A federal program to identify and deport dangerous criminal immigrants has been routinely scooping up legal and unauthorized immigrants with little or no criminal history, according to a locally generated study released this week by the Immigration Policy Center in Washington.
According to the study, 57 percent of immigrants identified by the Criminal Alien Program in 2009 had no criminal convictions, up from 53 percent in 2008.
Advocates for information-technology companies have allied with progressive and Hispanic groups to win a broad overhaul of immigration law, but they are also keeping open the option of pursuing a narrow set of tech-friendly legal changes in the next Congress.
"I'm happy to be part of comprehensive reform, and I'm happy to be part of a focused bill," said Brad Feld, a Colorado-based venture capitalist who is pushing to establish a Startup Visa program that would grant green cards to high-tech entrepreneurs. Feld lobbied Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., to add the proposal to an immigration bill drafted by Rep. Luis Gutierrez., D-Ill.
Published in the Information Technology Industry Council
Arizona's harsh new immigration law has taken quite a beating in the past week.
President Obama has called it “misguided” and promised to keep an eye on it. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government may challenge the law. Calls for boycott are multiplying, threatening to stagnate Arizona’s already weakened economy.
But maybe the state's lawmakers should see all these potential obstacles as a blessing. Because the truth is, Arizona may not be able to afford this law anyway.
Fixing the border to solve immigration problems without addressing other issues is a little like solving just one side of a puzzle, an immigration policy expert said yesterday.
“You fix one side of a Rubik’s Cube, but the rest is a mess,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, said.
Giovagnoli spoke at the ninth annual Cambio de Colores conference in Columbia. The three-day event focuses on Hispanics and immigrants in Midwestern communities and is co-sponsored by the University of Missouri System, MU, MU Extension and the Cambio Center.
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."
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.
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."
District courts have jurisdiction to review a wide-variety of immigration decisions that arise outside of removal proceedings, including challenges to denials of visa petitions. These cases most often assert a claim under the APA, which permits individuals to sue the government for unlawful agency action. While the INA places some restrictions on review of discretionary decisions in non-removal cases, it does not strip district courts of all jurisdiction. The LAC seeks to ensure that district courts exercise jurisdiction over these APA cases to the fullest extent possible.
Ngassem v. Chertoff, No. 05-0584-cv (2d Cir. amicus brief filed Apr. 16, 2008) (case settled without a decision from the court). The LAC filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner, arguing that the district court had jurisdiction over the denial of an asylee relative petition.
Jama v. DHS, et al., No. 13-4192 (6th Cir. amicus brief submitted Dec. 4, 2013). The LAC filed an amicus brief arguing that the district court erred when it found that USCIS’ decision terminating the plaintiff’s refugee status was not “final” for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act because the termination decision could not be appealed or raised in removal proceedings. Additionally, the LAC argues that the restrictions on judicial review found in the INA do not apply to a district court action, such as this one, that is entirely unrelated to removal proceedings.Read more...