Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer just signed into law the controversial immigration bill that has drawn national scrutiny and triggered furious protests. "I firmly believe it represents what's best for Arizona," she said. The bill "strengthens the laws of our state. It protects all of us." And, she added, "it does so while ensuring the constitutional rights of all in Arizona remain solid, stable, and steadfast."
Fewer U.S.-born teenagers are working or looking for summer jobs. Most analysts can agree on this statement.
However, as the summer nears and jobs are scarce, the debate over the factors contributing to the decade-long decline is heating up – especially among activists and analysts embroiled in the immigration movement.
"The decline in teenage employment is very worrisome because a large body of research shows that those who do not work as teenagers often fail to develop the work habits necessary to function in the labor market later in life," said Steven Camarota, the director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies who co-authored a study about the issue.
"Since the Calderon administration has taken office, you have around 20,000 homicides that have occurred, many of those from U.S. weapons," said Dr. David Shirk, Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of California, San Diego, during a conference call on border security arranged by the Immigration Policy Center. "It's really hard to deal honestly with Mexico and say we want you to help us continue this effort but we're not going to stop arming the people that you're fighting by clapping down a little bit more on our own southbound flow of guns."
This Practice Advisory addresses who is the proper respondent-defendant and recipient for service of process in immigration-related litigation in district court. The advisory covers whom to sue in specific types of immigration-related actions, including mandamus, Federal Tort Claims Acts (and administrative claims), Bivens, and habeas actions.
"The consensus from most of my colleagues is that it probably will go to the Supreme Court," said Mo Goldman, an immigration attorney in Tucson, Ariz., and a board member of the American Immigration Council.
AIC's Goldman, who applauded the decision, conceded the law was popular but said a backlash "remains to be seen."
"I think the majority of people just want to see our immigration system fixed by Congress and maybe this law ... will put additional pressure on Congress to get the job done, finally," he said.
The goal of Our Melting Pot is to develop knowledge and appreciation of the diversity of nations from which our students' ancestors came. By creating his/her own Immigration cookbook, students will appreciate their ancestry and learn about how certain foods are incorporated in to life in the United States.
The non-partisan Immigration Policy Center rejects Graham’s views on birthright citizenship. “We are talking about changing the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment, the cornerstone of civil rights,” said senior policy analyst Michele Waslin. “Repealing birthright citizenship would affect every American and every child born in the U.S.”
In 1997, the former INS adopted a regulation that barred all "arriving aliens" who were in removal proceedings from adjusting status. See former 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8) (1997). At the same time, INS adopted a regulation broadly defining the term "arriving alien." As a result, almost all parolees in removal proceedings were barred from adjustment of status. This regulation was withdrawn by the government in 2006 following litigation spearheaded by the LAC and was replaced by a regulation that gives USCIS jurisdiction over these adjustment applications.
The LAC filed amicus briefs in nine courts of appeals in which we challenged the regulatory bar to adjustment of status for “arriving aliens” in removal proceedings. Ultimately, three courts accepted our arguments that the regulation violated the statute. Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2005); Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98 (3d Cir. 2005); Bona v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2005). A fourth court followed the lead of these three courts. Scheerer v. U.S. Attorney General, 445 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2006). Two other courts rejected our arguments and upheld the regulation. Mouelle v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2005); Momin v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2006). In response to this litigation, the government withdrew the challenged regulation and adopted an interim regulation that provides USCIS with jurisdiction to adjudicate an adjustment application of an “arriving alien” who is in removal proceedings. 71 Fed. Reg. 27585 (2006).
Dozens of Washington, D.C. area educators had a unique opportunity to work with experts on immigration law and African migration at the American Immigration Law Foundation's (AILF’s) fifth annual Teachers' Symposium on Saturday, February 9. The event, which was funded in part by Wachovia, was organized for educators in an effort to help them teach the importance of America's immigration heritage more effectively.