The current immigration removal system—from arrest to hearing to deportation and beyond—does not reflect American values of due process and fundamental fairness. In fact, the immigration removal system lacks nearly all of the due process protections that come into play in the U.S. criminal justice system.
With this in mind, we've created this resource page to draw attention to issues surrounding due process in the immigration system, including reports on the problems and flaws of the current system, as well as possible fixes.
Lack of evidence is no obstacle for the Heritage Foundation, which on July 10 issued a rambling memorandum claiming that an unknowable yet large number of non-citizens are voting illegally and subverting the electoral process. Rigorous research has shown that voter fraud in the U.S. is almost non-existent and that most allegations of voter fraud by non-citizens stem from faulty records, partisan politics, and common-place error.
Today, Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP), in the House of Representatives. The 87 original co-sponsors of the bill include members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Black Caucus, Asian Pacific American Caucus, and Progressive Caucus.
The American Immigration Council's Community Education Center has launced the 14th Annual "Celebrate America" creative writing contest. Every year thousands of 5th graders from across the country participate in local contests.
AIC Amicus Argues Employees Have Right to Remain While Extension Applications Pending
Released on Wed, Apr 13, 2011
Washington D.C. - A recent ruling from a federal judge in Connecticut confirmed that—as the American Immigration Council (AIC) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) argued in an amicus brief—the government may not arrest H-1B employees for whom timely-filed extension applications remain pending. The decision in El Badrawi v. United States, by U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall, correctly recognized that a federal regulation allows H-1B employees to continue working for 240 days pending the adjudication of their extension applications, and that “work authorization is part and parcel of their authorization to be in the country, not a separate matter.” Permitting the initiation of removal proceedings during this period would thus be unfair to employees and employers alike, according to the decision.
The plaintiff, a Lebanese national, was gainfully employed as a medical researcher when his employer requested an H-1B extension in early 2004, more than a month before his H-1B status expired. Though his employer paid a $1,000 fee for premium processing of the application, the government never adjudicated it and refused to respond to requests for information. Nearly seven months after the request was filed, immigration agents arrested the plaintiff for allegedly “overstaying” his initial period of admission. He was placed in removal proceedings and detained for nearly two months.Read more...
PRACTICE ADVISORY UNDERSTANDING THE FINAL RULE FOR J-1 TRAINEE AND INTERN PROGRAMS
New final rules became effective Sept. 9, 2010 for J trainee and intern programs 22 C.F.R.§ 62 (2010). With few exceptions, the final rule will produce little change to the way J trainee and intern programs have been administered since the interim-final rule of 2007.
Washington D.C. – This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was filing suit in South Carolina to block Act No. 69 (formerly SB 20), South Carolina’s new anti-immigrant law—modeled on Arizona’s SB1070. DOJ argues—like it did in Utah and Alabama—that the law is unconstitutional and interferes with the federal government’s ability to set and enforce immigration policy and is likely to result in civil rights violations. Following the legal challenge, the DOJ Civil Rights Division also sent a letter to Alabama’s public schools reminding them of their duty to provide public education to all children in the state regardless of immigration status.
The DOJ is challenging state legislatures that pass immigration enforcement laws that interfere with the federal government’s role in enforcing immigration laws and setting priorities. The DOJ’s effort on this case reflects their commitment to protecting constitutional principles and individual rights, a commitment that should extend to pursing vigorous challenges in other states that have passed similar laws, including Utah, Georgia, and Indiana.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also has a strong role to play and should respond to the civil rights crisis taking place in the states and make good on Secretary Napolitano’s assurance that her agency will not be complicit in enforcing Alabama’s new law through federal immigration enforcement actions. Read more...