Arizona legislators are fed up with being terrorized by illegal immigrants, and they have passed a law to get tough. Under the measure, passed this week and sent to the governor, police would have to stop and question anyone they suspect of being in this country without legal authorization.
While officials, state and national lawmakers and citizens line up on either side the immigration reform debate, the leader League of United Latin American Citizens of Ohio has sent a strong message to Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones who is vowing to take a Arizona-like immigration law to the ballot.
A week after Jones gathered national media attention stating he and state Rep. Courtney Combs, R-Hamilton, called for legislation that “mirrors” the controversial Arizona law that makes being in the country illegally a state violation, Jason Riveiro, state director of the LULAC, sent a letter to the sheriff stating his support of the Arizona law “can only be described as a cynical and self-serving political ploy. Such actions are inappropriate. You take advantage of not merely immigrant populations, but also of the trust granted you by the very people who elected you into office.
Delaware Rep. Michael Castle speculated that the economy would eclipse immigration on the national congressional agenda. Citing an extensive and well documented report titled “Raising the Floor for American Workers” published jointly by the Center for American progress and the Immigration Policy Center, I stated that comprehensive immigration reform would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs and generate additional tax revenue, resulting in $1.5 trillion in cumulative U.S. gross domestic product over the next 10 years. On the other hand, mass deportations would lead to a loss of $2.6 trillion in gross domestic product over the next 10 years. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform can be a part of the solution to the national economic crisis.
This practice advisory provides an overview of the CSPA, its effective date, and its interpretation and implementation by USCIS, the U.S. Department of State, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the courts.
Of course, that’s not counting illegal immigrants — DHS estimated 10.8 people were living in the U.S. illegally in 2009. But advocates of higher quotas argue that increasing the number of people who could legally enter the U.S. would also decrease illegal immigration. “We have a fundamental problem as a country accepting the idea that we need immigration numbers,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of Immigration Policy Center told TWI. “If we had a legal immigration system that worked, it would reduce the incentive for illegal immigration.”
In Dada v. Mukasey, the Supreme Court protected the right to file a motion to reopen by holding that voluntary departure recipients are permitted to unilaterally withdraw their voluntary departure request before the expiration of the voluntary departure period. This Q&A offers preliminary analysis about the potential impact of Dada v. Mukasey on individuals’ cases and offers suggestions about immediate steps to take.
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.
“You can make the argument that it can reinforce the Obama administration efforts to disentangle the border issues from the immigration issues,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of the pro-reform Immigration Policy Center, told TWI. “But that’s probably not how it’s going to play out.”
In March 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision, Orozco v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2008) , finding that a noncitizen who obtains entry into the U.S. by fraudulent means is statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under INA § 245(a) because he or she has not been “admitted.” Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, which was later vacated (Orozco v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008)), numerous immigration courts throughout the country were questioning whether Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), was still good law. In Matter of Areguillin, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) had held that an admission occurs when an inspecting officer “permits the applicant to pass through the port of entry.” Thus, the BIA found that Areguillin was “inspected and admitted” within the meaning of the adjustment statute, INA § 245(a), when she was waived through the port of entry, even though she was inadmissible at that time due to lack of proper documents. Ultimately, in July 2010, the BIA issued a precedent decision affirming the rule in Matter of Areguillin.
In the following cases, the LAC submitted amicus briefs to the BIA arguing that Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), should be reaffirmed and that a noncitizen was “admitted” when an immigration officer at a port of entry inspected him and allowed his entry, even if he was inadmissible at the time.Read more...