Skip to Content

Programs:

Legalization

Do any university presidents oppose the DREAM Act?

Published on Mon, Dec 13, 2010

Finally, I called up Wendy Sefsaf, communications director at Immigration Policy Center, a group that supports DREAM. She hadn't heard of any presidents issuing public statements against the legislation either, but she did have this to say about the lack of academic opposition: "It diminishes any argument that allowing undocumented students to go to college is bad for universities, in terms of economic impact, pushing other students out, or overcrowding. If it wasn't a good idea, universities and their presidents wouldn't be unanimously in support of it."

Published in the Boston Globe

American Immigration Council v. DHS and USCIS

Entire Document Production, August 13, 2012

Key documents:

Pages 2-4: Seating policy- Email directives from 2010 and 2011 regarding policy of allowing attorneys to sit next to their clients and concern that some field offices are not incompliance.

Pages 67-74: Representation overseas- Email correspondence regarding representation of refugees overseas (note that USCIS did not release the “old counsel opinion” referenced in an email).

Pages 117-118, Pages 1670-1671: Directive to review AIC and AILA’s proposed revisions to the AFM

Pages 967-968: Stalled review of the AFM: email correspondence indicating there is “a lot of interest” in amending the counsel provisions of the AFM and an explanation that the amendment process was stalled in 2007.

Page 1355: “Just trying to get this right – esp. given I-797 fiasco”- A redacted 2011 email (probably regarding amendments to the AFM) with the title “Just trying to get this right – esp. given I-797 fiasco.”Read more...

From Every End of This Earth: 13 Families and the New Lives They Made in America - NEW REVIEW

Author: Steven V. Roberts

Roberts, a journalist by trade and talented story teller by passion, paints the lives of 13 families by retelling their stories in a way that captures the essence of their journeys to the United States as well as their journeys to becoming Americans.  Roberts eloquently breaks down many of the myths surrounding immigrants by sharing stories of men, women and children who had to leave so much behind by emigrating.  The book is divided into sections, The Survivors, The International Entrepreneurs, The Business Owners, The Professionals, and The Women.  The characters and their stories give many  fresh perspectives on the issue of immigration.

Year Released: 2009
Grades 9-Adult

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 14

This issue covers recent decisions on INA

Published On: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 | Download File

The Unemployment and Immigration Disconnect

New Report Finds No Significant Relationship between Native Unemployment and Immigrants

Washington D.C. - As Congress once again takes up the mantle for comprehensive immigration reform, it is critically important for policymakers to understand the real impact immigration has on native unemployment. Research conduced by Rob Paral and Associates for the Immigration Policy Center demonstrates that there is little apparent relationship between unemployment and the presence of recent immigrants at the regional and state levels. Read more...

To sell the repeal of birthright citizenship, Republicans like Vitter lie about scope of ‘baby tourism’

Published on Fri, Apr 08, 2011

I guess this is how Republicans do the Latino-outreach thing: Demonize Latino children, threaten to take away their birthright citizenship, and blatantly lie about the numbers of “anchor babies” being born by mothers coming here specifically to have citizen children.

Here’s Sen. David Vitter yesterday on Fox News, promoting his new federal bill to strip American-born children of undocumented immigrants of their birthright citizenship:

VITTER: It’s a very real problem. About 200,000 women come into this country annually from other countries legally, with a tourist visa, something like that, to give birth in this country so that child can automatically become a U.S. citizen. 200,000 a year!

I’m guessing that Vitter’s source for this number is either somewhere up his own nether regions, or those of hate groups such as FAIR and CIS that pump out fake statistics like this for eager Latino-bashers like Vitter and his three Senate colleagues to regurgitate into policy.

Because, as ABC News explained in their own report on this legislation:

Of the 4.2 million live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, only 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here.

Some of those mothers could be “baby tourists,” experts say, but many could be foreign college students, diplomatic staff, or vacationers. The government does not track the reasons non-resident mothers are in the United States at the time of the birth or their citizenship.

Indeed, as the story notes, the “anchor baby” problem is a statistical pimple:

“There’s no evidence that birth tourism is a widespread problem,” said Michele Waslin, a senior policy analyst with the Immigration Policy Center. “There are ways to dealing with that issue without such sweeping changes. This is like using a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.”Read more...

Published in the Crooks and Liar

Litigation Clearinghouse Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 4

This issue covers developments concerning mandatory detention, Supreme Court Update, and Motions to Stop Deportations to Haiti.

Published On: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 | Download File

Supreme Court tosses challenge to Calif. tuition law

Published on Mon, Jun 06, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a California law that allows illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition rates, a decision that gave a boost to supporters of a similar law approved this year in Maryland.

California’s 2001 law, which grants in-state college rates to students who attended a California high school for three years and graduate, was challenged by a conservative immigration group that argued the provision conflicted with federal law. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case and did not comment on that decision.

A California court had previously upheld the law.

The law is similar to one signed in May by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Opponents of Maryland’s law are attempting to gather 56,000 signatures to suspend its provisions and put it on the ballot so that voters can decide its fate next year. Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin have comparable tuition laws.

Opponents said last week they had cleared an early hurdle in the petition drive, securing more than the 18,500 signatures initially needed to keep the effort alive. Del. Patrick L. McDonough, has said he expects opponents will also file a lawsuit to stop the law. McDonough, a Baltimore County Republican, was not immediately available for comment.

Those in favor of the law cheered the court’s decision.

The state law "is absolutely lawful under federal law and the California decision is just one more in a litany of court finding making that declaration," said Kim Propeack with the immigration advocacy group CASA de Maryland.Read more...

Published in the Baltimore Sun