The Immigration Policy Center on Wednesday released its complete series of 50 state fact sheets which highlight the political and economic power of immigrants, Latinos and Asians in every state of the union.
Here are the results for how immigrants affect Idaho.
Robin Templeton of GritTv and Seth Hoy of AlterNet jumped on the issue this week. Both argue that, in far too many cases, the citizenship of an immigrant's children has little bearing on whether or not she stays in the country, let alone become a U.S. citizen.
This Practice Advisory discusses whether and how a person can get review of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decision in federal court if he or she did not appeal the decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The advisory addresses the Supreme Court case Darby v. Cisneros, holding that a plaintiff is not required to exhaust non-mandatory administrative remedies in certain situations, and how it may apply to cases involving appeals to the AAO.
“The higher-education issue is hot everywhere,” said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council, a policy group in Washington. “It’s a backdoor way of making immigration policy.”
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 This regulation was withdrawn by the government in 2006 following litigation spearheaded by the LAC and was replaced by a regulation that gives USCIS jurisdiction over these adjustment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).
The Immigration Policy Center think tank completed their own research on the contribution of immigrants to our Sooner state. If Arizona-style laws succeed and all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Oklahoma, the state would lose $580.3 million in economic activity, $257.8 million in gross state product, and approximately 4,680 jobs. That's $838.1million dollars lost from our state.
The LAC has filed amicus briefs addressing when adjustment of status constitutes an “admission” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The INA defines the terms “admitted” and “admission” as the lawful entry of a noncitizen following inspection and authorization by an immigration officer. However, the Board has held that adjustment of status from within the United States also constitutes an “admission.” The issue has arisen in cases involving the attempted removal of noncitizens for the commission of certain crimes within five years after “the date of admission,” and in cases involving waivers of admissibility under Section 212(h) of the INA, which in some circumstances are unavailable to noncitizens who have previously been “admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”
Board of Immigration Appeals
Matter of Alyazji, (BIA amicus brief submitted Jan. 21, 2010). In a precedent decision, Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011), the Board partially overruled Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005), and held that, consistent with the LAC’s position, the “date of admission” in INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i) applies to the date of the admission by virtue of which an individual was present in the U.S. at the time the crime was committed.
Funding for the Office of Citizenship, particularly its programs to support and encourage immigrant integration, was one of the many casualties of the drastic spending cuts passed by the House before leaving for President's Day recess. As the Senate prepares to take up the Continuing Resolution, restoring the relatively tiny 11 million dollar budget of the Office of Citizenship should be something that both parties can agree on, as this is the office that works with legal permanent residents to help them prepare for the naturalization exam and overcome other obstacles to becoming U.S. citizens.
The importance of immigrant integration cannot be overstated, as a new study released this week, ranking U.S. performance in this area against European countries and Canada, makes clear. The Migration Integration Policy Index III (MIPEX) www.MIPEX.eu, a rigorous analysis of laws and policies that further immigrant integration in Europe and North America, finds that the United States is ninth among 31 countries in promoting full integration of legal residents. As the MIPEX authors note, "Our ever changing societies are also becoming ever more diverse. Whatever our individual backgrounds, we all have a stake in the shared future of the communities and countries we live in, where each, in his or her own way, contributes to its economic, social, and civic life."Read more...