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.
The report calls these voters "New Americans." They include recent immigrants and their children, coming largely but not entirely from Hispanics and Asian countries.
Walter Ewing is senior researcher at the Immigration Policy Center. He says in terms of voting habits, New Americans have one thing in common.
"What you can assume about this voting group is that they're going to respond to candidates who seem to be positive about immigration, since that is either themselves of their parents. And that does not seem to fall along party lines."
Ewing found that between 1996 and 2008, the number of new American voters increased more than 100 percent, and is likely to keep growing.
But Ewing says these voters tend to be forgotten by politicians, even though in California they accounted for more votes than the margin by which now President Barack Obama beat John McCain.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, noncitizens may file habeas actions if they are held in immigration “custody” by the federal government in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Noncitizens face many practical hurdles in filing habeas petitions, including detention in remote locations and the government’s practice of transferring detainees between facilities. These problems are exacerbated when courts adopt the inflexible “immediate custodian” rule—which requires naming the person with immediate, day-to-day control over the petitioner as the respondent—since the case always must be filed where the person is detained. The LAC has appeared as amicus curiae in cases before the federal courts of appeals to urge the adoption of a more flexible approach allowing either the Attorney General or the Secretary of DHS to be named as the proper custodian in habeas petitions.
Bell v. Ashcroft, Nos. 03-2737, 03-2977 (2d Cir. amicus brief filed May 7, 2004) (case settled without a decision from the court).
Roman v. Ashcroft, No. 02-3253 (6th Cir. amicus brief filed Oct. 10, 2003) (court issued a precedent decision finding that the Attorney General was not the proper custodian in this case, but noting that the Attorney General may be a proper custodian where the detainee would not otherwise have a “realistic opportunity for judicial review of his executive detention”). Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314 (6th Cir. 2003).Read more...
It's clear commonsense immigration reform is good for the economy as a whole. Don't take our word for it — study after study has shown that commonsense immigration reform will strengthen the economy, spur innovation, reduce the deficit and increase US trade and exports.
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."
This issue covers updates to two naturalization delay cases; a circuit split on the interpretation of aggravated identity theft -- a development of heightened relevance because of recent immigration raids and prosecutions; and a successful challenge to a NY state licensing law.
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.
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.
This issue covers the government's cert petitions in theft offense cases, BIA procedures for remanded cases, favorable decisions on adjustment of status after reentry without admission, and litigation support in VAWA cases.