Michele Waslin, an analyst with the Immigration Policy Center, a research organization that focuses on the contributions that immigrants make, said denying citizenship to children would only create more problems.
"It would punish the innocent children of undocumented immigrants, and it flies in the face of traditional American values," Waslin said.
When an individual illegally reenters the country following a prior order of removal, DHS can reinstate the prior order and thus prevent the individual from applying for relief from removal. The LAC has participated in litigation before the Supreme Court and several federal appellate courts on important questions relating to the reinstatement provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including the circumstances under which it may be applied retroactively. The LAC also has issued a practice advisory on this subject.
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006) (holding the reinstatement provision may be retroactively applied to individuals who illegally reentered and made no attempt to legalize their status prior to April 1, 1997). The LAC filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner.
Federal Circuit Courts
Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (upholding regulation permitting reinstatement of prior removal order by immigration officers rather than immigration judges). The LAC filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner.Read more...
This video presents a montage highlighting the diversity and pluralism that makes our nation uniquely multicultural.
When you think of the United States what is the first thing that comes to mind? Maybe you think of the food, the holidays, or symbols of the American identity? Each of these elements paints a picture of the United States, but what truly makes our country what it is today, is the people.
Under the current immigration system, many noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, face automatic removal as a consequence of a criminal conviction, without any consideration of the circumstances of his or her particular case. Scholars and advocates have begun arguing that the Constitution requires a proportionality review in immigration proceedings; that is, that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments bar entry of a removal order without any consideration of whether removal would visit an impermissibly disproportionate penalty under the circumstances.
Problem is, you did exist. And, thankfully, researchers have gone back to the original records. The D.C.-based Immigration Policy Center, in particular, has done a marvelous job of digging deeper.
Their scholars have reconstructed 1866 debates in which concerns were raised about the nation being overrun by births from people clearly viewed then as less equal: gypsies in Pennsylvania and Chinese immigrants. Senators also discussed birthright citizenship in context of native tribal sovereignty.
This issue covers litigation challenging USCIS's fee increase, developments in the social security no-match letter case, the reversal of a Fifth Circuit decision on natz delay litigation, new raids lawsuits, surviving spouse litigation, and the Hutto detention facility settlement.
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.
In a stunning turnaround, Arizona Republicans killed 5 of the state's notorious immigration bills. Terry Greene Sterling obtains a report showing deportations pummeling the local economy.
In a surprise St. Patrick’s Day coup, conservative Republican senators in Arizona slapped down five harsh immigration bills that aimed to deny state birth certificates to babies born to unauthorized immigrants, turn school teachers and hospital workers into immigration enforcers, prohibit undocumented immigrants from attending college, and criminalize them for driving.
Article - Sterling Immigration Retreat A protest outside the Arizona capitol building on March 17 as the state senate debated the latest immigration bills. (Credit: AP Photo) The roundly defeated measures signal that Arizona is ticking slightly towards the right-center. And, like many states that have rejected immigration measures this year, is beginning to recognize that immigration-crackdown laws can derail already fragile economic recoveries.
An embargoed report obtained by The Daily Beast details how deporting all of Arizona’s unauthorized immigrants would spell disaster for the already stressed economy. Not only would 17 percent of jobs vanish statewide, the liberal Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center say, but ousting all of Arizona’s undocumented migrants could “shrink the state economy by $48.8 billion.”
Even so, ridding Arizona of its 400,000 or so “illegals” has long been the stated goal of Russell Pearce, the temperamental Tea Partier with a reputation for bullying who ascended to the presidency of the state senate after sponsoring SB 1070, Arizona’s notorious immigration law that makes it a crime for unauthorized migrants to set foot in the Grand Canyon State. (Parts of the law have been temporarily stayed by a federal judge.)Read more...