Legalization

Remand Rule

Keisler v. Hong Yin Gao, 552 U.S. 801 (2007)Read more...

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 126 S. Ct. 1613, 164 L. Ed. 2d 358 (2006).
In Gonzales v. Thomas, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred by deciding, without prior resolution by the BIA, that the asylum applicants and their family would constitute a "particular social group" and should have applied the "ordinary remand rule" rather than deciding the asylum case in the first instance. The underlying court of appeals decision in Gao involves an asylum claim based on membership in a "particular social group."

The Exchange Visitor Program is pleased to announce Bernhard Goesmann as October'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...

Going Beyond The Politics Of Discretion In The American Immigration System

Published on Fri, Sep 02, 2011

The ability of whether the President can use discretion in the immigration arena has become the flavor of the month. The announcement by the DHS on August 18, 2001 under which 300,000 individuals who are low priority can hope to have their cases closed and obtain work authorization was welcomed. The details about how this policy will play out are nicely explained in a Legal Action Center advisory. Although many were pleasantly surprised by this policy, within days of the announcement even advocates for immigration reform have become skeptical about whether this policy will have a dramatic and far reaching impact. Obama supporters have even gone so far to accuse the Obama administration for mere window dressing in order to keep certain voters on his side in the next elections. Commentators such as Dan Kowalski also justifiably feel that ICE personnel will continue to ignore this policy, and choose not to exercise their discretion favorably.

While the President has his critics within the pro-immigration camp regarding his new announcement on discretion, the attempt by immigration restrictionists in Congress to blunt the June 17, 2011 Morton Memo on prosecutorial discretion when viewed in a larger context repeats an old pattern. For instance, Congressmen Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Senator Vitter have proposed a most unusual piece of legislation suitably called the HALT Act (Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act) that will suspend all of the Administration’s discretionary relief until January 21, 2013, which is the day after the next Presidential inauguration.Read more...

Published in the Immigration Daily

What is our application process?

Our new guide gives an overview of our application review process from receipt to DS-2019 issuance.

Covering the Election with Esteban Roman

November, 2012

Esteban Roman is a journalist from Mexico now training in Miami, Florida.

Read more...

American Heritage Editor on ‘Anchor Baby’ Definition: ‘We Were Wrong’

Published on Wed, Dec 07, 2011

Recently, controversy erupted over the American Heritage dictionary’s definition of “anchor baby” as a neutral term. Jorge Rivas gave us an overview earlier this week. The act prompted immigrant rights advocates to reach out for institutional change. Here’s how the dictionary’s new edition originally defined “anchor baby:”

“Anchor Baby, n. A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.”

Mary Giovagnoli, the Director of the Immigration Policy Center pushed back on the term’s definition, acknowledging that it’s politically loaded language and not neutral. She’s right. The term is racially charged and hurtful, much like the term “illegal immigrant,” which Giovagnoli ironically did use in her piece. It’s no surprise that dehumanizing and criminalizing people by describing them as “illegal immigrants” has paved the way for “anchor baby,” which suggests that supposedly “illicit” people who have families and settle down are conniving and dangerous. Read more...

Published in the Colorlines

Get Involved

CONTACT US

Whether you are an educator, librarian, museum curator, immigration attorney, community activist or just someone who is interested in the unique ways immigrants and immigration touch our lives, we believe you have something valuable to add to the immigration dialogue. Don’t miss out on an opportunity to get involved in this pivotal topic. If you have an idea or would like to make a suggestion on how we can make immigration more accessible to your community, please email us at [email protected]

Community Grants

The Community Education Center awards educational grants of $100 to $500 to fund educational projects about immigrants and immigration. No deadline available on rolling basis.

"Celebrate America" Creative Writing Contest

The American Immigration Council is proud to sponsor the annual “Celebrate America” Creative Writing Contest in an ongoing effort to educate the public about the benefits of immigration to our society.

"Change in Motion" Multimedia Contest

The American Immigration Council is pleased to announce a call for submissions to the 2013 “Change in Motion” Multimedia Contest. The competition challenges today’s young adults to explore the role that immigration plays in their lives and communities through video and other multimedia projects.

Financial Support and Budget Form

Backlash against Kris Kobach on immigration is growing

Published on Thu, Feb 09, 2012

Kris Kobach’s ears should be burning.

Backlash built this week against the Kansas secretary of state for gallivanting state-to-state, drumming up support for laws bent on driving illegal immigrants out.

The rebukes aren’t coming from his usual critics, those who display sanity about the federal reforms needed to effectively deal with illegal immigration.

No, Kobach’s supporters are barking back now. The legislators and taxpayers who bought into his schemes to make the lives of illegal immigrants so hellish that they “self-deport.”

The editorial board of the Press-Register in Mobile, Ala., accused Kobach of banking on exactly what happened there — costly court challenges and a wide-range of unintended consequences for legal residents.

“Alabama allowed itself to be used as a guinea pig on illegal immigration so that a Kansas lawyer could build his political career,” the editorial said.

So Alabama’s legislature has gone to work, figuring out how to rewrite or repeal the damage done by Kobach’s handiwork, measures passed in 2011.

On Monday, the Immigration Policy Center released “Discrediting ‘Self Deportation’ As Immigration Policy.” Yes, you can make life harsh for immigrants, but everyone else suffers, too. Economists predict Alabama’s gross domestic product will lose up to $10.8 billion as a result, and $57 million to $264 million more in state income and sales tax collections could evaporate.

Oops.

Anyway, data are beginning to show that immigrants don’t self-deport in substantial numbers.

It’s all sleight of hand, a hustle that eventually will reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Missouri also stood out in national conversations for being among the gullible states where chasing around illegal immigrants is still gathering traction, despite experiences elsewhere.Read more...

Published in the The Kansas City Star