When Arizona passed a law that handed local police unprecedented authority to investigate and arrest suspected illegal immigrants, the state ignited a firestorm in a midterm election year. And for Kris Kobach, the former Bush administration lawyer who helped draft the legislation, the crackdown in Arizona is just the beginning.
During a teleconference hosted by the Immigration Policy Center last week, Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity at the Berkeley School of Law, said Operation Streamline is an example of “a misdirected policy.”
This Practice Advisory addresses situations in which a court might excuse a late-filed petition for review and discusses other administrative and federal court options for remedying the failure to timely file a petition for review. The advisory also provides an overview of 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which authorizes courts to transfer a case to cure a lack of jurisdiction when an action is filed in the wrong federal court.
Immigrants aren’t very noticeable in West Virginia, which was 95 percent white in the year 2000, according to the Census. Yet, they’re here. The Immigration Policy Center estimates that the state was home to more than 23,000 immigrants in 2008, and the population is growing. Many of the immigrants are Latino or Asian.
Published in the West Virginia Public Broadcasting
Increasingly, state and local law enforcement officers are assisting the federal government in immigration enforcement, whether through formal agreements under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; through participation in Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program; through state laws such as those enacted in Arizona, Alabama, and elsewhere; or through policies promoted by local mayors, sheriffs, and police chiefs. Motions to suppress seek to exclude evidence obtained by such officers in violation of an individual’s constitutional or other legal rights.
This practice advisory deals primarily with Fourth Amendment limitations on state and local immigration enforcement efforts and also briefly addresses Fifth Amendment violations that may arise from the same types of encounters with state and local officers. It also discusses some of the legal issues that may arise when noncitizens in removal proceedings move to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a constitutional violation by such officers.
The Wagner-Rogers Bill - Debate lesson allows students to develop and hear the arguments for and against the Wagner-Rogers bill by taking part in a mock Congressional debate on the bill. Students are encouraged to develop and listen to persuasive testimony and speeches, and to come up with creative strategies to change the legislation in ways in which it might be more acceptable.
According to the most recent data from the 2010 Census, Latinos make up 11.5 percent of Utah’s population. The Immigration Policy Center revealed 32 percent of immigrants in Utah in 2008 were naturalized citizens who can vote. That number continues to rise.
Untold numbers of noncitizens with mental disabilities have been ordered deported without access to counsel or an assessment of their cognitive capabilities. This issue has taken on greater urgency following extensive reports of the challenges that immigrants who lack mental competency face in removal proceedings, as well as alarming accounts of the mistaken deportation of U.S. citizens with mental disabilities. The American Immigration Council has intervened in several cases at the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to address the scope of procedural safeguards needed to ensure fair hearings for noncitizens who lack mental competency.