Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Commentary: Reality check: immigrants and their health care

Published on Thu, Aug 27, 2009

As the current debate on health care rages in town halls across the nation, immigration is being used as a way to jam a stick into the wheels of impending reform.

Published in the Northwest Asian Weekly

The Real Meaning of “Self-Deportation”

Released on Thu, Jan 26, 2012

Washington D.C. - The term “self-deportation” has found its way into the GOP presidential primary race, with candidate Mitt Romney outlining a vague immigration platform which includes "self-deportation," or the idea that unauthorized immigrants will voluntarily choose to leave the U.S. if life here is made unbearable enough. While "self-deportation" may be a new idea to some, those who monitor immigration policy understand that it is code for “attrition through enforcement” - a plan pursued by extremist immigration-control organizations in Congress and state houses across the nation. 

Mr. Romney explains how he thinks "self-deportation" would work by saying “if people don’t get work here, they’re going to self-deport to a place they can get work.”  However, as described in a forthcoming report from the Immigration Policy Center, "self-deportation" - or, more accurately, "attrition through enforcement" - goes far beyond denying unauthorized immigrants work. The strategy is currently embodied in state laws that include provisions denying education, transportation, and even basic services like water and housing to anyone who cannot prove legal immigration status. So far, the states that have attempted to roll out this plan have done little more than undermine basic human rights, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants. Read more...

View Release

Immigrants don't overuse health care system

Published on Wed, Aug 12, 2009

It's not exactly news among those who follow these things, but it bears noting that a new report once more shows that immigrants in the United States today, whether they have legal status or not, are certainly not overusing the U.S. health care system, and are in fact using it less than are U.S. citizens.

Published in the People's Weekly World

AIC Challenges Denial of Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Through Unlawful Conduct

Released on Wed, Nov 28, 2012

The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center argued that local police violated the Fourth Amendment by unnecessarily prolonging an individual’s detention based solely on the suspicion that he was not lawfully present in the United States.  In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court cautioned against prolonging a detention to investigate immigration status when it sanctioned Section 2(B) of SB1070, which requires local police to investigate immigration status during a lawful stop or arrest based on reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence.

The Legal Action Center filed an amicus brief in Jimenez-Domingo v. Holder, No. 12-14048-D, which is currently pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Following a routine traffic stop, the Palm Beach Gardens Police Department detained the Petitioner and other passengers for over an hour to await the arrival of Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  Rejecting the Petitioner’s repeated requests to consult his lawyer, CBP arrested, interrogated and placed him in removal proceedings.

The Council challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of the Petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence obtained through the police’s unlawful conduct.  Although the Supreme Court has held that evidence unlawfully obtained by federal immigration officers need not always be excluded from removal proceedings, the Court’s rationale does not apply to situations in which evidence was obtained through a constitutional violation by local law enforcement officers. Read more...

View Release

Military Families Act: protect families who protect U.S.

Published on Tue, Nov 10, 2009

On the eve of Veteran's Day, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced in the Senate, the Military Families Act, S. 2757, joined by co-sponsors Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). The bill seeks to provide immigration relief to parents, spouses, or children of US Armed Forces members. Senator Menendez announced the introduction of the bill with Army Specialist Jack Barrios, his wife Frances, and with Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum.

Published in the The Examiner

LAC and Immigration Equality Release Practice Advisory on Post-DOMA Issues

Released on Thu, Jul 25, 2013

Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center (LAC) is pleased to announce the release of a new practice advisory, Immigration Benefits and Pitfalls for LGBT Families in a Post-DOMA World.  Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, holding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.  With the end of DOMA, married LGBT binational couples can access the panoply of marriage-based immigration benefits and relief from removal.  This practice advisory provides an overview of the agencies’ initial responses to Windsor and highlights some of the issues LGBT families will face in a post-DOMA world.  The LAC issued this advisory jointly with Immigration Equality. 

For a complete list of the LAC’s Practice Advisories, please visit our website.

###

 For more information, contact clearinghouse@immcouncil.org or call 202-507-7516.

View Release

And, oh yes, immigration reform

Published on Wed, Feb 03, 2010

Comprehensive immigration reform made it into the State of the Union speech last week. The Middle East, a hardy annual, and indeed Northern Ireland, did not.

But President Obama's focus on reform during the lengthy address to both houses of Congress struck many observers as being little more than perfunctory.

Published in the THE IRISH ECHO ONLINE

Court Approves Settlement in Duran Gonzalez v. DHS; Webinar Tomorrow

Released on Tue, Jul 29, 2014

Last week, the federal district court issued its final approval of a settlement agreement in a long pending Ninth Circuit-wide class action, Duran Gonzalez v. DHS.  This case involves eligibility for adjustment of status under INA § 245(i) (with an accompanying I-212 waiver application) for individuals who previously were removed and subsequently entered the country without admission.  After nearly eight years of litigation, we are pleased to announce that certain individuals with longstanding ties to the United States will have the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent resident status in the United States.  The class is represented by the American Immigration Council, along with co-counsel from Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin, and Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP.

The settlement agreement provides remedies for certain individuals with retroactivity claims who applied for adjustment of status in the Ninth Circuit on or after August 13, 2004 and on or before November 30, 2007, including some class members with reinstatement orders and/or who are outside the United States. Read more...

View Release

Immigrants on the March

Published on Thu, Mar 25, 2010

In the weeks leading up to the March 21 demonstration for comprehensive immigration reform, organizers were careful to tamp down turnout expectations, stating only that "tens of thousands" would descend on Washington. It was just a few days before the event--with reports of countless buses heading toward the nation's capital--that they hinted that the crowd could reach 100,000.

Published in the The Nation

Practical, Comprehensive Immigration Solutions Promote Public Safety

Released on Tue, Jul 21, 2015

Washington D.C. - Since the tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco this month, there has been a flood of criticism leveled against state and city policies that limit local involvement in immigration enforcement and questions raised about whether the federal government is doing enough to enforce the immigration laws. Congress has scheduled two hearings this week to explore these issues, and we share legislators’ desire to find solutions. At the same time, we caution that anecdotes are no substitute for hard data and that our laws and policies must be grounded in analysis of the facts, thoughtful discussion, and practical solutions.

For too long, U.S. immigration laws and policies have been shaped by fear and stereotype rather than by empirical evidence. Empirical data shows that immigration is associated with lower crime rates and immigrants are less likely than the native-born to be serious criminals. Yet, we have spent billions of dollars deporting millions of people who have committed only immigration violations, and we have focused on quantity, not quality of deportations, while separating families. Read more...

View Release