Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Richard Rocha said immigrants who are counted as criminals have been convicted of crimes or have a record of a conviction for a crime. But immigration advocates are skeptical of the definition because ICE enforcement includes detaining people before they've been convicted, its definition of crimes includes misdemeanors and minor traffic offenses and its definition of a criminal immigrant has been inconsistent, said Michele Waslin, a senior policy analyst at the Immigration Policy Center.
This practice advisory addresses some of the factual scenarios and legal issues that may arise when seeking to suppress evidence unlawfully obtained at or near the border. This practice advisory supplements a prior LAC practice advisory, Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings: A General Overview, which has been updated to address certain strategic considerations concerning motions to suppress, including the advisability and timing of filing a concurrent request for prosecutorial discretion or a lawsuit for damages.
The report calls these voters "New Americans." They include recent immigrants and their children, coming largely but not entirely from Hispanics and Asian countries.
Walter Ewing is senior researcher at the Immigration Policy Center. He says in terms of voting habits, New Americans have one thing in common.
"What you can assume about this voting group is that they're going to respond to candidates who seem to be positive about immigration, since that is either themselves of their parents. And that does not seem to fall along party lines."
Ewing found that between 1996 and 2008, the number of new American voters increased more than 100 percent, and is likely to keep growing.
But Ewing says these voters tend to be forgotten by politicians, even though in California they accounted for more votes than the margin by which now President Barack Obama beat John McCain.
Tell the LAC about your DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) cases
AIC’s Legal Action Center is interested in hearing about pending immigration cases that involve the validity of a marriage involving a lesbian or gay foreign national. Please tell us about any case in which relief from removal hinges upon a qualifying spouse who is a lesbian or gay foreign national or any case in which an application for an immigration benefit (such as an I-130) hinges on recognition of a marriage involving a lesbian or gay foreign national. Reply if you have a case that currently is pending:
in federal court (either district court or the court of appeals);
before the BIA or an IJ; or
Please tell us the status of the case, what decisions have been made on the case, and whether the adjudicator has agreed to hold the case in abeyance until the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is resolved by the courts or until there is further action by the BIA in Matter of Dorman, 25 I&N Dec. 485 (Attorney General 2011).
In cooperation with Immigration Equality, the National Immigration Project and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, we are interested in assessing the status of pending cases and exploring possible remedies.
Also, if you are interested in developments that relate to lesbian or gay marriages (and many other LGBT issues) please join the GLIG (LGBT interest group) of AILA. You can sign up by clicking “View and Change Listservs” on your MyAILA page.)
Robles' bill could also be a blueprint for other states. After Arizona passed a heavy-handed law making it a state crime to be in the country illegally, copycat bills sprang up all over the United States. Now 25 states, including Utah, have made similar proposals. Robles' bill, could have a similar impact, said Wendy Sefsaf, communications director for the American Immigration Council, a Washington D.C. based think tank.
"I think Utah is setting an example for the rest of the country by being solution oriented in a way that other states aren't," she said. "The legislation coupled with the Utah Compact has really made Utah stand out."
Sefsaf said she regularly refers inquiring legislators to Utah. Robles said she's already fielded phone calls from curious legislators in Texas, Ohio, Kansas and Florida — among others.
"If Utah pulls this off, the rest of the country will be watching with interest," Sefsaf said. "There are a lot of states out there looking for an alternative to what Arizona has done."
This issue covers a recent FOIA lawsuit seeking information about stipulated removal; a Seventh Circuit case holding that the waiver of a right to a removal hearing under the Visa Waiver Program must be knowing and voluntary; a Ninth Circuit decision finding that DHS may not unilaterally block a motion to reopen to adjust status by opposing the motion; and the Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari to examine the standard for granting stays of removal at the courts of appeals.
What Legalizing Undocumented Immigrants Would Mean for the U.S. Economy
Washington D.C. - The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) will release a wide-ranging review of academic and government data that shows what legalizing undocumented immigrants would mean for the U.S. economy today, Monday, April 13th at 2pm EST.
Join leading economic analysts Gerald D. Jaynes, David Dyssegaard Kallick and Dan Siciliano, along with UFCW labor leader Esther Lopez, to learn more about how comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to legalization for undocumented workers would impact wages and working standards; affect tax revenue; and address undocumented immigration. Read more...
President Obama is taking heat from all sides this week for his 2012 budget proposal, which proposes increased funding for immigration enforcement and border militarization. While immigrant rights advocates are predictably up in arms over the proposal, House Republicans are (somewhat uncharacteristically) demanding significant cuts to border security funding -- on the grounds that the Obama administration's efforts to secure the border have been ineffective and fiscally irresponsible.
As Walter Ewing reports at Alternet/Immigration Impact, the proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget reveals the Obama administration's consistently conflicted priorities on immigration. While the budget makes good (albeit modestly) on the administration's promise to fund humane detention alternatives and better oversight of enforcement programs, the overwhelming bulk of the funding supports expansion of controversial and ineffective enforcement programs. Ewing writes:
The enforcement-heavy focus of the President's proposed DHS budget is readily apparent in the top-line numbers. The budget for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would be $11.8 billion; up 3 percent from FY 2011. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would receive $5.8 billion, up 1 percent from the previous year. And U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would get $2.9 billion, down 5 percent from FY 2011. As is so often case, immigration services get the short end of the stick.
The administration's continued emphasis on border security is particularly troubling in light of three recently released reports which suggest that increased enforcement efforts have proven to be totally ineffective at securing the border.