Skip to Content

Legalization

Undocumented Immigration Stunts in Face of Economy

Released on Wed, Oct 01, 2008

Washington, DC- A new study from the Pew Hispanic Center shows the number of undocumented immigrants coming to the United States did not increase between 2007 and 2008, and may have fallen by several hundred thousand. Researchers have found, again and again, that immigration slows in the face of a sluggish U.S. economy.

View Release

New Study on Immigrant Integration Compares and Ranks the United States, Canada, and Europe

US Ranked in Top 10 Among 31 Countries

Released on Mon, Feb 28, 2011

Washington D.C. - In cooperation with the Immigration Policy Center, the British Council and the Migration Policy Group release a new study today which reviews and ranks U.S. immigrant integration policies against other countries. The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX: www.mipex.eu) contrasts and compares integration policies for legal immigrants across countries in Europe and North America. The United States is ranked ninth among 31 countries. This is the first year the United States has been part of the study, and IPC is pleased to be chosen as the U.S. partner for this important study.

The MIPEX compares and ranks countries across 148 policy indicators, providing objective and comparable data presented in a reference guide and an interactive online tool to help policymakers, advocates and researchers assess and compare integration policies around the globe. The policy indicators are divided into seven categories: employment opportunities, family reunion, education, political participation, long-term residence, access to citizenship and anti-discrimination. Countries include all 27 EU member states, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, and the USA.

Overall the U.S. ranked ninth in terms of integration policies, and first in terms of its strong anti-discrimination laws and protections. The U.S. also ranked high on the access to citizenship scale because it encourages newcomers to become citizens in order to fully participate in American public life. Compared with other countries, legal immigrants in the U.S. enjoy employment opportunities, educational opportunities, and the opportunity to reunite with close family members. However, MIPEX also acknowledges that the U.S.'s complex immigration laws, limited visa ability, high fees, and long backlogs may make it challenging for immigrants to integrate into the fabric of American life.Read more...

View Release

Immigrants are vital to recovery

Published on Sun, Aug 16, 2009

As Pennsylvania grapples with a budget deficit brought on by the current recession, state and local policy makers would do well to keep in mind that immigrant communities are a potent force for economic recovery.

Published in the Philadelphia Inquirer

INA § 242(a)(2)(D) not a bar to district court jurisdiction

<This page is under construction>

Federal District Court Jurisdiction over Legal and Constitutional Questions

The Legal Action Center (LAC) is urging a narrow and strict interpretation of the statutory bars to review of discretionary issues in cases where discretionary relief may have been sought, but the cases themselves present legal or constitutional issues. This situation arises when a person seeks district court review of USCIS’s denial of an application for adjustment of status on non-discretionary grounds. This issue has become increasingly important as more noncitizens challenge USCIS denials of applications in district court. It is an issue that remains unresolved in the majority of circuits. We argue that: (1) the bar in INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i) is inapplicable to a court’s review of non-discretionary statutory eligibility for benefits; and (2) that INA § 242(a)(2)(D) expands the court of appeals’ jurisdiction and in no way limits district court jurisdiction over legal and constitutional questions.

The LAC presented these arguments to the court of appeals in an amicus curiae brief in support of rehearing and rehearing en banc in Lee v. USCIS, 592 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2010). We also received a decision in another case in which we had filed an amicus curiae brief. Although the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s finding that the plaintiff was seeking review of a discretionary determination that is barred under INA § 242(a)(2)(B), the court agreed with the LAC that the district court would retain jurisdiction over nondiscretionary issues and that it had wrongly interpreted INA § 242(a)(2)(D) as restricting the court’s jurisdiction over legal and constitutional questions.

LAC amicus briefs on 242(a)(2)(D):Read more...

Trustees Emeriti

The Council expresses its deep gratitude to the following individuals who have served with distinction as past members of the American Immigration Council Board of Trustees and/or Board of Directors. We salute their leadership and continued commitment to building our foundation.

Kelly McCown (2006-2012)
Jeff Joseph (2006 -2012)
Amy Novick (2006-2012)
Kristen Schlenger** (2001-2012)
James David Acoba (2000-2001)
Jonathan Avirom (1993-2001)
Roxana C. Bacon*** (2000-2005)
Lenni Beth Benson (2000-2004)
Daryl R. Buffenstein (1994-1997)
Jeanne A. Butterfield (2001-2008)
C. Lynn Calder (1997-2004)
Maria Isabel Casablanca (2004-2010)
Margaret A. Catillaz (1999-2001)
Gerard M. Chapman (2001-2008)
Joseph E. Ching (1993-1996)
Steven A. Clark (1998-2001)
Robert Cohen (2004-2011)
Jules E. Coven
Linda A. Cristello (2000-2001)
Goldie C. Domingue (2000-2002)
Jenifer Eisen (1997-1999)
Phyllis Eisen (2000-2001)
Stephen K. Fischel (2005-2008)
Sarah Fortino-Brown (2004-2010)
Charles Foster (1993-2004)
Hope M. Frye (1992-1996)
Harry Gee, Jr. (1993-1995)
Jodi Goodwin (2004-2007)
Silvia Romo Graves (2001-2011)
Karen Grisez (2004-2011)
Paul Hribernik (2000-2001)
Veronica M. Jeffers (2001-2002)
H. Ronald Klasko (1989-1990)
Charles H. Kuck (2007-2010)
Steven M. Ladik* (2000-2005)
MaryEllen Lannon (2008-2009)
Michelle L. Lazerow (2001-2007)
Ellen Ma Lee (1993-2004)
Michael Maggio (1993-2001)
Margaret H. McCormick* (1997-2004)
Cyrus D. Mehta** (1998-2005)
Nancy-Jo Merritt (1993-1995, 2008-2010)
Charles Miller (1995-1998)
Kathleen A. Moccio** (1998-2008)
Sheela Murthy (2002-2009)

 Read more...

