Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Immigration status not a question on 2010 Census, despite push by some to ask it

Published on Fri, Mar 19, 2010

To the chagrin of some, that’s not one of the questions included in the 2010 Census forms that have been arriving at homes across the country over the past few weeks.

Census officials said it should not come as a surprise, because the U.S. Census’ 1790 mandate does not require that a person completing the Census reveal their legal status.

 

Published in the Naples News

Will Arizona's Immigration Law Pass Legal Muster?

Published on Fri, Apr 23, 2010

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a controversial bill Friday that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to be in the state. The new law will require local police to seek proof of immigration status if there is reason to suspect individuals are illegal immigrants.

Earlier Friday, President Obama had criticized the bill as "misguided." He said that the federal government's failure to overhaul immigration law had been an invitation for other jurisdictions to act "irresponsibly." Now that Brewer has signed the bill into law, however, the question is whether it can survive inevitable legal challenges.

Published in the NPR

Other border states shun Arizona's immigration law

Published on Wed, May 12, 2010

New Mexico's governor says it is a step backward. Texas isn't touching it. And California? Never again.

Arizona's sweeping new law empowering police to question and arrest anyone they suspect is in the U.S. illegally is finding little support in the other states along the Mexican border.

Among the reasons given: California, New Mexico and Texas have long-established, politically powerful Hispanic communities; they have deeper cultural ties to Mexico that influence their attitudes toward immigrants; and they have little appetite for a polarizing battle over immigration like one that played out in California in the 1990s.

Published in the Associated Press

Lawmakers Studying Immigration Reform

Published on Tue, Jun 08, 2010

Legislators in at least 22 states have introduced or are considering similar legislation to Arizona's, according to the Washington, D.C., based Immigration Policy Center -- a research arm of the American Immigration Council that advocates comprehensive immigration reform.

Not all state legislation related to immigration is punitive -- much of it falls within traditional state jurisdiction, such as attempts to improve high school graduation rates among immigrants, according to the Center.

Published in the Bethany Beach Wave

SB 1070 Enforcement Will NOT Be Uniform

Published on Tue, Jul 27, 2010

The procedures followed by individual police agencies are not dictated by the board or the governor, however, and as a new study by the Immigration Policy Center shows there will be a wide variety of enforcement policies within Arizona, even with the law’s heavy-handed language about officers being required to do one thing or another and citizens being able to sue those they don’t believe to be enforcing the law.

Published in the Arizona Republic

ICE's Detention after Removal Hearing Program (DARH)

This Practice Advisory provides suggestions for lawyers with clients subject to the ICE’s Detention After Removal Hearing Program (DARH), outlines statutes and regulations governing the detention of respondents subject to DARH, and sets out potential legal challenges.

Published On: Friday, April 9, 2004 | Download File

Grandfather's Journey by Allen Say

Grandfather's Journey explores themes of cross cultural experience as well as intergenerational relationships and family history. The award-winning illustrations convey Say's love of family, as well as his love of place. Through a series of reading, writing and reflection activities, students will explore this cross cultural theme and develop a deeper understanding of why immigrants come to the United States.

View File

Births to Illegal Immigrants Are Studied

Published on Wed, Aug 11, 2010

Some researchers noted that the Pew figures did not identify families where both parents were illegal immigrants. “If anything, the Pew report highlights how complicated this issue is, given that so many unauthorized immigrants live in families that include U.S. citizens and legal immigrants,” said Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst for the Immigration Policy Center, a group that supports legalization for illegal immigrants.

Published in the New York Times

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

Read more...

Published On: Thursday, August 28, 2014 | Download File

INA § 242(a)(2)(D) not a bar to district court jurisdiction

<This page is under construction>

Federal District Court Jurisdiction over Legal and Constitutional Questions

The Legal Action Center (LAC) is urging a narrow and strict interpretation of the statutory bars to review of discretionary issues in cases where discretionary relief may have been sought, but the cases themselves present legal or constitutional issues. This situation arises when a person seeks district court review of USCIS’s denial of an application for adjustment of status on non-discretionary grounds. This issue has become increasingly important as more noncitizens challenge USCIS denials of applications in district court. It is an issue that remains unresolved in the majority of circuits. We argue that: (1) the bar in INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i) is inapplicable to a court’s review of non-discretionary statutory eligibility for benefits; and (2) that INA § 242(a)(2)(D) expands the court of appeals’ jurisdiction and in no way limits district court jurisdiction over legal and constitutional questions.

The LAC presented these arguments to the court of appeals in an amicus curiae brief in support of rehearing and rehearing en banc in Lee v. USCIS, 592 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2010). We also received a decision in another case in which we had filed an amicus curiae brief. Although the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s finding that the plaintiff was seeking review of a discretionary determination that is barred under INA § 242(a)(2)(B), the court agreed with the LAC that the district court would retain jurisdiction over nondiscretionary issues and that it had wrongly interpreted INA § 242(a)(2)(D) as restricting the court’s jurisdiction over legal and constitutional questions.

LAC amicus briefs on 242(a)(2)(D):Read more...