The Center for Immigration Studies' forthcoming report on the impact that immigration-enforcement raids at Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in 2006 had on wages and working conditions defines the problem but not the cure. In its attempt to advocate for the failed "enforcement-only" policies of the past, the report more effectively illustrates the need for comprehensive immigration reform, albeit unintentionally. The Immigration Policy Center's Director, Angela Kelley, issued a statement in response.
Lisa Graybill, Esq., served as the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas from 2005-2012. Cases which Lisa litigated at the ACLU include ongoing litigation on behalf of immigrant women who were sexually assaulted at an immigration detention center; challenges to successive anti-immigrant housing ordinances in Farmers Branch, Texas; a successful challenge to a South Texas county’s practice of jailing indigent teens for failure to attend school without offering an indigency determination; and litigation challenging the federal government’s practice of detaining immigrant children and their families in substandard conditions. Before joining the ACLU of Texas, Lisa was a Trial Attorney in the Attorney General’s Honors Program at the Special Litigation Section of the U. S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, where she worked on police misconduct and prison and jail conditions. Lisa is a native Texan; she graduated from Smith College with highest honors in 1991 and received her law degree from the University of Texas with honors in 1999.
This week, the House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing on electronic employment verification systems (EEVS) -- Washington's latest magic potion for dealing with the nation's broken immigration system. As more hearings are expected in the coming weeks in other committees, including Homeland Security and Judiciary, what questions should the American public want to hear be thoroughly asked and answered?
Washington D.C. - A new report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), entitled Immigrant Legalization: Assessing the Labor Market Effects, yields both some enlightening and some potentially misleading results about the likely impact of a legalization program. Because the PPIC report focuses on legal status acquired under current immigration law, it does not reflect the long-term benefits and gains that follow from a comprehensive immigration reform package which includes legalization.
While the PPIC report dovetails with other reports when it concludes that legalization would not have a negative impact on native workers' wages and employment, their findings on the wages and mobility of the newly legalized differ from other academic studies on how immigrants fare after legalization. This difference can be attributed to the fact that PPIC looks at legalization only, and how the newly legalized are doing just 4-13 months after becoming legalized. Almost all other previous studies haven take a longer term view of their success.
PPIC relies upon data from the New Immigrant Survey (NIS), a sample of foreign-born individuals who acquired legal permanent resident (LPR) status between May and November 2003. It is important to keep in mind that the NIS is not representative of the unauthorized-immigrant population as a whole. As opposed to the individuals captured in the NIS, most unauthorized immigrants do not have a means of acquiring legal status. Moreover, individuals in the NIS were interviewed 4-13 months after acquiring LPR status.Read more...
Washington, D.C. - Today, more than fifty leading university professors urged Congress to pass the DREAM Act, noting that both their academic research and their work as teachers compelled them to speak out on behalf of the undocumented students whose future hangs in the balance over today's vote. These scholars, who have dedicated their professional lives to studying migration-related issues, noted: Read more...
Washington, D.C. - The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) is pleased to announce the release of a new practice advisory: “Motions to Suppress in Removal Proceedings: A General Overview.” Long used in criminal trials, motions to suppress seek to exclude evidence obtained by government agents in violation of an individual’s constitutional or other legal rights. Though federal immigration officers often disregard immigrants’ rights, legal and practical obstacles prevent many individuals from challenging the procedures used to arrest them once placed in removal proceedings. By filing motions to suppress more frequently, immigrants will promote greater accountability by law enforcement officers and thereby protect the rights of other noncitizens.
For a complete list of all LAC Practice Advisories, please visit our website.