Last week, as several immigration-enforcement bills made their way through state legislatures, alternative bills and state compacts were proposed to deal with problems related to immigration.
The Immigration Policy Center indicates that business leaders, elected officials, community activists and faith groups in Utah and Indiana have signed “state compacts” — declarations of principles to guide the state’s immigration discussion, adding that, “The Indiana Association of Cities and Towns—which includes 120 Indiana mayors—added their names to the list of city, business, religious and education leaders who think Indiana’s copycat enforcement bill, SB 590, is a bad idea.” Read more...
AILA v. DHS is a FOIA lawsuit seeking the public release of records concerning agency policies and procedures for the "H-1B" visa program – a program which allows U.S. businesses to temporarily employ highly-skilled foreign workers.
AILA v. DHS is a FOIA lawsuit seeking the public release of records concerning agency policies and procedures for the "H-1B" visa program – a program which allows U.S. businesses to temporarily employ highly-skilled foreign workers. AILA had pursued disclosure of the documents through two separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, both of which were denied in full by the government.
The suit is brought by the American Immigration Council and Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
Proceedings in District Court
On July 20, 2010, plaintiff AILA filed a complaint in district court asking the court to order defendants to conduct a reasonable search for the records responsive to AILA’s requests; to be enjoined from continuing to withhold information relevant to the requests; to declare the requested records are not exempt from disclosure and make copies available to AILA; and to award any other relief that the court deems just and equitable.
The Exchange Visitor Program is proud to announce Milan Simic as June’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. Milan is featured this month for being the winner of the EVP Photo Contest! The winning entry, Rush Hour in Times Square, is pictured above. Read more...
Republican lawmakers Rep. Lamar Smith and Sen. Chuck Grassley made good on promises to target undocumented immigrant workers when they filed twin bills in Congress this week that would create a federal mandate forcing virtually all employers to use the database E-Verify to establish their workers’ immigration status. Smith has pitched his Legal Workforce Act as an immigration enforcement bill with a twist; he imagines it also as a job creation bill that would protect U.S. jobs from undocumented workers in an aching economy.
Immigrant rights groups have rejected that claim, calling the bill a bald attack on immigrant communities that would instead hurt the economy and make mandatory a deeply flawed immigration enforcement tool.
“This legislation is another example of putting cheap political maneuvers ahead of the interests of American workers,” said Clarissa Martínez De Castro, the director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza. “It will do nothing to create jobs, it will place a burden on all job-seeking U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, and it will not fix our broken immigration system.”
Smith’s bill, HR 2164, calls for nearly every employer with one or more worker to use E-Verify to check the work eligibility of both prospective and new hires. Current law calls for employers to use the system after workers are hired. HR 2164 would also decrease the number of acceptable documents that workers can use to prove their immigration status and work eligibility and would make it a felony to use a false Social Security number. The bill would be phased in over the course of the next three years.Read more...
The Supreme Court held that a court of appeals should apply the traditional criteria governing stays when adjudicating a stay of removal pending a petition for review. In doing so, the Court rejected the government’s argument that the stringent standard in INA § 242(f)(2) (“clear and convincing evidence” that the removal order “is prohibited as a matter of law") applies. The Court’s decision reversed the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, which had held that INA § 242(f)(2) applies to stays of removal pending petitions for review. Read more...
As election season nears, immigration will undoubtedly be cast into the national spotlight as a hot-button campaign issue for many candidates. But as public officials make broad statements about U.S. immigration policy — widely acknowledged to be a broken system — a new study shows that the reality of immigration may be far different from what the political rhetoric implies.
A new study from the Pew Hispanic Center and the RAND Corporation focusing on Mexican migration patterns into the U.S. shows that immigration from Mexico has waned in recent years, and that fewer Mexicans are leaving for the U.S. “The number of Mexicans annually leaving Mexico for the U.S. declined from more than one million in 2006 to 404,000 in 2010 – a 60% reduction,” the report states.
However, while Mexican immigration to the U.S. declined over the past decade, the study also shows that the Mexican-American population grew rapidly. From 2000 to 2010, births increased the Mexican-American population by 7.2 million, while immigration increased it by 4.2 million. The decade marked a turnaround from the previous two decades, when the number of new immigrants outpaced the number of births in the Mexican-American community.
What’s the impetus for such a shift? The report explains:
On the U.S. side, declining job opportunities and increased border enforcement may have made the U.S. less attractive to potential Mexican immigrants. And in Mexico, recent strong economic growth may have reduced the “push” factors that often lead Mexicans to emigrate to the U.S.Read more...