Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday that the department would extend temporary immigration protections for an additional eighteen months for Haitians currently residing in the United States.
In a press release Napolitano announced the extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti beneficiaries effective July 23, 2011 and for an additional 18 months.
The protections were offered in January 2010, in response to the tragic earthquake that the struck the country. Thousands of Hatians who fled the disaster sought refuge in the United States, and many of them settled in South Florida. According to the release, there are now 48,000 Hatians living in the U.S. under the temporary protections.
The release also notes that the department is actively turning away Hatians who try to enter the country illegally, and that the protections will not apply to people who arrive in the country after that time.
The Immigration Policy Center stated that the extension of TPS decision by the Secretary is evidence of the power of the Executive branch to shape the implementation of existing immigration law.
The IPC contends that Napolitano could have declined to extend TPS or make more people eligible, because the law did not require her to do so. But because she had the discretion to revisit the original determination, and ultimately used it to expand the range of people eligible for this protection, the U.S. will be able to help thousands of people who might otherwise have faced deportation to Haiti and enormous suffering.
According the 2009 American Community Survey (pdf.) at least 376,000 people of Haitian ancestry live in Florida; an estimated 830,000 live in the U.S. The survey adds that 59 percent are foreign born.
With over 58,000 employees, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the largest law enforcement agency in the United States, has significantly expanded its immigration-related activities since 2009. Credible reports of abuses by Border Patrol agents and other CBP officers have fostered increased litigation in recent years. This Litigation Issue Page highlights challenges to CBP misconduct and related FOIA lawsuits.
Proposed Class Challenges Unconstitutional Stops and Interrogations by Border Patrol Agents in Washington State Jose Sanchez, et al. v. U.S. Office of Border Patrol, et al., No. 2:12-cv-00735 (W.D.Wa. filed April 26, 2012)
The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) and the ACLU of Washington, in collaboration with Perkins Coie LLP, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the Border Patrol’s practice of stopping vehicles on the Olympic Peninsula and interrogating occupants without legal justification violates their constitutional rights.Read more...
Ishwinder Kaur, 23, hails from New Delhi, India. She is currently training in Chicago in the field of business research and administration. She feels welcome in the US, and affectionately refers to Chicago as “a city of cold winds and warm hearts." Read more...
After reading the 200 plus comments last week, I realized that despite my laying out the case for the DREAM Act, that there were many misconceptions as well as real questions out there that deserve answers and clarification.
There were also readers who wrote insightful comments, sometimes even using their own experiences to highlight what the DREAM Act would mean. And I encourage more of you to write in.
A thank you to all who left comments.
I hope to further the dialogue by tackling ten points made by readers who showed real concern or didn’t have all the facts about DREAMers, the young people this bill would affect.
1. Illegal immigrants flooding over our borders are the problem.
Actually the problem is more complicated than that.
Out of the estimated 11 to 12 million undocumented aliens living in America, 40-45% came here on visas from places as diverse as India, Russia, or Ireland and then never returned home. They arrived on tourist, student, business, and temporary worker visas. (Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Committee Report and GAO)
Since 2007, more than 300,000 people each year have remained on our shores after their visas expired. (ICE report to Congress)
By the way, an interesting side fact: six of the 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visas.
2. DREAMers will take away jobs.
There is no evidence that citizenship for DREAMers would cost jobs for American workers. Instead it has been found that immigrants actually expand and enrich the economy as these young people become productive, tax paying individuals. (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Report)
America needs as many talented college graduates that it can muster. Right now, we are encouraging people from abroad to come to America to go to college with majors in science and technology.Read more...
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 476 (2011)
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision overturning the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board or BIA) policy of restricting relief from removal, namely section 212(c) waivers, for many lawful permanent residents (LPRs) with old criminal convictions. Under the Board’s now-rejected policy, LPRs found deportable were eligible for 212(c) relief only if they could show that the ground of deportation was substantially equivalent to a ground of inadmissibility. The Board’s policy, referred to as the “comparable ground test,” was announced in the 2005 decisions Matter of Blake, 23 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 2005), and Matter of Brieva, 23 I&N Dec. 766 (BIA 2005). The Legal Action Center has issued a Practice Advisory offering strategies for LPRs and others impacted by the decision. Read more...
The long and winding road that is the challenges to Alabama’s Taxpayer H.B. 56 has begun. Federal Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn has issued various rulings, but they are early, preliminary and procedural skirmishes, so there are no winners and losers yet.
But I have to ask Alabama decisionmakers, why bother? Many of the politicians involved are restrictionists and nativists who insist that they do not want government overreaching in their lives. And yet, they do not seem to mind, in fact insist upon, reaching into the lives of undocumented families, even at the state level.
Surely it is not large numbers behind this overreaction that is H.B. 56. Immigration Policy Center and Census Bureau figures reveal that in 2010, only 5 percent of Alabamians are Latino (3.9 percent) or Asian (1.1 percent), and in 2009, 87.8 percent of children in Asian families in the state were U.S. citizens, and 85.1 percent of Latino children in the state’s families were U.S. Citizens. With these small communities, why the rush to symbolize intolerance by enacting the country’s most restrictionist and comprehensively anti-immigrant statute?
Such laws are mean-spirited and punitive. The schoolchildren are already not showing up for classes. In enacting bans on college enrollments and counting measures on schoolchildren allowed by law to attend schools since Plyler v. Doe in 1982, Alabamians reveal themselves not as strict constructionists or conservatives, but as ideologues who will use unnecessary legislation and the power of government to intervene in families to punish innocent children. Public shame on them.
The Department of State has released a new version of form DS 7002, the Trainee/Intern Placement Plan for J-1 applicants.
The new form can be viewed online on the Department of State website HERE.
In conjunction with the release of the new form, the International Exchange Center has revised our 2013 Application Packet. In addition to including the new version of form DS 7002, we have streamlined our application materials. We will be continuing to move our appication to an electronic system so please check our website FREQUENTLY for more updates.
What does a tenure “anchor baby” mean? If we were to demeanour it up in a American Heritage Dictionary, we would find a new definition given final week.
The tenure was among some 10,000 new difference and phrases in the fifth book of a dictionary, published in November. It was defined as: “A child innate to a noncitizen mom in a nation that grants involuntary citizenship to children innate on a soil, especially such a child innate to relatives seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and mostly other members of their family.”
But when Steve Kleinedler, a executive editor of the dictionary, review that clarification during a radio talk last month, it uneasy Mary Giovagnoli, a executive of a Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration investigate organisation in Washington.
The once-obscure tenure has been used frequently in a recent debate over either to change a Constitution to repudiate automatic U.S. citizenship to children innate in this nation to illegal immigrant parents.
Last Friday morning, Giovagnoli posted an indignant object on the center’s blog, observant a compendium “masks a unwholesome and derogatory inlet of a term, a tenure that demeans both primogenitor and child.”
On Monday, a compendium posted a new definition. It started with “offensive,” in italics: “Used as a adverse tenure for a child innate to a noncitizen mom in a nation that grants automatic citizenship to children innate on a soil, generally when the child’s hearth is suspicion to have been selected in sequence to improve a mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship.”
Kleinedler said, “The tenure is now treated likewise to how the dictionary treats a far-reaching operation of slurs.”