Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 1

This issue covers a challenge to the new E-Verify rule; the Attorney General's decision overturrning Matter of Lozada; a Supreme Court update; regulatory developments in removal cases; and the Attorney General's decision on CIMTs and the categorical approach.

Published On: Friday, January 9, 2009 | Download File

GOP Senators Push to End Birthright Citizenship

Published on Fri, Jan 28, 2011

Critics of the proposal, among them the Immigration Policy Center's Michele Waslin, argue that eliminating birthright citizenship "would punish the innocent children of undocumented immigrants, which flies in the face of American values." CBS News polling finds Americans split on the issue.

Published in the CBS News

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 18

This issue covers I-212 litigation, the Supreme Court

Published On: Thursday, October 12, 2006 | Download File

Arizona Would Lose $49 Billion if it Expels Undocumented Immigrants

Published on Fri, Mar 25, 2011

Tucson – Arizona's economy would lose $48.8 billion if the state expels all undocumented immigrants living there, according to a report made public Thursday.

A mass departure of the undocumented foreigners would eliminate 581,000 jobs in Arizona and tax receipts would drop by 10.1 percent, according to the report by the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center.

Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, co-author of the study entitled "The Economic Impact of Legalization Versus Deportation in Arizona," said at a press conference that the state is an example of the "toxic" effect that laws like SB1070 can come to have.

The Arizona law seeking to criminalize undocumented immigrants - the enforcement of which remains on hold pending the conclusion of a battle in the federal courts - is aimed at causing a massive exodus of undocumented immigrants, the UCLA professor said.

Meanwhile, the report also analyzed the economic impact that the legalization of undocumented people living in Arizona would have, based on the results of the federal amnesty of 1986.

In this case, the number of jobs would rise by 7.7 percent, creating 261,000 new employment positions, and $5.6 billion would be injected into the economy in wages and salaries.

In addition, state tax revenues would also rise by $1.07 billion.

More than a dozen U.S. states are currently analyzing the possibility of implementing laws similar to SB1070.

Published in the FoxNews

Lawsuit on Visa Bulletin, Adjustment of Status

The class action lawsuit, which we prepared but ultimately did not have to file, argued that the government must comply with its own regulations and policies and accept the "green card" applications of tens of thousands of intending immigrants.

The Legal Action Center was poised to file a lawsuit on July 17, 2007 but because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS) resolved the issues, we did not have to file the suit. The LAC prepared the class action lawsuit, which alleged that the federal government's refusal to accept tens of thousands of applications for green cards (and discouragement of thousands of other workers from even applying) violated federal statutes, regulations and policies, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The suit would have argued that the government must comply with its own regulations and policies and accept the adjustment of status ("green card") applications. AILF is pleased that the DHS and DOS allowed intending immigrants to file applications for adjustment of status until and including August 17, 2007. They also allowed these applicants to pay the fee amounts that were in effect before the increase on July 30th, 2007.

LAC Welcomes Government Reversal on Permanent Resident Applications ("Green Cards") (July 19, 2007)

The Legal Action Center is pleased that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS) have announced they will comply with their own regulations and policies and accept the "green card" applications of tens of thousands of intending immigrants. A class action lawsuit scheduled to be filed by the LAC on July 17, 2007 on behalf of all affected intending immigrants argued that the government must do exactly that. See the LAC's complaint. The LAC is gratified that the government accepted our arguments and belatedly is doing what it should have done in the first place.Read more...

Cecilia Chouhy Balbi Gets Out There and Wins!

June, 2008
Cecilia Chouhy Balbi

The Exchange Visitor Program is pleased to announce Cecilia Chouhy Balbi as June's Exchange Visitor of the Month. Each month, we select an exchange visitor who has made an effort to get involved in his/her community and explore American Culture. Read more...

Georgia Dumps Peaches for Prisons with Arizona Copycat Immigration Law Today

Published on Fri, May 13, 2011

Will the Peach State now become the Prison State?

When Gov. Nathan Deal signed his state’s punitive HB 87 immigration law at noon today, Georgia took Arizona’s place on the nation’s fast track to penal profiteering from immigration crackdowns.

So much for colonial Georgia founder James Oglethorpe’s legacy, who railed against the British prisons, and launched the Great Seal of Georgia in 1733 with the motto: “Not for ourselves, but for others.”

Georgia’s new motto: “Not less than three nor more than 15 years.”

All civil rights violations aside, Georgia’s Arizona copycat “show me your papers” law not only grants widely denounced authority for unprecedented police investigations, but also calls for unabashed long-term prison sentences for numerous violations.

For starters, read this section of HB 87:

SECTION 5.

Said article of said title is further amended by revising Code Section 16-9-126, relating to penalties for violations, as follows: “16-9-126.

(a) A violation of this article, other than a violation of Code Section 16-9-121.1 or 16-9-122, shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or a fine not to exceed $100,000.00, or both. Any person who commits such a violation for the second or any subsequent offense shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00, or both.

(a.1) A violation of Code Section 16-9-121.1 shall be punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00, or both, and such sentence shall run consecutively to any other sentence which the person has received.Read more...

Published in the AlterNet