Skip to Content



Is immigration an Ohio problem? Numbers say no

Published on Mon, Aug 30, 2010

The Immigration Policy Center, which is on the opposite end of the immigration debate from the federation, argues that their inclusion as a cost of illegal immigration is misleading.

"They are U.S. citizens and denying them education, health care, financial assistance, etc.. would put them at a disadvantage compared to other U.S. citizens," spokeswoman Michele Waslin wrote in an e-mail. "In financial terms, it could probably cost the state much more in the long run to have a population of poorly educated, unhealthy citizens."

Published in the Lancaster Eagle Gazette

Visa Bulletin – Rejection of Employment-Based Adjustment Applications

In June 2007, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) refused to accept tens of thousands of employment-based applications for adjustment of status (and discouraged thousands of other workers from even applying) in violation of federal statutes, regulations and policies. Although the LAC was poised to file a class action on July 17, 2007 to challenge these unlawful actions, this became unnecessary after USCIS and the Department of State reversed course and resolved the issues. Read the prepared complaint.

Should America's illegal immigrants be offered legal status?

Published on Tue, Oct 12, 2010

Americans are justifiably frustrated that 11 million unauthorized immigrants now live in the United States. Yet the majority of them would have preferred to come legally; there was simply no way under current immigration laws. Moreover, most of them are working, paying taxes, and buying US goods. Other than lacking legal status, most are law-abiding residents. Many are married to US citizens, with children who are citizens.

The problem is that they are often willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions, which creates unfair competition for US workers and gives unscrupulous employers an unfair advantage over law-abiding employers.

We could continue on the same path we have pursued for two decades: spending more money on enforcement and passing increasingly harsh laws in an attempt to drive unauthorized immigrants out. But despite the billions of dollars we’ve spent building walls, hiring border patrol agents, and detaining and deporting hundreds of thousands, the unauthorized population hasn’t decreased significantly.

Instead of “enforcement only,” we should offer unauthorized immigrants a chance to come forward, register, pay a fine, learn English, pass background checks, and legalize their status.

Legalizing them would inject a new level of certainty into their lives, allowing them to invest more in themselves and their communities. Legalized immigrants will earn more, pay more taxes, consume more, buy houses, start businesses, and contribute more to the economy.

Americans want real solutions to the problem of unauthorized immigration that are practical and fair. Enforcement alone has failed. We need comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program.

– Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst, American Immigration Council’s Immigration Policy Center

Published in the The Christian Science Monitor

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 3, No. 12

This issue covers a recent FOIA lawsuit seeking information about stipulated removal; a Seventh Circuit case holding that the waiver of a right to a removal hearing under the Visa Waiver Program must be knowing and voluntary; a Ninth Circuit decision finding that DHS may not unilaterally block a motion to reopen to adjust status by opposing the motion; and the Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari to examine the standard for granting stays of removal at the courts of appeals.

Published On: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 | Download File

Birthright Citizenship’s Unlikely Road to Supreme Court

Published on Mon, Jan 10, 2011

“Those children can’t petition for their parents to become U.S. citizens until they are 21 years old and it most cases, the parents would be barred from getting a visa to the United States for 10 years,” said Michelle Waslin, senior policy analyst at the American Immigration Council’s Immigration Policy Center in Washington, D.C. “So that’s a 31-year plan. It doesn’t seem like it’s a very good plan to legalize your status here in the U.S. It doesn’t protect them from deportation.”

Waslin argues that such a change in the law will affect all citizens, creating a complicated bureaucracy.

“My birth certificate will no longer be proof of my U.S. citizenship, so how would anybody prove their citizenship?” she asked.

Published in the Immigrant Magazine

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 17

This issue covers "material support" litigation, Supreme Court cases this fall, and a recent Eighth Circuit case holding the government to regulatory standards.

Published On: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 | Download File

Birthright of illegal residents' children is under attack

Published on Fri, Mar 04, 2011

Twelve years ago, Lizbeth Ramos and her common-law husband, Juan, left their hometown near Puebla, Mexico, and set out on foot across the desert for the Arizona border, to slip into new lives as illegal immigrants.

He found work in a produce market in the Philadelphia area, she in a boutique. They saved up to start a family.

Now 30, she lies on an examination table in Pennsylvania Hospital, at a weekly obstetrics clinic for immigrant women, no status questions asked. As a doctor slides an ultrasound wand over her bulging belly, her eyes are transfixed by the monitor. She is carrying twins.

The moment they enter the world, they will be what their parents are not: U.S. citizens.

Such is their birthright, granted by the 14th Amendment to an estimated 340,000 babies born annually to undocumented immigrants.

But in the marathon fight over immigration control, that 143-year-old constitutional guarantee has become the latest target and the delivery room the new front. The pejorative anchor babies already is in the lexicon.

"Once a child is born here, the parents make the argument that they should be allowed to stay as that child's guardian. They are using that child as an anchor [to] play on our heartstrings," said Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Butler County Republican who has built a national reputation as a crusader against what he calls "illegal alien invaders."

Immigrant advocates dismiss his contention as myth, and point to a recent study that found that undocumented immigrants generally "come for work and to join family members." The Washington-based nonprofit Immigration Policy Center concluded that "they do not come specifically to give birth" and game the immigration system.

Such assertions have not tempered efforts by immigration-control proponents to effectively do away with "birthright citizenship" for illegal immigrants' children.Read more...

Published in the Philadelphia Inquirer