This issue covers a class action brought by religious workers seeking to file visa petitions and adjustment of status applications concurrently, circuit court decisions addressing IJ denials of continuances, updated AILF Litigation Issue Pages, a Favorable Fifth Circuit decision on the FTCA, and a new Eighth Circuit resource for litigators.
Last week, as several immigration-enforcement bills made their way through state legislatures, alternative bills and state compacts were proposed to deal with problems related to immigration.
The Immigration Policy Center indicates that business leaders, elected officials, community activists and faith groups in Utah and Indiana have signed “state compacts” — declarations of principles to guide the state’s immigration discussion, adding that, “The Indiana Association of Cities and Towns—which includes 120 Indiana mayors—added their names to the list of city, business, religious and education leaders who think Indiana’s copycat enforcement bill, SB 590, is a bad idea.” Read more...
This issue covers Supreme Court developments, a class action to restore SSI benefits to immigrants, suits challenging anti-immigrant ordinances, and federal court jurisdiction to review an L-1A extension denial.
June's newsletter features Milan Simic of Belgrade, Serbia, as our exchange visitor of the month, along with his winning entry to our very first photo contest -- a vibrant evening scene of rush hour in New York City's iconic Times Square.
Republican lawmakers Rep. Lamar Smith and Sen. Chuck Grassley made good on promises to target undocumented immigrant workers when they filed twin bills in Congress this week that would create a federal mandate forcing virtually all employers to use the database E-Verify to establish their workers’ immigration status. Smith has pitched his Legal Workforce Act as an immigration enforcement bill with a twist; he imagines it also as a job creation bill that would protect U.S. jobs from undocumented workers in an aching economy.
Immigrant rights groups have rejected that claim, calling the bill a bald attack on immigrant communities that would instead hurt the economy and make mandatory a deeply flawed immigration enforcement tool.
“This legislation is another example of putting cheap political maneuvers ahead of the interests of American workers,” said Clarissa Martínez De Castro, the director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza. “It will do nothing to create jobs, it will place a burden on all job-seeking U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, and it will not fix our broken immigration system.”
Smith’s bill, HR 2164, calls for nearly every employer with one or more worker to use E-Verify to check the work eligibility of both prospective and new hires. Current law calls for employers to use the system after workers are hired. HR 2164 would also decrease the number of acceptable documents that workers can use to prove their immigration status and work eligibility and would make it a felony to use a false Social Security number. The bill would be phased in over the course of the next three years.Read more...
On May 18, 2009, a divided Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision upholding the denial of a motion to dismiss respondent's complaint alleging constitutional violations by defendants. Following his arrest and detention for more than 150 days in a maximum security detention center after 9/11 attacks, respondent Iqbal, who is a Muslim and a native of Pakistan, filed a lawsuit against then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft and other officers and officials. The complaint alleged that government officials adopted an unconstitutional policy of subjecting certain individuals to harsh conditions of confinement based on their race, religion, or national origin. Iqbal claimed that petitioners violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. Read more...