Arizona Would Lose $49 Billion if it Expels Undocumented Immigrants

Published on Fri, Mar 25, 2011

Tucson – Arizona's economy would lose $48.8 billion if the state expels all undocumented immigrants living there, according to a report made public Thursday.

A mass departure of the undocumented foreigners would eliminate 581,000 jobs in Arizona and tax receipts would drop by 10.1 percent, according to the report by the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center.

Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, co-author of the study entitled "The Economic Impact of Legalization Versus Deportation in Arizona," said at a press conference that the state is an example of the "toxic" effect that laws like SB1070 can come to have.

The Arizona law seeking to criminalize undocumented immigrants - the enforcement of which remains on hold pending the conclusion of a battle in the federal courts - is aimed at causing a massive exodus of undocumented immigrants, the UCLA professor said.

Meanwhile, the report also analyzed the economic impact that the legalization of undocumented people living in Arizona would have, based on the results of the federal amnesty of 1986.

In this case, the number of jobs would rise by 7.7 percent, creating 261,000 new employment positions, and $5.6 billion would be injected into the economy in wages and salaries.

In addition, state tax revenues would also rise by $1.07 billion.

More than a dozen U.S. states are currently analyzing the possibility of implementing laws similar to SB1070.

Published in the FoxNews

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 3, No. 1

This issue covers a recent SIJ decision enjoining the government from requiring specific consent for minors in federal custody, a Supreme Court update, an update on mandatory detention litigation, cases rejecting the BIA precedent Matter of Shanu, and a Q&A on a recent court decision addressing the ABC settlement.

Published On: Thursday, January 24, 2008 | Download File

Immigrant organizations call for action on immigration reform

Published on Thu, May 12, 2011

The reaction from different pro-immigrant organizations to President Obama’s speech this week on immigration was mixed, but all tend to agree the administration needs to lead with action.

In his speech President Obama spelled out on his administrations increases on border security, adding that they have gone above and beyond what was requested by the people supported broader reform as long as there was more enforcement, but now are calling even more enforcement to ensure the border is secure before talking about comprehensive immigration reform. At the same time, immigrant advocacy groups are calling on the president to put a stop to detentions and deportations – other words, to scale back enforcement until lawmakers can fix the system as a whole.

Jonathan Fried of Homestead-based We Count said that president Obama made this speech to boost his ratings with Latino and other immigrant voters, adding that Obama has failed to move immigration reform while his enforcement policies have separated immigrant families.

“It is fine for him to say he’s starting another dialog in immigration but their isn’t anything new,” Fried said, “I think it is an effort to save face and get votes.”

“It is not accompanied by a legislative proposal, if he really wants to send a message he needs to look at what his administration is doing,”Fried added.

The National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities press release said that despite Democratic Party majorities in the House and Senate over the last two years no immigration policy reform was enacted, and called on the Obama Administration to change its current enforcement approach.Read more...

Published in the Florida Independent

Krishan Yadav shares his Indian Culture

January, 2009
Krishan Yadav

The Exchange Visitor Program is pleased to announce Krishan Yadav as January's Exchange Visitor of the Month. Each month, we select an exchange visitor who has made an effort to get involved in his/her community and explore American Culture. Read more...

Immigrants' ledger has two sides

Published on Sat, Aug 06, 2011

As Hazleton's ill-considered anti-immigration ordinance migrates to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals for further arguments, it continues to be based partially on a false premise.

The ordinance results partially from the notion that illegal immigrants are an economic drain and a service burden on the government.

That view, however, is rooted in only one side of the ledger. An analysis by the Immigration Policy Center recently detailed how tax-paying illegal immigrants bolster government treasuries.

In Pennsylvania alone, the analysis found, families headed by illegal immigrants pay $135 million a year in state and local taxes - nearly $35 million in state and local wage and income taxes, more than $7 million in property taxes and more than $81 million in sales taxes.

The analysis does not count another substantial contribution. The national debate over "entitlement" reform usually fails to note the huge surplus for Social Security generated by illegal immigrants. Earlier this year Stephen Goss, chief actuary for Social Security, estimated that illegal immigrant workers contribute about $12 billion a year to the trust fund.

By law illegal immigrants may not collect Social Security benefits, so their contributions are a net gain. The contribution is even more significant because of demographics: illegal immigrants generally are much younger than the average American worker.

None of that diminishes the need for rational immigration reform at the federal level. But it does call for greater context to the debate.

Published in the The Times-Tribune