American Immigration Council

Released on Wed, May 11, 2011

Washington, D.C. - Today, Senators Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, and Robert Menendez re-introduced the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Last fall, the DREAM Act passed the House of Representatives, and garnered the support of a majority in the Senate, but was ultimately defeated when the Senate failed to invoke cloture and proceed to debate. The sponsors of the DREAM Act hope to build on last year’s momentum and continue to highlight the importance of fully utilizing the talent and potential of thousands of young people who are Americans in every way but their birth certificates. Read more...

View Release

Released on Thu, Apr 14, 2011

A federal appellate court recently reversed a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision that would have prevented noncitizens from presenting new evidence in their removal cases – evidence that potentially could change the outcome – because they are outside the United States. As the Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Council and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild argued in an amicus brief, Congress enacted laws that allow noncitizens to pursue their cases from outside the U.S. The decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is the latest in a series of decisions rejecting the government's position that immigration judges and the BIA lack jurisdiction over such cases.

Federal law gives noncitizens 90 days to file a “motion to reopen,” a procedural mechanism for submitting new evidence after a removal order becomes final. But the BIA has long maintained that it cannot consider a motion to reopen if a foreign national is outside the United States. The court rejected the government’s position, emphasizing that allowing the immigration courts to refuse to hear motions in these cases enables the Department of Homeland Security to unilaterally restrict the opportunity to seek reopening by deporting a person before the deadline for filing a motion to reopen. As the court concluded, the government’s position “completely eviscerate[s] the statutory right to reopen provided by Congress.”

“Five appellate courts have found that the bar to motions to reopen from outside the U.S. is unlawful. It is past time for the government to withdraw this outdated regulation rather than proceed with costly litigation,” said Beth Werlin of the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center.Read more...

View Release

Released on Wed, Apr 13, 2011

In response to the Department of Homeland Security’s request for comments in connection with a review of its existing regulations, the American Immigration Council highlighted several issues of concern. We urge the Department to: (1) promulgate additional regulations to clarify that the right to counsel applies in all DHS proceedings; (2) expand existing regulations to clarify the types of delays that justify stopping the Employment Authorization Document (EAD) asylum clock and distinguish the EAD asylum clock from EOIR’s asylum adjudication clock; and (3) promulgate new regulations that ensure more effective oversight over the issuance of detainers and better protect those subject to detainers. Our letter describes these three requests and provides additional details regarding the need for regulatory reform.

View Release

AIC Amicus Argues Employees Have Right to Remain While Extension Applications Pending

Released on Wed, Apr 13, 2011

Washington D.C. - A recent ruling from a federal judge in Connecticut confirmed that—as the American Immigration Council (AIC) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) argued in an amicus brief—the government may not arrest H-1B employees for whom timely-filed extension applications remain pending. The decision in El Badrawi v. United States, by U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall, correctly recognized that a federal regulation allows H-1B employees to continue working for 240 days pending the adjudication of their extension applications, and that “work authorization is part and parcel of their authorization to be in the country, not a separate matter.” Permitting the initiation of removal proceedings during this period would thus be unfair to employees and employers alike, according to the decision.

The plaintiff, a Lebanese national, was gainfully employed as a medical researcher when his employer requested an H-1B extension in early 2004, more than a month before his H-1B status expired. Though his employer paid a $1,000 fee for premium processing of the application, the government never adjudicated it and refused to respond to requests for information. Nearly seven months after the request was filed, immigration agents arrested the plaintiff for allegedly “overstaying” his initial period of admission. He was placed in removal proceedings and detained for nearly two months.Read more...

View Release

Released on Tue, Apr 12, 2011

Washington, D.C - The American Immigration Council applauds yesterday’s decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding a preliminary injunction against the key provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070.  As the court correctly recognized, Arizona’s misguided attempt to drive immigrants from the state interferes with the federal government’s exclusive authority to enforce immigration law, has negatively impacted U.S. foreign relations, and reflects the dangers of allowing states to enact a patchwork of conflicting regulations.  The Ninth Circuit also rightly rejected Arizona’s claim that state police have “inherent authority” to enforce federal immigration laws and held that Congress intended state officers to “aid in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General.” Read more...

