Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Prospects Remain Grim for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Published on Mon, Aug 30, 2010

The best bet for reforming the immigration system this year lies with smaller bills, and immigrants rights groups have attempted to push for these measures instead. If this happens, the future of comprehensive immigration reform is still unclear, according to Mary Giovagnoli, director of Immigration Policy Center.

“We don’t have a good measure anymore of what will happen once we get something discreet like the DREAM Act passed,” she says. “But when the sky doesn’t fall in and if people still get re-elected after supporting DREAM, it may show members of Congress that leaning into the immigration issue and voting for comprehensive immigration reform could help them politically.”

Published in the The Washington Independent

Jurisdictional Bars Under the INA

District Court Jurisdiction over Non-Removal Cases | Review of Mixed Questions of Law and Fact
Review of Sua Sponte Motions to Reopen
| Resources

District Court Jurisdiction over Non-Removal Cases

The Legal Action Center (LAC) urges a narrow interpretation of the statutory bars to review of discretionary issues in district court cases where discretionary relief may have been sought, but the cases themselves present legal or constitutional issues. This situation arises when, for example, a noncitizen seeks district court review of USCIS’s denial of an application for adjustment of status on non-discretionary grounds. This issue has become increasingly important as more noncitizens seek review of erroneous USCIS denials of applications for immigration benefits.

The LAC maintains that district courts do have jurisdiction over these cases and can review them under the Administrative Procedures Act. We argue that the bar to review of discretionary judgments found in INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i) is inapplicable to a court’s review of non-discretionary statutory eligibility for an immigration benefit. We also argue that INA § 242(a)(2)(D) does not limit the jurisdiction of a district court to review constitutional and legal issues in a non-removal case.

CASES

Alla Barenboy v. Secretary of DHS et al., No. 10-1802 (3d Cir. amicus brief filed June 7, 2010) (court denied the petition on other grounds in a non-precedential decision).Read more...

Border Challenges

What Thousands of Interviews with Undocumented Migrants Tell Us about Achieving Effective Enforcement

Washington D.C. - While the immigration issue remains the subject of countless hearings, speeches, and speculation on Capitol Hill, for the last 3 years researchers at U.C.-San Diego have been documenting and assessing the impact and effectiveness of the U.S. border-enforcement strategy through interviews with over 3,000 migrants and potential migrants. The U.C.-San Diego research team has conducted interviews in Mexicans' hometowns in the states of Jalisco, Zacatecas, Oaxaca, and Yucatán, as well as in the U.S. cities that are their primary destinations.  Their most recent study was conducted in Oaxaca and San Diego County, from December 2007 to February 2008.  The research team's data, gathered from the people whose behavior has been targeted by the U.S. enforcement strategy, is the most direct and up-to-date evidence of whether border-enforcement efforts are actually keeping undocumented migrants out of the United States, and reveals the border strategy's significant unintended consequences. Read more...

Groups Mobilize NY Immigrant Vote

Published on Tue, Oct 19, 2010

Their coordinated efforts have been a success, with more than 280,000 new citizens being registered to vote. This year, with tight congressional races for state Assembly and Senate elections, their goals are to demonstrate the impact of that voting bloc, which already counts more than 1 million registered voters in New York, according to a new study by the Immigration Policy Center.

Published in the Epoch Times

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 8

This issue covers a court order requiring DHS to respond to a detention standards petition, BIA and Ninth Circuit decisions on continuances, a class action challenging prolonged detention, retroactive application of a change in law, and litigation resources on the Supreme Court's decision in Nijhawan.

Published On: Friday, July 10, 2009 | Download File

State rep. pushing Ariz.-style immigration law has ties to organization working to repeal 14th Amendment

Published on Mon, Jan 10, 2011

Michelle Waslin, an Immigration Policy Center senior policy analyst, tells the Independent that “SLLI wants to spark a legal challenge that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. They want to set up a system for citizens and another for people who can be discriminated.”

Waslin also says that amending the 14th Amendment is not a solution for illegal immigration. “Under the current system, you’re born here, you get a birth certificate,” she says. “If we didn’t have that system we would need a bureaucracy to determine citizenship.”

She points out that if automatic citizenship is eliminated, all U.S. citizens would be affected. She compares the outcome to the current situation of a U.S. serviceman in Germany, married to a German woman, who together have a baby. That couple has to hire an immigration lawyer have to clarify if the baby if a U.S. citizen.

Published in the Florida Independent

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 3

This issue covers a natz delay class action, arriving alien adjustments, the Fourth Circuit's reversal in Matter of Perez Vargas (204(j) case), the asylum one year filing deadline, and the National Children's Center's resources.

Published On: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 | Download File

GOP Tries To Scare Minorities Into Supporting Anti-Immigration Policies

Published on Thu, Mar 03, 2011

On Tuesday the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement held a meeting that purported to explore the effects of undocumented workers on the labor market. “Making Immigration Work for American Minorities” included prepared statements from the President of the San Antonio Tea Party and a professor representing the abjectly titled—and thoroughly unprogressive—Progressives For Immigration Reform (PRIF), among other specialists.

There were few surprises during the hearing—the subcommittee chair, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) began with a statement that read, in part, “Virtually all credible studies show that competition from cheap foreign labor displaces American workers, including legal immigrants, or depresses their wages.”

His references include a Pew Hispanic Survey that shows seven million undocumented immigrants have jobs in the U.S. and a study conducted by the risibly partisan The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) that determined undocumented workers depress wages for all low-skilled workers by $1,800 a year. Rep. Smith then cites a Harvard research paper by George Borjas that found undocumented workers reduce the wages of low-skilled American workers by 7.4 percent.

I’ll get to the findings in a moment, but I think it’s bedeviling Rep. Smith relies on two studies that view undocumented immigrants in a negative light, and stops right there. Doing more to cement anti-immigrant advocates as purveyors of hyperbole and anecdote, Smith says:

“But research is not the only proof. After illegal workers are arrested and detained during Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) worksite enforcement actions, many businesses replace them with American minorities.”

A footnote? A statistic? He doesn’t even offer a number pulled from the firmament. Instead, he entreats lawmakers to fix an immigration system that hurts “American workers” and particularly “African Americans.”Read more...

Published in the Campus Progress