration priorities remain counterproductive

As Walter Ewing reports at Alternet/Immigration Impact, the proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget reveals the Obama administration's consistently conflicted priorities on immigration. While the budget makes good (albeit modestly) on the administration's promise to fund humane detention alternatives and better oversight of enforcement programs, the overwhelming bulk of the funding supports expansion of controversial and ineffective enforcement programs. Ewing writes:

The enforcement-heavy focus of the President's proposed DHS budget is readily apparent in the top-line numbers. The budget for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would be $11.8 billion; up 3 percent from FY 2011. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would receive $5.8 billion, up 1 percent from the previous year. And U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would get $2.9 billion, down 5 percent from FY 2011. As is so often case, immigration services get the short end of the stick.

The administration's continued emphasis on border security is particularly troubling in light of three recently released reports which suggest that increased enforcement efforts have proven to be totally ineffective at securing the border.

Despite increased funding, border remains unsecuredRead more...

Published in the Huffington Post

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 8

This issue covers Supreme Court Review of an Aggravated Felony Case, Jurisdiction over Natz Delays Actions, and LGBT and HIV Based Asylum Claims.

Published On: Tuesday, April 4, 2006 | Download File

In Arizona, Illegal Immigrants Pay Taxes, Too

Published on Fri, Apr 22, 2011

In honor of Tax Day, the Immigration Policy Center posted a reminder that often gets ignored in the illegal immigration debate, especially those who accuse illegal immigrants of mooching off the system from public schools to hospitals.

Using a methodology from the nonpartisan Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and information from the Pew Hispanic Center figures on each state's illegal immigration population using numbers from the 2010 Census, the ITEP came up with an estimate on state-specific tax payments.

Yes, immigrants pay taxes, too:

There were an estimated 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. as of 2010. Pew has also estimated the unauthorized population for each state. Pew has found that unauthorized immigrants are likely to be less educated than native-born U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, and they tend to work in low-wage jobs. Thus the average family income of the unauthorized population is lower than the average family income for U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. The average income of a household headed by an unauthorized immigrant is estimated to be $36,000; 10 percent of which goes towards remittances to family members in countries of origin.

According to the report, Arizona is in the top 10 of state receiving the most revenue from households headed by illegal immigrants. In 2010, Arizona's illegal immigrants paid $38 million in personal income taxes $45 million in property taxes and $348 million in sales taxes:

Sales tax is automatic, so it is assumed that unauthorized residents would pay sales tax at similar rates to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants with similar income levels.

Similar to sales tax, property taxes are hard to avoid, and unauthorized immigrants are assumed to pay the same property taxes as others with the same income level. ITEP assumes that most unauthorized immigrants are renters, and only calculates the taxes paid by renters.Read more...

Published in the Tucson Weekly

Employment Authorization Verification

ARCHIVED ISSUE PAGE (LAST UPDATED OCTOBER 2010)

This Litigation Issue Page highlights lawsuits challenging government initiatives related to employment verification, including the Internet based E-Verify system and "no-match" letters issued by the Social Security Administration.

Several states and local governments have enacted laws regulating employment verification. These laws have prompted litigation, typically challenging whether they are preempted by federal law. The following cases are on our State and Local Law Enforcement Issue Page

  • Arizona Contractors Assoc., Inc. v. Napolitano, 526 F. Supp. 2d 968 (D. Ariz. 2007), aff'd sub nom. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed sub nom. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, (July 24, 2009) (No. 09-115)
  • United States v. Illinois, No. 07-3261, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19533 (C.D. Ill. 2009)
  • Gray et al. v. City of Valley Park, No. 07-00881 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) appeal docketed, No. 08-1681 (8th Cir. argued Dec. 10, 2008)
  • Chamber of Commerce v. Henry, No. 08-109 (W.D. Okla. filed Feb. 1, 2008), appeal docketed, No. 08-6128 (10th Cir. argued May 4, 2009)

Latest Developments|Additional Resources

Latest Developments

E-Verify Litigation

Business Groups Challenge Rule Mandating Participation in E-Verify

Chamber of Commerce v. Chertoff, No. 08-03444 (D. Md. summary judgment granted Aug. 26, 2009) appeal docketed, No. 09-2006 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 2009)Read more...