Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 4, No. 13

This issue highlights suits challenging local immigration enforcement, stays of removal, a natz delay class action settlement, a favorable Fifth Circuit decision in a marriage waiver case, and updates from the LAC (including our work on motions to reopen, EB-1 visas, ineffective assistance of counsel, and K-2 visas).

Published On: Monday, November 30, 2009 | Download File

Arizona Border Fence: In Effort to Attract Internet Donors, State Senator Russell Pearce Spews False Immigrant Crime Statistics

Published on Sat, Apr 09, 2011

Annnd... Arizona's anti-immigration campaign hurtles still further into red-state ridiculousness.

This morning, Governor Jan Brewer announced her latest, greatest battle plan in the war against illegal border-crossers: collect Internet donations to build a massive fence across the Arizona-Mexico line. (And what'll donors get in return? Why, an "I Helped Build the Arizona Wall" keepsake T-shirt, of course!)

In support, State Senator Russell Pearce squeezed in a few words of pro-fence propaganda on L.A.'s KNX news radio this morning. Here's the pile of steaming misinformation he dumped from his politickin' piehole:

Pearce claimed that illegal immigrants commit 2.5 times more violent crime than any other demographic.

He also used a Sin City analogy as a fear tactic to garner out-of-state support ("Unlike Vegas, what goes into Arizona doesn't stay in Arizona") and called the immigrant influx from Mexico an "invasion," but we'll let all that slide in the interest of clearing up this crime thing once and for all.

In response to Pearce's theory, we can almost see Wendy Sefsaf of the Immigration Policy Center roll her eyes over the phone.

She recommends we speak to the Department of Homeland Security about the fence idea (which, amusingly, cites prisoners as the perfect candidates for erecting the thing), but guesses it's "unprecedented, and probably illegal" for a state to evade federal strategy and take something so controversial into its own hands.

A Homeland Security rep will only say, "My apologies, DHS does not comment on state legislation." Ironically, President Obama is headed to the South tomorrow to push a more progressive (read: fenceless) U.S. immigration policy.

But as for the violent-crime statistic: The Immigration Policy Center released a March 2008 report that showed just the opposite, and Sefsaf says the trend has stayed consistent. An excerpt:Read more...

Published in the LA Weekly

Arizona SB 1070‎, Legal Challenges and Economic Realities

ARCHIVED ISSUE PAGE (LAST UPDATED AUGUST 2011)

Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070, amended by HB 2162) requires state and local law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of individuals it encounters and makes it a state crime for noncitizens to fail to carry proper immigration documentation. Soon after Arizona’s governor signed the bill, challenges to the law were filed. This page highlights the suits challenging the Arizona law. Read about challenges to other state and local laws at the State and Local Law Enforcement Litigation Issue Page.

Cases | Other Arizona Litigation | Litigation-related Articles and Resources | Economic Realities

Cases

Ninth Circuit Upholds Temporary Injunction Against SB 1070; Arizona Appeals Ruling to Supreme Court

United States of America v. State of Arizona, No. 10-01413 (D. Ariz. prelim. injunction granted July 28, 2010); prelim. injunction aff’d , No. 10-16645 (9th Cir. April 11, 2011); petition for certiorari filed, No. 11-182 (Aug. 10, 2011)

Recent developments:

On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit upheld a temporary injunction against four provisions of SB 1070 entered last July by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.  The Ninth Circuit’s ruling thus continued to block enforcement of provisions that:Read more...

Jo Oyanagi Pedals Toward Success

December, 2009
Jo

Jo Oyanagi, 23, of Tokyo, Japan is a J-1 trainee at Trek Bicycle Corporation in Waterloo, Wisconsin. Jo works for Trek in Japan and is taking part in a J-1 exchange program in order to learn an American perspective on customer service and sales techniques that he will bring back to the Japanese side of the company when his training in the US is complete. Read more...

Mandatory E-Verify opponents say it must be part of comprehensive immigration reform

Published on Mon, Jul 11, 2011

Mandatory E-Verify opponents do not propose eliminating an employee verification program, but say businesses need one that works well for employers — especially small companies — and workers.

Analysts and business organizations have argued that E-Verify alone would hurt Florida and the U.S. economy, but those same organizations say that a program that allows employers to verify a workers immigration status must be part of federal immigration reform.

The Immigration Policy Center compares the “Legal Workforce Act of 2011″ of Rep. Lamar Smith’s R-Texas, which would make the E-Verify system mandatory for all employers within three years, and Sen. Robert Menendez’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011,” which also includes mandatory E-Verify. The bill filed by Menendez includes a program to require immigrants who were undocumented as of June 1 to register with the government, learn English and pay fines and taxes on their way to becoming Americans.

The Policy Center explains that:

Like all comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bills since 2005, the Menendez bill allows for a mandatory E-Verify system only in context to other elements of comprehensive immigration reform, like a generous legalization program, reforms to family- and employment-based systems, border and interior enforcement and integration programs. Under Menendez’s bill, current unauthorized workers would have a chance to legalize their status, and future workers could come through newly created legal channels.

The Policy Center adds that, although some groups will continue to oppose mandatory E-Verify even as part of comprehensive immigration reform, “others have realized that if E-Verify isn’t going anyway, it had better work well and provide strong protections for workers.”Read more...

Published in the Florida Independent

Remand Rule

Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183 (2006)Read more...

  • In a per curiam decision dated April 17, 2006, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the asylum claim.

The Uncertain Future of Pennsylvania's Dream Act Legislation

Published on Wed, Sep 14, 2011

On June 20, 2011, Pennsylvania State Rep. Tony Payton Jr. (D-Philadelphia) introduced the Pennsylvania Dream Act, HB 1695, which mirrors the failed national-level bill that would have granted undocumented youth in-tuition rates at public universities. If the bill is passed, Pennsylvania would become the 12th state, following the recent Illinois passage, to sign such legislation.

Presently, in Pennsylvania, in-state tuition costs for the 2011-2012 school year are $6,240, while out-of state tuition ranges from $9,360 to $15,600, according to the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. Undocumented students are not eligible for these in-state tuition rates, even though many of them have been residing in the state of Pennsylvania for significant periods of time.

The Pennsylvania legislation, like other state-level bills, builds a series of strict residency guidelines that undocumented students who request in-state tuition rates must demonstrate.

These guidelines, published by Dream Activist Pennsylvania, the main pro-immigration organization in Pennsylvania sponsoring the bill, include the requirement that students must have attended a public or nonpublic secondary school in the Commonwealth for at least three years. They must also have graduated from a public or nonpublic secondary school in the Commonwealth. And, in an often overlooked provision, students or their parents must have filed Pennsylvania income taxes annually for three years while attending school to qualify.

It's important to note that while the bill mirrors national-level legislation, states do not have the power to afford citizenship; only the federal government has that legal authority. Due to this fact, the Dream Act grants undocumented youth only the ability to attend college at in-state tuition rates, meaning that legally securing a job after receiving a degree is not possible.Read more...

Published in the Truth Out

UPDATE: IEC Comments on Proposed DS 7002 (July 2012)

July 05, 2012-- The International Exchange Center has responded to the second round of proposed revisions to the DS 7002. Read our full comments to the Department of State here.