View Release

Released on Mon, Apr 11, 2011

Washington D.C. - More than two years into the Obama Administration, it is still unclear whether President Obama’s immigration agenda will ultimately be remembered as an enforcement-driven enterprise, or one that uses the full force of executive branch authority to improve our badly broken system. On the one hand, the President continues to voice support for comprehensive immigration reform that would create a new immigration system that is more fair, just, and practical than the unworkable system now in place. On the other hand, the Administration repeatedly trumpets the fact that it is deporting more people with greater efficiency than its predecessors. When confronted by this apparent contradiction, Administration officials claim that, in the absence of Congressional action, their hands are tied and they must simply enforce the dysfunctional laws that are now on the books. This response ignores the important and completely legitimate role that the Executive branch of government has always played in interpreting and implementing existing laws.

It is time for the Administration to more clearly define a vision for what its legacy on immigration will be, then take action to ensure that vision is reflected in its interpretation and implementation of immigration law. Without bold and decisive action, President Obama’s legacy on immigration will come to be defined by a do-nothing Congress with a chronic inability to pass legislative reform.Read more...

View Release

New Report Examines the Economic Impact of Legalization vs. Deportation in Arizona

Released on Thu, Mar 24, 2011

Washington, D.C. - As Arizona approaches the one-year anniversary of the passage of SB 1070, the Immigration Policy Center and Center for American Progress release a new report, A Rising Tide or a Shrinking Pie: The Economic Impact of Legalization Versus Deportation in Arizona, by Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz, which examines two very different futures for Arizona's economy.

In the first scenario, the proponents of SB 1070 achieve their stated goals and all current unauthorized immigrants leave the state-taking their labor, their spending power, and their tax dollars with them. In the second scenario, unauthorized immigrants are offered a pathway to legal status, thereby enabling them to earn higher wages, spend more, and pay more in taxes. The economic modeling shows that deporting all of Arizona's unauthorized workers, consumers, and taxpayers would eliminate 581,000 jobs and reduce state tax revenues by $4.2 billion. Conversely, legalizing the state's unauthorized immigrants would create 261,000 jobs and increase tax revenues by $1.7 billion.

According to Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, the report's author and founding director of the North American Integration and Development Center at UCLA:  "The key issue is that bills like SB 1070 that seek to eliminate the undocumented population, if successful, would represent a severe shock to the Arizona economy and create a deep hole that the state would have to claw out of. The size of that hole is what this new report measures.Read more...

View Release

Legislation Fails To Live Up To State's Best Intentions

Released on Thu, Mar 10, 2011

Washington D.C. - Late Friday night, the Utah Legislature passed three immigration-related bills that await Governor Herbert's signature or veto. Utah's policy discussions were guided by the principles of a much-lauded Utah Compact, which brought together leaders from political parties, business, labor, and faith-based organizations for a thoughtful dialogue about immigration policy. The Compact was a welcome relief from the angry vitriol that has often dominated the debate and was well-regarded as a rational, solution-based conversation about the complexity of effective immigration reform. It recognizes that the current unauthorized immigrant population is made up of workers, taxpayers, and consumers, and that enforcement strategies must be coupled with reform of our legal system of immigration in order to meet legitimate labor force needs. Unfortunately, the Utah state legislature was not able to realize the Compact's aspirations.

The three bills represent one state's attempt to provide solutions that go beyond the enforcement-only approach of Arizona's SB1070 and similar copycats being considered in other states. It is noteworthy that Utah's legislature acknowledged that immigration is a complex issue, and that a realistic solution involves more than asking people for their papers and deporting those who lack legal status. However, what these well-intentioned Utah legislators have created is an aggressive Arizona-style enforcement program with no counter-balance. The provisions intended to create legal work status and visas are clearly at odds with the Constitution and cannot be implemented by state action alone.Read more...

View Release