Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Prejudice replaces fact in debate over US immigration

Published on Wed, May 12, 2010

Sir, David Pinsen’s unfounded and inaccurate accusations against Mexican and unskilled immigrants should not be allowed to go unanswered (Letters, May 10). Contrary to the myth that unskilled immigrants consume more in government resources than they pay in taxes, an April 21 study by the Immigration Policy Center shows that Arizona’s immigrant workers contributed $2.4bn in state tax revenue in 2004. One can assume that not many of these workers had PhDs.

The same study shows that Latinos and Asians in that state wield nearly $37bn in consumer purchasing power, the businesses they own had sales of $12.2bn and employed nearly 65,000 people. Studies by the same organisation of many other states show similar results. For every study by an anti-immigrant group alleging that Mexicans cannot assimilate, there is a more objective study.

Published in the Financial Times

New Book Reviews

Image: 

Check out new book reviews on immigrant stories from the Community Education Resource Center.

We welcome book reviews from students! Email teacher@immcouncil.org for more information.

Fact Check: SB 1070 Allows for Some Racial Profiling

Published on Sun, Jun 06, 2010

There are plenty of features of the law that critics find objectionable. Among them are the penalties. Under federal law, violations of immigration statutes by someone in the U.S. illegally may in some cases be punished with a jail sentence but are often penalized by deporting the individual instead, if the government proves its case to a judge through a comprehensive set of procedures. Arizona, lacking the authority to deport anyone, will enforce jail sentences laid out in its new law for, say, failing to carry one’s immigration authorization documents or soliciting day work by the side of the road, said Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigrants’ rights group. While the federal system is far from perfect (thousands of people are locked up in federal detention centers indefinitely awaiting deportation decisions), the addition of new immigration crimes at the state level with jail time attached isn’t the answer, she added.

Published in the Tuscon Sentinel

USCIS Adjustment of Status of "Arriving Aliens" with an Unexecuted Final Order of Removal

This Practice Advisory explains why USCIS has jurisdiction over adjustment applications of an arriving alien parolee with an unexecuted final order of removal. It also outlines the arguments why such a parolee remains eligible for adjustment notwithstanding an unexecuted final order of removal. This Practice Advisory supplements an earlier practice advisory addressing the adjustment of paroled “arriving aliens” under the interim regulations adopted on May 12, 2006.

Published On: Thursday, November 6, 2008 | Download File

Appreciating America's Heritage: 2008 Edition

The American Immigration Law Foundation (AILF) is pleased to present the 2008 edition of "Appreciating America's Heritage" Teacher Resource Guide. First and foremost, this latest edition continues to keep the needs of classroom teachers in mind by providing new and innovative lesson plans, which can be implemented in any classroom, and book reviews for literature based lessons and research support. All materials included in these pages have been created by fellow educators who either serve as members of our Curriculum Advisory Board, have presented at an AILF symposium or have been awarded AILF classroom grants.

View the 2008 "Appreciating America's Heritage" Teacher Resource Guide

Authorities Say Immigration Law Won’t Change How They Do Business

Published on Wed, Jul 28, 2010

Now, unless a federal judge decides otherwise, law enforcement officers will be required starting Thursday to check the status of anyone they have “reasonable suspicion” to be in the United States illegally.

In a report released this month by the Immigration Policy Center in Washington, D.C., an Arizona attorney voiced concerns about how the law could be interpreted and carried out throughout the state.

Published in the East Valley Tribune

Departure Bar to Motions to Reopen and Reconsider: Legal Overview and Related Issues

This Practice Advisory discusses the "departure bar" to motions to reopen and arguments adopted by circuit courts that have rejected or upheld the bar.

Published On: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 | Download File

MIPEX- Interactive Snapshot of World Migration

MIPEX is a fully interactive tool and reference guide to assess, compare and improve integration policy.Using 148 policy indicators MIPEX creates a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society by assessing governments’ commitment to integration. By measuring policies and their implementation it reveals whether all residents are guaranteed equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities.

What can you do with it?

• Analyse seven policy areas which shape a legally resident third-country national’s journey to full citizenship.
• Examine how policies compare against the standard of equal rights and responsibilities for migrants.
• Find out how your country’s policies rank compared with other countries.
• Track if policies are getting better or worse over time.
• Dig into real examples of how to improve policies.
• Use it to design and assess new laws and proposals on an on-going basis.

Year Released: 2012

High School

View Link

Dear Tom, the 14th Amendment Has Come Before the Supreme Court

Published on Tue, Aug 10, 2010

Recently I saw a CNN debate between Michele Waslin of the Immigration Policy Center and Former Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) on the issue of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. The most incredible part of the video, for me at least, was Tancredo's insistence that the issue of birthright citizenship has never come before the Supreme Court. As anyone who has taken a course on the history of U.S. immigration, or an introductory constitutional law class would know, the very idea of granting citizenship to those born on U.S. soil came from a Supreme Court decision in 1898, Wong Kim Ark.

Published in the The Huffington Post

Naturalization Delays

Delays by USCIS in deciding naturalization applications have forced many applicants to seek judicial remedies. Section 336(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows a federal district court to review a naturalization application if USCIS has failed to decide it for more than 120 days after the date of the examination. The law allows the court to either decide the application itself or remand the application to USCIS for decision.

Often, USCIS will deny a naturalization application while the case is pending in federal district court. The agency’s lawyers will then move to dismiss the federal court case because the application has been denied. If the case is dismissed, the applicant will face even longer delays as an appeal to USCIS will be required before seeking judicial review of the denial. We have successfully challenged this practice, arguing in amicus briefs that once a case has been filed in federal court, USCIS loses its authority over the naturalization application and must wait for the federal court decision before taking further action.

CASESRESOURCES

CASES

Bustamante v. Napolitano, No. 08-0990-cv (2d Cir. amicus brief filed May 30, 2008). In a precedent decision, the court adopted the position urged by the Legal Action Center and held that USCIS does not have jurisdiction to decide a naturalization application after an applicant files an action in district court under INA § 336(b). Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2009).Read more...