Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

American Immigration Council Hails Decision Enjoining Enforcement of Arizona’s SB 1070

Released on Tue, Apr 12, 2011

Washington, D.C - The American Immigration Council applauds yesterday’s decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding a preliminary injunction against the key provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070.  As the court correctly recognized, Arizona’s misguided attempt to drive immigrants from the state interferes with the federal government’s exclusive authority to enforce immigration law, has negatively impacted U.S. foreign relations, and reflects the dangers of allowing states to enact a patchwork of conflicting regulations.  The Ninth Circuit also rightly rejected Arizona’s claim that state police have “inherent authority” to enforce federal immigration laws and held that Congress intended state officers to “aid in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General.” Read more...

View Release

Jonathan T. Hiskey, Ph.D.

Jonathan T. Hiskey, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University. Professor Hiskey’s work has focused primarily on issues related to the political economy of local development in Latin America, as well as the development implications of political transitions taking place across the region. He is the author of numerous articles on these topics in such journals as the American Journal of Political Science, Comparative Politics, and Latin American Research Review. Hiskey’s current work looks at the political implications of migration in sending communities across Latin America. Professor Hiskey received his Ph.D. in 1999 from the University of Pittsburgh.

 

Alabama’s Dangerous New Anti-Immigrant Law

Released on Thu, Sep 29, 2011

Washington D.C. - Yesterday, Judge Sharon Blackburn failed to enjoin major portions of Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law, HB 56, leaving many dangerous sections open to implementation. Local police, for example, are required to act as federal immigration enforcement agents by demanding proof of legal status from anyone who appears to be foreign. Other provisions—that go further than Arizona’s law—insist public school administrators check the legal status of students and their parents and create confusing and burdensome new restrictions on contracts between the state government and immigrants and between private citizens and immigrants. It’s unclear how far the restrictions on contracts will go, but at a minimum they will limit access to housing and utilities for anyone who cannot produce the proper documentation.

Although supporters claim the law will solve the state’s economic problems and reduce crime, HB 56 will inflict greater economic damage to Alabama, costing the state millions to implement and defend. And the crime argument simply doesn't hold water. Since 1990, Alabama’s unauthorized population has risen from five thousand to 120 thousand.  Yet the violent crime rate in the state has fallen by more than a third. Restrictive immigration laws have proven to reduce, not maximize, law enforcement effectiveness.Read more...

View Release

Va., Md. place in top 10 for naturalizations

Published on Thu, Aug 20, 2009

Virginia and Maryland were two of the most popular states last year for foreign nationals who wanted to become U.S. citizens.

Published in the Washington Examiner

Supreme Court Limits Arizona’s Overreach on Immigration, Leaves Door Open to Future Challenges

Released on Mon, Jun 25, 2012

Washington D.C. - In a blow to the state anti-immigration movement, the Supreme Court ruled today that the authority to enforce immigration laws rests squarely with the federal government, limiting the role that states may play in crafting state-level answers to immigration enforcement. By a 5-3 margin, the Court struck down three of the four provisions of SB 1070 that were challenged by the Obama administration as pre-empted under federal law. While the Court agreed that Arizona’s attempt to limit immigration by creating new laws and new penalties to punish undocumented immigrants was pre-empted, it found that a provision requiring local police to investigate the legal status of suspected undocumented immigrants was not pre-empted on its face. The court read this provision very narrowly, however, leaving open the door to future lawsuits based on racial profiling and other legal violations. Read more...

View Release

AILF Creative Writing Contest Winners

Published on Thu, May 21, 2009

Today, the American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) announced Olivia Chiu, 11 of South Pasadena, CA, as the first place winner of the 2009 "Celebrate America" Creative Writing Contest.

Published in the IMMIGRATION PROF BLOG

LAC Issues Practice Advisory on Reinstatement of Removal

Released on Tue, Apr 30, 2013

For Immediate Release


Washington, D.C.—The Legal Action Center (LAC) is pleased to announce the issuance of a new practice advisory, Reinstatement of Removal. A person who has been removed and illegally reenters the United States may be subject to reinstatement of removal under INA § 241(a)(5). This Practice Advisory provides an overview of the reinstatement statute and implementing regulations. It also addresses federal court review of reinstatement orders and potential arguments to challenge the legality of reinstatement orders, including challenges to the underlying removal order.

This practice advisory includes a sample reinstatement order, a sample letter to DHS requesting a copy of the reinstatement order, a checklist for potential challenges to reinstatement orders, and an appendix of published reinstatement decisions. The LAC issued this advisory jointly with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

All of the LAC’s Practice Advisories are available on the LAC website.


###

For more information, contact clearinghouse@immcouncil.org or call 202-507-7516.

View Release

Iowa's immigrants have economic power

Published on Fri, Dec 25, 2009

The politics of division is the theme for a vocal minority who continue to spread lies and hate instead of offering real solutions for our broken immigration system. But reality and facts tell a different story.

Published in the Des Moines Register

LAC Issues New Practice Advisory on Motions to Suppress Evidence Unlawfully Obtained by CBP

Released on Wed, Nov 13, 2013

The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) has just released a new practice advisory, Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings: Fighting Back Against Unlawful Conduct by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Since 9/11, Congressional appropriations for border security have skyrocketed.  This influx of resources to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has corresponded with increased reports of pretextual arrests, racial profiling, excessive use of force, and coercive tactics to aid immigration enforcement along both borders.  Although these enforcement practices often violate the constitutional, statutory or regulatory framework governing the conduct of CBP officers, they are rarely challenged in immigration court. 

The LAC’s new practice advisory discusses some of the factual scenarios that may give rise to successful motions to suppress evidence obtained unlawfully by CBP officers, including CBP inspectors stationed at ports of entry and Border Patrol agents, who operate between ports of entry.  It also addresses some of the legal issues specific to motions to suppress evidence obtained at and near the border.  If successful, a motion to suppress can prevent the government from using unlawfully obtained evidence to prove alienage, which may result in the termination of removal proceedings. Read more...

View Release

Cheers & Jeers: From Cape Cod to Haiti

Published on Fri, Feb 19, 2010

"What is clear, however, is that the United States cannot fully rebuild a strong, robust economy on top of a broken immigration system," said Wendy Sefsaf of the Immigration Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

 

Published in the Cap Code Times