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.
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."
The fugitive disentitlement doctrine arises in the immigration context when courts of appeals use the doctrine to dismiss petitions for review and when government agencies invoke the doctrine to deny FOIA requests. This Practice Advisory examines how the courts and the agencies apply the doctrine in these contexts.
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."
Eliminating birthright citizenship would mean everyone, not just immigrants, would have to prove their status and would require a federal bureaucracy to determine who is a citizen, said Michele Waslin, a policy analyst at the Immigration Policy Center, a Washington-based nonpartisan research group.
The LAC argued that the Second Circuit is not required to transfer a habeas appeal pending on REAL ID’s enactment date to the Fifth Circuit even though the immigration judge proceedings occurred within the Fifth Circuit.
Wilson v. Reno2nd Circuit Nos. 04-5869, 04-5973
REAL ID and District Court Jurisdiction
The LAC argues in these amicus briefs that the district courts erred in dismissing appeals of CIS denials of adjustment applications, where the individuals were not in removal proceedings and where the adjustment applications were denied on non-discretionary statutory eligibility grounds.Read more...
The Issues in Immigration series consists of three parts or modules listed below. Each module is designed to teach secondary students about immigration and immigrant conflicts, myths and facts. The lesson will also increase student awareness about immigration issues.
In the two years that the measure has been in effect – and according to a report by the Immigration Policy Center it lacks the proper supervision and a complaint procedure and it spurs racial profiling against immigrants – 69,905 foreigners have been identified as being in the country illegally and deported.
Businesses depend on highly skilled foreign professionals to remain competitive in today’s global market. In recent years, however, arbitrary decision making by the immigration agencies has often prevented U.S. employers from hiring the best and the brightest. Inconsistent outcomes in cases with similar facts, inexplicably restrictive interpretations of legal requirements, and the proliferation of Requests for Evidence are among the many obstacles that unjustifiably prevent highly skilled professionals from obtaining visas to work in the United States. Moreover, the agencies’ frequent reliance on obscure guidance and unwritten policies complicates the task of challenging bad decisions through litigation.
The LAC is working to tackle these problems by using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to increase transparency and accountability, undertaking litigation where appropriate, and providing practice resources to help lawyers challenge unlawful agency action in court.