The violence has increased since 2007 – on the Mexican side of the border. What gets lost in this debate is that violence on the American side of the border has actually decreased.
A report by the Immigration Policy Center compiled using statistics from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics found that violent and property crime in Arizona has been on a steady decline since 2002. It decreased by 8% in six years. Violent crime impacted 447 people out of 100,000 in 2008 compared to 555 in 2002.
According to the American Immigration Council, “The complaint alleges that S.B. 1070 unlawfully attempts to regulate immigration and punish those whom Arizona deems to be in violation of immigration laws.”
The AIC notes that in the Escobar case, “On June 11 the Arizona cities of Flagstaff, San Luis, Somerton and Tolleson moved to join the lawsuit as plaintiff intervenors.”
This Practice Advisory outlines arguments to make in response to the government’s arguments that the court should dismiss a mandamus or Administrative Procedure Act case brought to remedy the delayed adjudication of an immigration application.
On a conference call today, opponents of changing the policy said that while Americans are "justifiably frustrated" with current immigration policy, eliminating birthright citizenship "would punish the innocent children of undocumented immigrants, which flies in the face of American values," according to Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center.
This Practice Advisory provides a general overview of motions to suppress, a tool used to prevent the introduction of evidence obtained by federal immigration officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and related provisions of federal law. This updated version has been changed to reflect recent developments regarding the suppression of identity-related evidence, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, and the impact of widespread Fourth Amendment violations.
Delayed decision-making by immigration agencies is a recurring problem faced by immigration attorneys and their clients. The federal mandamus statute provides a remedy for unreasonable delays by allowing a federal district court judge to order the agency to make a decision within a specific period of time. Too often, attorneys for the government attempt to dismiss mandamus cases, arguing that the court has no jurisdiction. We have filed amicus briefs in cases pending in the courts of appeals with the goal of establishing binding precedent confirming the district courts’ jurisdiction over mandamus suits against USCIS. We argue that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to decide an application (although not necessarily to approve it) and that, in cases in which there is unreasonable delay, district courts have jurisdiction under the mandamus statute to order the agency to carry out this duty in a timely fashion.
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.
According to the Immigration Policy Center the U.S. employment-based immigration rules are not in line with U.S. labor needs. Only 5,000 green cards per year are given to less skilled workers such as landscapers, hotel staff, and construction workers. This inadequate number of available green cards is “the crux of the unauthorized immigration problem in the U.S.,” according to an October 2010 Fact Sheet by the center.