Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Board of Immigration Appeals Guts Legal Protections for Immigrants Under Arrest

Released on Mon, Aug 15, 2011

Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council strongly condemns last week’s ruling from the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that immigrants arrested without a warrant are not entitled to certain Miranda-like warnings prior to questioning by immigration officers. In a precedent decision, the Board held that noncitizens need not be informed of their right to counsel or warned that their statements can be used against them until after they have been placed in formal deportation proceedings.

For decades, immigrants placed under arrest have been entitled to these critical advisals. Like “Miranda” warnings for criminal suspects, such notifications help to ensure that statements made during questioning are not the product of coercion. As a result of last week’s ruling, noncitizens under arrest will now be even more vulnerable to pressure from interrogating officers, and immigration judges will face greater difficulty determining whether statements made during questioning were truly voluntary.

“This decision epitomizes the substandard system of justice that’s been created and imposed on immigrants in the United States,” said Melissa Crow, Director of the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center. “The Board’s ruling renders the advisals practically meaningless and makes immigrants less likely to remain silent when questioned and less likely to assert their right to counsel.”

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative tribunal on immigration and nationality matters in the United States. Decisions of the Board may be subject to review by federal courts or by the Attorney General. The ruling came in Matter of E-R-M-F- & A-S-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 580 (BIA 2011).

###Read more...

View Release

Homeland Security revises immigration partnership with local jails

Published on Sat, Aug 22, 2009

The Department of Homeland Security is requiring counties that participate in its illegal-immigration enforcement program to agree to a new focus on violent criminals.

Published in the Washington Examiner

Practice Advisory on Seeking a Judicial Stay of Removal

Released on Wed, May 30, 2012

Washington, D.C.—The Legal Action Center (LAC) is pleased to announce the issuance of a new Practice Advisory, Seeking a Judicial Stay of Removal in the Court of Appeal. This Practice Advisory provides background information about requesting stays of removal from the courts of appeals, discusses the legal standard for obtaining a stay, and addresses the implications of the government’s policy with respect to return of individuals who win their appeals. The LAC issued this advisory jointly with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the Boston College Post-Deportation Human Rights Project, and the Immigrant Rights Clinic, NYU School of Law.

All of the LAC’s Practice Advisories are available on our website at http://www.legalactioncenter.org/practice-advisories.

###

For questions contact Geena Jackson at gjackson@immcouncil.org or 202-507-7516.

 

View Release

Keely Alexander publishes children's book

Published on Mon, May 25, 2009

Keely Alexander, from Superior, has co-authored a children’s book on immigration. "Davy Brown Discovers His Roots" will debut June 3 in Las Vegas at the American Immigration Lawyers Association Annual Conference.

Published in the Clark Fork Chronicle

Two Systems of Justice: How the Immigration System Falls Short of American Ideals of Justice

Released on Tue, Mar 19, 2013

For Immediate Release

Two Systems of Justice:
How the Immigration System Falls Short of American Ideals of Justice

Washington D.C. - Today, the American Immigration Council issued Two Systems of Justice: How the Immigration System Falls Short of American Ideals of Justice. This new report explores how the justice system for immigrants falls far short of the American values of due process and fundamental fairness. In fact, the immigration system lacks nearly all the procedural safeguards we expect in the U.S. criminal justice system.  Given the high stakes involved in immigration cases and the increasing criminalization of immigration law, the report concludes that we must no longer tolerate a system that deprives countless individuals of a fair judicial process.Read more...

View Release

Report: Info muddled on immigrants and crime

Published on Thu, Nov 19, 2009

That man in the back of a squad car on his way to jail: What are the chances he was born in the United States?

Published in the O.C. Register

House Democrats Unveil Comprehensive Immigration Reform Proposal

Released on Wed, Oct 02, 2013

Washington D.C. - Today, in an important effort to keep the conversation and momentum on immigration reform moving forward in the House, a group of centrist Democrats introduced their version of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. Although the full text has not yet been made available, it is said to be a modification of the bipartisan Senate bill of the same name adopted earlier this year. Among other reported changes, the House bill takes a different path on border security, incorporating a bill introduced by Republican Congressman Mike McCaul which passed unanimously out of the House Committee on Homeland Security in May of 2013. The House sponsors—including Representatives Garcia, Chu, Polis, DelBene, and Horsford—adopted provisions of the McCaul-Thompson bill as a replacement for the costly, controversial “border surge” strategy adopted by the Senate under the Corker-Hoeven amendment.  

Substantively, the comprehensive immigration reform bill introduced today reflects a series of bipartisan policy and political compromises made during deliberations in the Senate. The original co-sponsors represent diverse interests from within the Democratic Party, including the New Democrats Coalition, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

The following is a statement from the American Immigration Council’s Executive Director, Benjamin Johnson:Read more...

View Release

President Declares Ongoing Commitment to Immigration Reform

Published on Fri, Jan 29, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the State of the Union Address last night, President Obama made clear his ongoing commitment to immigration reform noting “we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.” Some may continue to argue that immigration reform is too politically risky to move on this year and that we should focus instead on rebuilding our economy. However, comprehensive immigration reform is compatible with economic reform as it would generate needed economic growth, create jobs and increase tax contributions by ensuring that everyone working in the United States is doing so legally. In fact, immigration reform would allow us to take full advantage of the opportunities for economic growth that immigrants bring.

Published in the Hispanic Online Magazine

U.S. District Court in D.C. Hears First Arguments Against Executive Action on Immigration

Released on Mon, Dec 22, 2014

Washington D.C. - Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case brought against executive action by notorious Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is seeking to enjoin the DACA and DAPA programs based on the increased burden on his law enforcement office that would allegedly result from these programs. Specifically, Arpaio’s theory is that the President’s executive actions will cause a “flood” of “millions more illegal aliens,” and in turn a “crime wave”—because many “illegal aliens… are repeat offenders.”

Melissa Crow, the Legal Director at the American Immigration Council was in the courtroom today and issued the following statement:

“It was clear that attorney representing Arpaio, Larry Klayman, a well-known conservative lawyer who founded Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, was struggling to demonstrate the type of “concrete and particularized” injury that is required to bring a challenge of this nature, or that the alleged harms would be a direct result of DACA or DAPA.  While disagreeing adamantly with the government’s argument that DACA and DAPA would promote public safety by enabling DHS to focus on high priority threats, he failed to provide any compelling explanation for his position.

“Judge Beryl Howell asked probing questions to determine whether Sheriff Arpaio had established that he had “standing” under the law. She listened attentively to Mr. Klayman’s responses, but seemed skeptical that he had met his burden of proof. Before concluding the hearing, Judge Howell indicated that she would issue her rulings very shortly on both Sheriff Arpaio’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the government’s motion to dismiss the case.Read more...

View Release

By the Numbers

Published on Sun, Apr 04, 2010

The American Immigration Council's Immigration Policy Center recently published statistics on every state's immigrant population.

In New Hampshire, the foreign-born share of the population grew from 3.7 percent in 1990 to 5.1 percent in 2007.

In 2007, New Hampshire was home to 67,735 immigrants, of whom around 33,000 were naturalized citizens and eligible to vote.

Published in the Concord Monitor