The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is pleased to present this 2005 edition of its 'Appreciating America’s Heritage" teacher resource guide.In these pages educators will find the latest lesson plans and book reviews developed by AILF for primary, intermediate, and secondary level classrooms. Each curriculum is designed and books have been selected to introduce students, especially those who may not be exposed directly to ethnically diverse populations, to the important and timely topic of immigration.
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 two class actions, one seeking to recover TPS fees and the other involving the Child Status Protection Act; upcoming BIA argument on Matter of Perez Vargas (IJ's jurisdiction to apply INA § 204(j)); a decision on the consular nonreviewability doctrine; and a court order compelling DOL to adjudicate a PERM application.
Do you have questions about deferred action. Use this resource from NILC before applying. Please seek the advice of an immigration attorney should you have ANY questions go to to find an immigration attorney http://www.ailalawyer.com/. Beware of scam artists and any body who promises fast processing or guaranteed acceptance.
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.
In honor of Tax Day, the Immigration Policy Center posted a reminder that often gets ignored in the illegal immigration debate, especially those who accuse illegal immigrants of mooching off the system from public schools to hospitals.
Using a methodology from the nonpartisan Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and information from the Pew Hispanic Center figures on each state's illegal immigration population using numbers from the 2010 Census, the ITEP came up with an estimate on state-specific tax payments.
Yes, immigrants pay taxes, too:
There were an estimated 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. as of 2010. Pew has also estimated the unauthorized population for each state. Pew has found that unauthorized immigrants are likely to be less educated than native-born U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, and they tend to work in low-wage jobs. Thus the average family income of the unauthorized population is lower than the average family income for U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. The average income of a household headed by an unauthorized immigrant is estimated to be $36,000; 10 percent of which goes towards remittances to family members in countries of origin.
According to the report, Arizona is in the top 10 of state receiving the most revenue from households headed by illegal immigrants. In 2010, Arizona's illegal immigrants paid $38 million in personal income taxes $45 million in property taxes and $348 million in sales taxes:
Sales tax is automatic, so it is assumed that unauthorized residents would pay sales tax at similar rates to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants with similar income levels.
Similar to sales tax, property taxes are hard to avoid, and unauthorized immigrants are assumed to pay the same property taxes as others with the same income level. ITEP assumes that most unauthorized immigrants are renters, and only calculates the taxes paid by renters.Read more...
This issue covers the Supreme Court's favorable decision in an aggravated felony case, a legal challenge to the H-1B/Neufeld Memo on the employer-employee relationship, EOIR resources on BIA precedents, a court of appeals decision vacating a BIA precedent on the finality of a conviction, updates on the suits challenging Arizona's immigration law (SB 1070), and LAC litigation on access to courts, motions to reopen, and the Child Status Protection Act.