Skip to Content



Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 1

This is the inaugural issue of the Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter.

Published On: Tuesday, December 6, 2005 | 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...

Latest GOP Fear Mongering Issue: ‘Birth Tourism’

Published on Wed, Apr 06, 2011

Republicans like Reps. David Vitter and Mike Lee and Sens. Rand Paul and Jerry Moran all built platforms on their “pro-family” politics. So, what does it take for these men to paint childbirth as “reprehensible?” You guessed it: these GOP lawmakers are again thumping their drums against “birth tourism,” an illusory epidemic in which illegal immigrants are traveling to the United States to give birth, thus guaranteeing their child, derided by these men as “anchor babies,” national citizenship.

“It is a reprehensible practice,” said Vitter, a Louisiana Congressman whose career survived revelations that he hired hookers.

Hoping to put an end to these illegal immigrants’ life-giving ways, these Republican leaders have drafted legislation that would “correct” a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, which clearly reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” and restrict citizenship to children born to at least one citizen, someone in the military or a legal resident.

Opponents of the legislation not only point out that “birth tourism” hardly represents the trend Rand Paul and company claim (only 7,670 of the 4.2 million babies born in the U.S. in 2006 were by mothers who don’t live here) but also insist that the Republican leaders are playing with constitutional fire.

“The Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship several times, and the leading constitutional scholars agree you would have to change the Constitution, not just the Immigration and Nationality Act as they’re trying to do here,” said Michele Waslin from the Immigration Policy Center.Read more...

Published in the Death and Taxes Magazine

Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings


Long used in criminal trials, motions to suppress seek to exclude evidence obtained by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, or related provisions of federal law. While the immediate purpose of filing a motion to suppress is to prevent the government from meeting its burden of proof, challenges to unlawfully obtained evidence can also deter future violations by law enforcement officers and thereby protect the rights of other noncitizens.

The Supreme Court held in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), that motions to suppress under the Fourth Amendment should be granted only for “egregious” violations. Immigrants in removal proceedings can also use motions to suppress for violations of the Fifth Amendment, as well as certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and federal regulations relating to the collection of evidence. The Legal Action Center has published a practice advisory offering guidance on filing motions to suppress in removal proceedings.

Federal Circuit decisions | BIA decisions | Immigration Judge decisions | Resources


First Circuit

Westover v. Reno, 202 F.3d 475 (1st Cir. 2000) (upholding denial of motion to suppress for asserted violations of Fourth Amendment and INA § 287(a)(2) arising from warrantless home entry)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!


U.S. agriculture a balancing act

Published on Sun, May 29, 2011

A piecemeal approach to immigration reform is the politically easy option, but there will be unintended negative consequences unless Congress addresses the whole problem.

An effective system to verify a job applicant's eligibility to work in the United States is an essential part of immigration reform. So are tough employer sanctions for those who hire the undocumented.

But if Congress just mandates the use of the employee-screening E-Verify system without dealing with labor demands, the job magnet will remain and the economy will suffer.

The agriculture industry is forthright in saying that up to 70 percent of its workforce is undocumented. There are no Americans to take those jobs.

"Are you raising your child to be a farmworker?" asks Tom Nassif, president of the Western Growers Association, which represents growers in California and Arizona. He says his industry has been trying to educate Congress about the simple fact that making E-Verify mandatory without addressing labor needs "wipes out agriculture."

John McClung, president of the Texas Produce Association, says E-Verify in isolation would be "the death knell" of agriculture in the United States . Without workers, farmers would move their cropland to where the labor is: Mexico and Central America. Nassif says two to three non-farm jobs are created for every farm job, so the result would be widespread job losses in the United States.

The other likely result, as Joe Sigg of the Arizona Farm Bureau points out, would be "under-the-table and off-the-books" employment.

Research bears this out. The nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center study, "Deeper Into the Shadows," found workers who lost their jobs because of enforcement tended to return to work - often at the same job - on a cash-only basis. They were generally paid less and became more vulnerable to exploitation.

E-Verify alone will create problems because it does not deal with the need for labor.Read more...

Published in the Arizona Republic

RICO Claim for Hiring Undocumented Workers

Mohawk Indus. v. Williams, 547 U.S. 516 (2006)

  • In a per curiam opinion dated June 5, 2006, the Supreme Court held that certiorari was improvidently granted and remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., another RICO case the Court decided the same day.


Published on Mon, Aug 01, 2011

Every now and then a piece of legislation comes around with a terribly creative acronym. The USA PATRIOT Act back in 2001 was one example. But rarely do two bills on the same issue appear in Congress with such diametrically opposed names and policy goals as the DREAM and HALT Acts.

Published in the The Nation

J-1 Participant Distribution

J-1 exchange visitors often wonder if there are other trainees and interns in their city or state with whom they could connect and share experiences.  To answer, we've created a map showing the distribution of trainees and interns currently sponsored by the International Exchange Center throughout the United States.

Check it out!