Immigration Law
Courts Continue to Reject Arizona Style Laws, Even as House Embraces SAFE Act
Last year, in Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the federal government, rather than the states, has both the responsibility and the authority to enforce immigration law. Leaving immigration enforcement to the whims of individual state legislatures and law enforcement officers was, according to the Court, likely to undermine the federal framework and interfere with U.S. foreign relations. Despite this resounding rejection of state immigration enforcement, or perhaps because of it, the House Immigration Subcommittee passed the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act (H.R. 2278), which attempts to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s decision by empowering states and localities to enforce immigration law as they see fit. At the very time the country is pushing for a comprehensive federal overhaul of the immigration system, the presence of the SAFE Act threatens to cripple the success of those efforts. Read More
Immigration Reform an Imperative for Cities and Metropolitan Areas
Metropolitan leaders from around the country made the case for immigration reform at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program today. Over 80 percent of the U.S. population, including 95 percent of immigrants, now live in metropolitan areas; cities and towns across the country therefore have a huge stake in passing immigration reform. In fact, panelists agreed that comprehensive immigration reform is an imperative for metropolitan areas. “We need an immigration system that is keeping with the times,” stated Audrey Singer, a Senior Fellow with Brookings. Read More
Former Attorney General Gets it Wrong on DOMA and Same Sex Immigration Benefits
Former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is advocating in the New York Times that the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, which invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), should not allow the Obama administration to afford immigration benefits to married, same-sex bi-national couples. Rather, he argues, the administration is bound by a disturbing, 30-year-old Ninth Circuit case, Adams v. Howerton, which rested on discriminatory and outdated law and facts. Essentially, Mr. Gonzales is urging that the administration ignore 30 years of social progress and legal developments and return to a 20th century mentality and jurisprudence. He is mistaken. Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA, Affirms Immigration Rights of Gay and Lesbian Couples
Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case United States v. Windsor, striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, on the basis that it violated equal protection under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. DOMA established an exclusively heterosexual definition of “marriage,” and denied same-sex couples any federal benefits, including immigration benefits. This is a historic day for gay and lesbian marriage rights, as DOMA disqualified same-sex couples from over a thousand federal benefits, and made same-sex couples in committed relationships second-class citizens in the eyes of the federal government. Read More
House Immigration Bill Promotes Old Model Immigration Solutions
Today the House held a hearing on H.R. 2278, the "Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act" (the SAFE Act), which is designed, as its name suggests, to be a lopsided, enforcement-only bill that imposes additional criminal penalties, border security, and detention and deportation, while encouraging discredited policies such as self-deportation and state interference with immigration law. Instead of these old enforcement-only policies, which do not work, what is needed is a comprehensive solution that fixes our broken legal immigration system and provides a path to earned legalization. Read More
Medicare’s Health and Well-Being Depends on Immigrants
Immigrants’ access to affordable health care is one of the most contested issues in the current immigration reform debate. Most advocates of comprehensive immigration reform point to the need to ensure that aspiring citizens have opportunities to access appropriate health care since such access will impact their ability to learn, to work, and to contribute to their communities. On the other end of the spectrum, anti-immigration groups tend to inaccurately emphasize that newly legalized immigrants would represent an excessive fiscal burden. This prediction is based on a misleading characterization of immigrants as “takers”—in other words, as disproportionate consumers of public resources. Several studies have shown that this is just not the case. In fact, non-citizens use public benefit programs at a lower rate than similar low-income native-born citizens. With regard to medical expenditures in particular, immigrants tend to use less health care than their U.S.-born counterparts. Read More
Will Immigration Reform Correct the Immigration System’s Gender Bias?
Within the current immigration system, many women confront systematic barriers when trying to gain legal status. This is one of the main conclusions drawn from a study conducted by social scientists Cecilia Menjivar and Olivia Salcido. Based on a 10-year-long research project on immigrant women in Arizona, the authors identify specific instances in which gender inequality is ingrained in the formulation, interpretation, and implementation of immigration laws. Read More
Day 4 of Senate Immigration Mark-up Goes Late into Night
Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its fourth day—and likely last week—of the immigration reform bill’s mark-up. After spending most of the day finishing the Title 3 (interior enforcement) amendments, the senators began on the last part of the bill, Title 2 (legalization), which includes the path to citizenship. They considered 50 amendments and approved 30 of them; five were withdrawn. Read More
Will Due Process Protections Be Preserved in Senate Mark-Up?
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its mark-up of Title III of S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. When the mark-up continues on Monday, Senators are likely to vote on amendments addressing immigration courts. These amendments will be crucial in determining whether the full Senate receives a bill that provides due process protections to immigrants in removal proceedings. Read More
Subtle but Dramatic Progress on Immigration Reform
Yesterday was day 3 of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s mark-up on S. 744, the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill. While it wasn’t as exciting as the first two days—no dramatic speeches or vocal disagreement—several important votes were taken to modify the mandatory E-verify program, adding and subtracting protections, safeguards, and reporting requirements. This lack of drama was a good thing, however, because there was far less posturing and far more legislating going on. Read More
All gifts are matched dollar for dollar
No one should face the immigration system alone
