This issue covers a suit challenging the transfer of detainees following the ICE raid in Iowa, a suit seeking to recover fees paid by TPS registrants, the settlement agreement in a natz delay/SSI restoration class action, a Supreme Court decision in a criminal sentencing case, and en banc review of an aggravated felony decision.
According to a new study, US ranks ninth position among 32 countries in terms of immigrant integration policies.
The Immigration Policy Center, the British Council and the Migration Policy Group worked together to release the study called The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). All 27 EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, and the USA are included in this study. The MIPEX reviews and ranks integration policies for legal immigrants across these countries.
The MIPEX uses 148 policy indicators which are divided into seven categories to compare and rank countries. Seven categories are employment opportunities, family reunion, education, political participation, long-term residence, access to citizenship and anti-discrimination.
The US has been included in the study for the first time. The result shows that it ranks ninth in terms of integration policies, and first in terms of its strong anti-discrimination laws and protections. It also has a high position against other countries about the access to citizenship scale as it encourages newcomers to become citizens in order to fully participate in American public life.
In comparison with other countries, legal immigrants in the U.S. enjoy employment opportunities, educational opportunities, and the opportunity to reunite with close family members the most.
The MIPEX indicates that many US states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington, as well as major cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco are leading on immigrant integration through their offices dedicated to welcoming newcomers.
"We have much to learn from other countries as well, but perhaps the greatest lesson that comes from MIPEX is that the very things that distinguish the United States are worth preserving as we move forward into the next decade of the 21st century," said Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center.Read more...
Across the country, tens of thousands marched and rallied May 1, May Day, to call for national immigration reform and to support all workers’ rights. Just as we did on April 4, working people declared: “Somos Unos—Respeten Nuestros Derechos” or “We Are One—Respect Our Rights.”
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told a crowd of about 100,000 in Milwaukee that “May Day is our day to stand together shoulder to shoulder for immigrant and worker rights.”
Gov. Scott Walker…has declared war on Wisconsin workers and, like you did before, you joined in a peaceful protest to say “No! No!” We reject the idea that America can no longer be a great nation and that we’re too broke to treat people fairly. We reject the notion that America can’t be the land of shared prosperity.
The crowd marched 2.5 miles across Milwaukee chanting, “this is what democracy looks like,” “sí, se peude,” “Walker eschuca estamos en la lucha” and “Wisconsin no es Arizona.”
Read Trumka’s entire speech here and click here to read more about the Milwaukee march.
On the other side of the country, nearly 10,000 people in Los Angeles rallied for good jobs that include a path to citizenship for 12 million undocumented immigrants.
According to a recent report by the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center, if federal immigration reform included a path to legalization, California would add 633,000 jobs and increase tax revenue by $5.3 billion.
AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler spoke at a mass rally in Chicago and Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker spoke at a rally in New York City.
Cory McCray, president of the Young Trade Unionists in Baltimore, spoke to Young Democrats from Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, New York, West Virginia and Pennsylvania about the importance of collective bargaining. Check out a video of some of the discussion here.
In 1997, the former INS adopted a regulation that barred all "arriving aliens" who were in removal proceedings from adjusting status. See former 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8); § 1245(c)(8). At the same time, INS adopted a regulation broadly defining the term "arriving alien." As a result, under 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8) and § 1245.1(c)(8), almost all parolees in removal proceedings were barred from adjustment of status. Several courts struck down these regulations barring adjustment as ultra vires to the statute. On May 12, 2006, the government issued an interim rule deleting the absolute bar on an "arriving alien's" ability to adjust status in removal proceedings. Under the interim rule, USCIS has jurisdiction to adjudicate the adjustment application. Litigation under the interim rule has focused on the BIA's blanket denial of all motions to reopen, remand or continue a removal case while USCIS is adjudicating the adjustment application.
The American Immigration Council’s LAC would like to hear how USCIS is handling the adjustment applications of “arriving aliens” in removal proceedings who are now eligible to apply for adjustment with USCIS under the interim rule. Please contact email@example.com to let us know what has happened in your clients' cases.
BIA Requests Briefing on the Issue of Whether USCIS Can and Will Decide an Adjustment Application of an "Arriving Alien" Under a Final Order of RemovalRead more...
John Morton, executive director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (aka ICE), issued a memo (.pdf) last Friday that provides ICE personnel “guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the agency’s immigration enforcement resources are focused on the agency’s enforcement priorities.”
The memo is one among several issued over the past 30 years by federal immigration authorities on how to exercise prosecutorial discretion. This latest memo explains that “the term ‘prosecutorial discretion’ applies to a broad range of discretionary enforcement decisions” that can include deferred action but also the execution of a deportation order. It offers guidelines on how to use discretion on a case-by-case basis and states that “decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances, with the goal of conforming to ICE’s enforcement priorities.”
According to the Immigration Policy Center, there are factors that lead to the use or exercise of prosecutorial discretion in an immigration case, “with respect to investigations, arrests, detention, parole, the initiation of removal proceedings, continued litigation of removal proceedings, and even the execution of final removal orders. Examples of the favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context include a grant of deferred action; a decision to terminate removal proceedings; a stay of removal; or a decision not to issue a charging document in the first place.”
The Morton memo adds that “when weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officers, agents, and attorneys should consider all relevant factors.”
The memo lists a series of factors that would allow ICE officials to use discretion:
• If the alien came to the United States as a young child.
• Whether someone has graduated from a U.S. high school or has successfully pursued or is pursuing a college or advanced degree.Read more...
In a January 17, 2007 decision written by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court found that a person who aids or abets a theft falls within the scope of the generic definition of theft. The Attorney General had sought certiorari in this Ninth Circuit removal case. The respondent, a permanent resident, was convicted of violating section 10851(a) of the California Vehicle Code. He was placed in removal proceeding and charged with removability based on an aggravated felony conviction, to wit, a theft offense as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(G). The Ninth Circuit, relying on Penuliar v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2005), which held that the California statute is broader than the generic definition of theft, reversed the finding of removal.