Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council, called the lawsuit filed yesterday an important step for the federal government to reassert its authority over immigration policy.
"While a legal challenge by the Department of Justice won't resolve the public's frustration with our broken immigration system, it will seek to define and protect the federal government's constitutional authority to manage immigration," Johnson said.
This Practice Advisory outlines arguments to make in response to the government’s arguments that the court should dismiss a mandamus or Administrative Procedure Act case brought to remedy the delayed adjudication of an immigration application.
Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the more liberal American Immigration Council, countered that for some conservatives, "it's never enough." Over the last seven years, Johnson said, the U.S. has quintupled its number of border agents and quadrupled its immigration enforcement budget -- "but the appetite for increasing immigration enforcement-only policy seems to be never-ending. I can only conclude that it's because constantly raising the bar on how much we need to spend and what constitutes secure borders at this point seems like an excuse for not doing anything else."
This Practice Advisory provides suggestions for lawyers with clients subject to the ICE’s Detention After Removal Hearing Program (DARH), outlines statutes and regulations governing the detention of respondents subject to DARH, and sets out potential legal challenges.
"We question how (ICE is) setting their priorities," said Michelle Waslin, senior policy analyst at the Washington-based Immigration Policy Center, which is against Secure Communities. "Are they truly focusing on the most dangerous criminals, or are they also picking up people who have not been convicted of any or a relatively minor crime?"
The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is pleased to present the 2008 edition of "Appreciating America's Heritage" Teacher Resource Guide. First and foremost, this latest edition continues to keep the needs of classroom teachers in mind by providing new and innovative lesson plans, which can be implemented in any classroom, and book reviews for literature based lessons and research support. All materials included in these pages have been created by fellow educators who either serve as members of our Curriculum Advisory Board, have presented at an AILF symposium or have been awarded AILF classroom grants.
Eliminating birthright citizenship would mean everyone, not just immigrants, would have to prove their status and would require a federal bureaucracy to determine who is a citizen, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst at the Immigration Policy Center, a Washington-based nonpartisan research group.
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.