This issue covers Child Status Protection Act litigation, a recent Supreme Court decision in a fraud offense case, a final order in a religious worker class action, a court of appeals decision finding jurisdiction to review a cancellation denial, and an update in the Orozco litigation (involving adjustment of status where the admission involved fraud or misrepresentation).
A study, the first of its kind, shows that undocumented immigrants pay sales taxes and property taxes, and at least half pay an income tax.
According to an Immigration Policy Center report released yesterday, tax day, the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy has estimated the state and local taxes paid in 2010 by households that are headed by unauthorized immigrants.
The report indicates:
These households may include members who are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. Collectively, these households paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes. That included $1.2 billion in personal income taxes, $1.6 billion in property taxes, and $8.4 billion in sales taxes.
The report shows that Florida collects $806.8 million, the third highest in the nation, in property and sales tax revenue from households headed by unauthorized immigrants. Florida does not have a state income tax.
Wendy Sefsaf, communications director for the American Immigration Council, tells The Florida Independent that the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy runs scenarios about what impacts states tax revenue. Sefsaf adds that the institute is able to take their models, databases and assumptions on different groups and come up with tax contributions and that is what they did for the undocumented.
Sefsaf adds these number have never been examined, because the unauthorized population is hard to track and “we make a lot of guesses of their contribution.”
“The restrictionist movement in the U.S. spends all their time letting everyone know how much [undocumented immigrants] cost us, and they try to ignore the fact that they contribute, Sefsaf says. “We are not trying to say there are not costs associated with people, there are costs associated with everyone, but we are trying to balance out the debate. We can have a debate about who can stay and who has to go, but we have to do that with a full plate of information.”Read more...
The month of September brings the Health&Fitness issue of J-1 JOURNEYS. In this edition, we answer the important question, "What Is My J-1 Visa?", give advice on staying fit at the office, and talk about how to approach your supervisors for direct feedback.
The number of pending cases in federal immigration courts is at an all-time high, and those cases are remaining open for longer, according to new data that underscores the backlog facing the nation's immigration system.
There were 275,316 cases awaiting resolution before the immigration courts as of May 4, setting a new record after an increase of 2.8 percent in four months. The information comes from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which compiles the information regularly from public records. The clearinghouse released its latest report on June 7.
According to the data, the cases have been pending an average of 482 days, up from 467 days four months ago.
The report noted that the increases came despite the hiring of 44 immigration judges during the previous 12 months and the opening of a new immigration court in Pearsall, Texas.
Melissa Crow, director of the American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center, says the backlog is due to two factors: the need for yet more judges and staff at the U.S. Department of Justice, which administers the courts through its Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the decision by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to pursue more cases.
"It means that cases take forever to finish. It means, where clients do have cases where there's relief, it may take a long time for them to get the relief that they deserve," Crow says.
Crow's group and other advocates for immigrants are pushing the Obama administration to be more selective about the people targeted for deportation proceedings, while other critics of the administration, including conservative members of Congress, accuse the administration of being improperly selective in the enforcement of removal orders.Read more...
Cover letter dated 10/12/12 from Shari Suzuki, Chief, FOIA Appeals, Policy and Litigation Branch, CBP, describing renewed searches by Office of Border Patrol and Office of Field Operations, which were asked to search “every division, port, sector and station,” and indicating that 60 pages of responsive records were being released.
Pages 1-2: CBP memo (7/30/03) re: attorney representation during the inspection process. 8 CFR 292.5(b) governs primary and secondary inspections at ports of entry, as well as deferred inspections, “which are the continuation of a secondary inspection conducted at an onward office.” Supervisory inspector may allow an attorney to attend a deferred inspection interview if he or she acts as “an observer and consultant to the applicant.”
Pages 8-9: Memo re: access to counsel in St. Albans Area Port in response to AIC/AILA letter alleging denial of access to counsel (at pages 10-18). Confirms that 7/30/03 CBP memo (at pages 1-2) is still in effect. No official policy to bar counsel from L and TN adjudications or from deferred inspection. Sets forth guidelines for legal professionals at ports of entry.Read more...