Arizona's harsh new immigration law has taken quite a beating in the past week.
President Obama has called it “misguided” and promised to keep an eye on it. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government may challenge the law. Calls for boycott are multiplying, threatening to stagnate Arizona’s already weakened economy.
But maybe the state's lawmakers should see all these potential obstacles as a blessing. Because the truth is, Arizona may not be able to afford this law anyway.
Fixing the border to solve immigration problems without addressing other issues is a little like solving just one side of a puzzle, an immigration policy expert said yesterday.
“You fix one side of a Rubik’s Cube, but the rest is a mess,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, said.
Giovagnoli spoke at the ninth annual Cambio de Colores conference in Columbia. The three-day event focuses on Hispanics and immigrants in Midwestern communities and is co-sponsored by the University of Missouri System, MU, MU Extension and the Cambio Center.
Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council, called the lawsuit filed yesterday an important step for the federal government to reassert its authority over immigration policy.
"While a legal challenge by the Department of Justice won't resolve the public's frustration with our broken immigration system, it will seek to define and protect the federal government's constitutional authority to manage immigration," Johnson said.
This Practice Advisory explains why USCIS has jurisdiction over adjustment applications of an arriving alien parolee with an unexecuted final order of removal. It also outlines the arguments why such a parolee remains eligible for adjustment notwithstanding an unexecuted final order of removal. This Practice Advisory supplements an earlier practice advisory addressing the adjustment of paroled “arriving aliens” under the interim regulations adopted on May 12, 2006.
Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the more liberal American Immigration Council, countered that for some conservatives, "it's never enough." Over the last seven years, Johnson said, the U.S. has quintupled its number of border agents and quadrupled its immigration enforcement budget -- "but the appetite for increasing immigration enforcement-only policy seems to be never-ending. I can only conclude that it's because constantly raising the bar on how much we need to spend and what constitutes secure borders at this point seems like an excuse for not doing anything else."
Stories of Immigration teaches secondary grade students about the value of immigration through selected literature. The lesson also increases student awareness of the important historical periods of immigration and the effects of these events on America.
The Immigration Policy Center, which is on the opposite end of the immigration debate from the federation, argues that their inclusion as a cost of illegal immigration is misleading.
"They are U.S. citizens and denying them education, health care, financial assistance, etc.. would put them at a disadvantage compared to other U.S. citizens," spokeswoman Michele Waslin wrote in an e-mail. "In financial terms, it could probably cost the state much more in the long run to have a population of poorly educated, unhealthy citizens."
The Immigration and Nationality Act was amended in 1999 to make it easier for noncitizen physicians practicing medicine in medically underserved U.S. communities to become permanent residents. Regulations adopted by the immigration agency to implement the statute made the process more burdensome by requiring eligible foreign physicians to satisfy additional requirements not authorized by Congress. The LAC successfully urged the Ninth Circuit to strike down these regulations.
Schneider v. Chertoff, No. 04-55689 (9th Circuit amicus brief filed Feb. 22, 2005). The Ninth Circuit issued a precedent decision which struck down the regulations as violating the statute. Schneider v. Chertoff, 450 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2006).