Skip to Content



Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 12

This issue highlights a case rejecting the CIMT analysis in Silva-Trevino, Supreme Court developments, adjustment of status for K-2 visa holders who turn 21, Track 3 FOIA litigation, motions to dismiss immigration cases in district court, and a settlement in a class action for passport applicants.

Published On: Thursday, November 5, 2009 | Download File

The Green and White World of Egoitz Iturrixa Zubiri

May, 2009
Egoitz Iturrixa Zubiri

The Exchange Visitor Program is proud to announce Egoitz Iturrixa Zubiri as May'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...

To sell the repeal of birthright citizenship, Republicans like Vitter lie about scope of ‘baby tourism’

Published on Fri, Apr 08, 2011

I guess this is how Republicans do the Latino-outreach thing: Demonize Latino children, threaten to take away their birthright citizenship, and blatantly lie about the numbers of “anchor babies” being born by mothers coming here specifically to have citizen children.

Here’s Sen. David Vitter yesterday on Fox News, promoting his new federal bill to strip American-born children of undocumented immigrants of their birthright citizenship:

VITTER: It’s a very real problem. About 200,000 women come into this country annually from other countries legally, with a tourist visa, something like that, to give birth in this country so that child can automatically become a U.S. citizen. 200,000 a year!

I’m guessing that Vitter’s source for this number is either somewhere up his own nether regions, or those of hate groups such as FAIR and CIS that pump out fake statistics like this for eager Latino-bashers like Vitter and his three Senate colleagues to regurgitate into policy.

Because, as ABC News explained in their own report on this legislation:

Of the 4.2 million live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, only 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here.

Some of those mothers could be “baby tourists,” experts say, but many could be foreign college students, diplomatic staff, or vacationers. The government does not track the reasons non-resident mothers are in the United States at the time of the birth or their citizenship.

Indeed, as the story notes, the “anchor baby” problem is a statistical pimple:

“There’s no evidence that birth tourism is a widespread problem,” said Michele Waslin, a senior policy analyst with the Immigration Policy Center. “There are ways to dealing with that issue without such sweeping changes. This is like using a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.”Read more...

Published in the Crooks and Liar

Arizona SB 1070‎, Legal Challenges and Economic Realities


Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070, amended by HB 2162) requires state and local law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of individuals it encounters and makes it a state crime for noncitizens to fail to carry proper immigration documentation. Soon after Arizona’s governor signed the bill, challenges to the law were filed. This page highlights the suits challenging the Arizona law. Read about challenges to other state and local laws at the State and Local Law Enforcement Litigation Issue Page.

Cases | Other Arizona Litigation | Litigation-related Articles and Resources | Economic Realities


Ninth Circuit Upholds Temporary Injunction Against SB 1070; Arizona Appeals Ruling to Supreme Court

United States of America v. State of Arizona, No. 10-01413 (D. Ariz. prelim. injunction granted July 28, 2010); prelim. injunction aff’d , No. 10-16645 (9th Cir. April 11, 2011); petition for certiorari filed, No. 11-182 (Aug. 10, 2011)

Recent developments:

On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit upheld a temporary injunction against four provisions of SB 1070 entered last July by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.  The Ninth Circuit’s ruling thus continued to block enforcement of provisions that:Read more...

A Conversation with Sabine Mucha

November, 2011

Congratulations to Sabine Mucha, our Exchange Visitor of the Month. We recently caught up with Sabine to learn more about her J-1 visa experience.

Tell me about your training:
EMD Serono is the US side of my German company. I’m training in pharmaceutical services. I hope when I go back to Germany I can share all of the new things I learned even after 10 years in the field!


Supreme Court tosses challenge to Calif. tuition law

Published on Mon, Jun 06, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a California law that allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition rates, a decision that gave a boost to supporters of a similar law approved this year in Maryland.

California’s 2001 law, which grants in-state college rates to students who attended a California high school for three years and graduate, was challenged by a conservative immigration group that argued the provision conflicted with federal law. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case and did not comment on that decision.

A California court had previously upheld the law.

The law is similar to one signed in May by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Opponents of Maryland’s law are attempting to gather 56,000 signatures to suspend its provisions and put it on the ballot so that voters can decide its fate next year. Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin have comparable tuition laws.

Opponents said last week they had cleared an early hurdle in the petition drive, securing more than the 18,500 signatures initially needed to keep the effort alive. Del. Patrick L. McDonough, has said he expects opponents will also file a lawsuit to stop the law. McDonough, a Baltimore County Republican, was not immediately available for comment.

Those in favor of the law cheered the court’s decision.

The state law "is absolutely lawful under federal law and the California decision is just one more in a litany of court finding making that declaration," said Kim Propeack with the immigration advocacy group CASA de Maryland.Read more...

Published in the Baltimore Sun

Remand Rule

Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006)

  • In a per curiam decision dated April 17, 2006, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the asylum claim.