Skip to Content



Prosecutorial Discretion Requests Under the Johnson Enforcement Priorities Memorandum

This Practice Advisory, co-authored by the American Immigration Council and AILA, provides a close reading of Secretary Johnson’s November 20, 2014 memorandum on Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants. It briefly discusses DHS’s new three-tiered enforcement prioritization scheme, the various exceptions to the enumerated priorities, use of detention, and steps the agency is taking to implement the new policies. This Practice Advisory has been updated to include information about guidance issued on April 6, 2015 to immigration judges and attorneys with ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor regarding implementation of Secretary Johnson’s memorandum.

Published On: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 | Download File

Building Diverse and Inclusive School Communities

Author: Eileen Gale Kugler

Told in a series of well-researched, first-person narratives, Eileen Gale Kugler’s book, Innovative Voices in Education: Engaging Diverse Communities, stands out for its honest and multi-layered approach to building diverse and inclusive school communities. Read more...

Year Released: 2015

Prospects Remain Grim for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Published on Mon, Aug 30, 2010

The best bet for reforming the immigration system this year lies with smaller bills, and immigrants rights groups have attempted to push for these measures instead. If this happens, the future of comprehensive immigration reform is still unclear, according to Mary Giovagnoli, director of Immigration Policy Center.

“We don’t have a good measure anymore of what will happen once we get something discreet like the DREAM Act passed,” she says. “But when the sky doesn’t fall in and if people still get re-elected after supporting DREAM, it may show members of Congress that leaning into the immigration issue and voting for comprehensive immigration reform could help them politically.”

Published in the The Washington Independent

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Section 3 had defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This section resulted in barring lesbian and gay U.S. citizens and residents from filing immigrant petitions for their spouses, as well precluding noncitizens from applying for other immigration protections based on a marriage involving a lesbian or gay noncitizen.

In the two years leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, the LAC supported litigation efforts to challenge DOMA, engaged in administrative advocacy, and issued practice advisories and provided technical assistance to lawyers on strategies to assist noncitizen clients in same-sex marriages. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the LAC collaborated with Immigration Equality on a practice advisory highlighting issues LGBT families will face in a post-DOMA world. 


Groups Mobilize NY Immigrant Vote

Published on Tue, Oct 19, 2010

Their coordinated efforts have been a success, with more than 280,000 new citizens being registered to vote. This year, with tight congressional races for state Assembly and Senate elections, their goals are to demonstrate the impact of that voting bloc, which already counts more than 1 million registered voters in New York, according to a new study by the Immigration Policy Center.

Published in the Epoch Times

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 1

This issue covers a challenge to the new E-Verify rule; the Attorney General's decision overturrning Matter of Lozada; a Supreme Court update; regulatory developments in removal cases; and the Attorney General's decision on CIMTs and the categorical approach.

Published On: Friday, January 9, 2009 | Download File

State rep. pushing Ariz.-style immigration law has ties to organization working to repeal 14th Amendment

Published on Mon, Jan 10, 2011

Michelle Waslin, an Immigration Policy Center senior policy analyst, tells the Independent that “SLLI wants to spark a legal challenge that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. They want to set up a system for citizens and another for people who can be discriminated.”

Waslin also says that amending the 14th Amendment is not a solution for illegal immigration. “Under the current system, you’re born here, you get a birth certificate,” she says. “If we didn’t have that system we would need a bureaucracy to determine citizenship.”

She points out that if automatic citizenship is eliminated, all U.S. citizens would be affected. She compares the outcome to the current situation of a U.S. serviceman in Germany, married to a German woman, who together have a baby. That couple has to hire an immigration lawyer have to clarify if the baby if a U.S. citizen.

Published in the Florida Independent

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 18

This issue covers I-212 litigation, the Supreme Court

Published On: Thursday, October 12, 2006 | Download File