Now, unless a federal judge decides otherwise, law enforcement officers will be required starting Thursday to check the status of anyone they have “reasonable suspicion” to be in the United States illegally.
In a report released this month by the Immigration Policy Center in Washington, D.C., an Arizona attorney voiced concerns about how the law could be interpreted and carried out throughout the state.
This Practice Advisory discusses the changes that the REAL ID Act made to INA § 242(a)(2)(B) and outlines an analysis for whether §242(a)(2)(B) applies to a particular case. It also discusses federal court jurisdiction over discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act in the removal and non-removal contexts.
Recently I saw a CNN debate between Michele Waslin of the Immigration Policy Center and Former Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) on the issue of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. The most incredible part of the video, for me at least, was Tancredo's insistence that the issue of birthright citizenship has never come before the Supreme Court. As anyone who has taken a course on the history of U.S. immigration, or an introductory constitutional law class would know, the very idea of granting citizenship to those born on U.S. soil came from a Supreme Court decision in 1898, Wong Kim Ark.
This practice advisory discusses entries in three common situations: where a noncitizen is “waved” through a port of entry with no questions asked; where entry is gained by fraud or misrepresentation; and where there is a false claim to U.S. citizenship. With respect to each situation, the practice advisory explores whether an “admission” has occurred, the individual’s immigration status upon entry, and the immigration consequences of the action. It also discusses the impact of these three types of entries on a DACA application.
The objective of From War on Terror to War on Bias is to broaden the view students may have of Iraqi and Muslim immigrants. Students will examine current stereotypes and other forms of judgment as well as gain insight into the struggles immigrants face while adapting to a new culture.
The LAC works with other concerned advocates to encourage DHS to develop meaningful detainer guidance to address the pervasive problems with the current detainer system. LEAs consistently violate the 48 hour rule - the statutory period that LEAs can hold noncitizens subject to ICE detainers after they would otherwise have been released from state custod - because ICE often fails to take custody of a person subject to a detainer within this timeframe. As a result, unlawfully detained persons languish in LEA custody with no recourse. Moreover, in violation of ICE’s stated enforcement priorities, ICE issues detainers without regard to the seriousness of the criminal offense for which an alleged non-citizen was arrested. Detainers also are issued without sufficient evidence of individuals’ removability, and arrested persons and their attorneys are often not advised that a detainer has been issued or how to challenge an improperly or improvidently-issued detainer. More generally, ICE has not carried out the kind of oversight or data collection necessary to ensure compliance with existing detainer guidance.
In April 2011, the LAC co-drafted comprehensive comments on DHS proposed detainer guidance and recommended that DHS promulgate new regulations that ensure more effective oversight over the issuance of detainers and better protection for those subject to detainers.
In response, ICE has since released a new detainer form that does not substantively address the comments on the proposed detainer guidance.
The DREAM Act has generated a lot of debate — immigration research centers like the Migration Policy Institute and the Immigration Policy Center have published information on the impact of this proposed legislation.