Supreme Court
After Justice Department Admits Mistake, Immigrant Advocates Ask Supreme Court to Fix Prior Opinion
Of the many problems with our immigration system, one of the least known—but most frustrating—is that when the government deports immigrants whose appeals are still pending, it offers little to no help returning to the United States if they ultimately prevail in court. Immigrant advocates were thus perplexed when the Justice Department filed a Supreme Court brief in 2008 claiming to have a “policy” of helping such immigrants return to the country. Now, more than three years after the brief was filed, the current administration has conceded that no such policy existed at the time—and immigrant advocates have asked the Court to modify a portion of its ruling that relied on the government’s misstatement. Read More
Rubio Proposal Overlooks Obstacles Ahead For DREAMers
Though it has yet to be introduced in Congress, Senator Marco Rubio’s alternative to the DREAM Act received an appraisal from the Washington Post this week, which noted that it represents an effort to shake the hard-line anti-immigrant sentiment voiced by many leading conservative politicians. The editorial also noted, however, that the outlines of his proposal promote what’s tantamount to “permanent second-class status.” Read More
Supreme Court Asks Hard Questions at Oral Arguments Over Arizona SB 1070
Almost two years to the day after Arizona enacted the notorious immigration law known as SB 1070, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what could be the first of many cases over the validity of the measure. Although most critics of the law have focused on its potential for civil rights violations, the only question before the Justices was whether federal immigration laws “preempt” four provisions of SB 1070 that were blocked by lower courts. While the ultimate fate of those provisions will not be known until a ruling is announced, a few preliminary observations can be made based on the questions posed by the Justices. Read More
Five Things to Know Before the Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Arizona SB1070
In less than 48 hours, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Arizona v. United States, the long-anticipated dispute over the legality of SB 1070. More than any case in recent history, the dispute raises fundamental questions about the role of states in the enforcement of federal immigration law. The Court’s decision could thus determine not only the future of SB 1070, but the fate of other state immigration laws being challenged in court and the odds of similar laws being passed around the country. While much ink has already been spilled about the case, below we’ve highlighted five important facts to remember before the argument. Read More
Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? Experts Examine “Proportionality” and “Discretion” in Our Immigration System
As immigration becomes an ever more controversial part of the American debate, conversations often turn to details about legislation and court battles rather than questioning whether fundamental principles of justice are being applied throughout our immigration system. Two new reports released today, however, address some of these key principles, such as the idea of proportionality (whether the punishment fits the crime in immigration court) and the idea of discretion (how and when immigration law is applied). While these reports probe different areas of immigration law, they both represent a new way of thinking about how our immigration system functions, or at least should be functioning, today. Read More
Supreme Court Flooded with Briefs Opposing Arizona SB 1070
Proponents of Arizona SB 1070 often insist that the infamous immigration law enjoys considerable public support. Yet even if such claims are correct, one would hardly know it from the flood of briefs filed at the Supreme Court this week opposing the measure. Unlike the monolithic set of briefs filed last month in support of SB 1070, the briefs opposing the law were submitted by a strikingly broad range of parties—from commissioners of the former INS, to more than 40 cities and counties, to a group of law enforcement officials that includes an Arizona sheriff whose county shares a border with Mexico. Read More
Supreme Court Brief on SB 1070: Arizona Seeking Confrontation, not Cooperation
When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer wagged her finger in President Obama’s face at a Phoenix airport earlier this year, she may have been seeking to score political points with the White House’s ideological opponents. What the governor may not have realized, however, is that she was giving the Obama administration the photographic equivalent of its closing argument in the legal challenge to SB 1070—namely, that Arizona is more interested in confronting the federal government than cooperating with it. Read More
Why the Scott Gardner Act is Unconstitutional…and a Bad Idea
Immigration hardliners never hesitate to claim the mantle of “states’ rights” when defending laws like Arizona SB 1070. But those wanting local cops to double as federal immigration agents were conspicuously silent at a congressional hearing on Wednesday on the Scott Gardner Act, a bill that (among other things) would require police to run extra background checks on foreign nationals arrested for drunk driving. Instead, it was pro-immigrant members of Congress who had to remind the legislative sponsors that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing unfunded mandates on states—all while explaining the many reasons why the bill would make bad policy. Read More
Mother Jones Exposes Inner Workings of the Self-Deportation Movement
In its March/April issue, Mother Jones Magazine goes “inside the self-deportation movement,” exploring “164 state anti-immigration bills and the forces behind them.” The concept of “self deportation,” popularized by GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, is central to the philosophy of “attrition through enforcement.” The basic idea is that, if you make life hard enough for unauthorized immigrants, they will pick up and leave of their own accord, which means the state will not have to hunt them down, detain them, and deport them. Read More
USCIS Convenes Summit to Consider Streamlined Path for Immigrant Entrepreneurs
By KIRSTEN SCHLENGER, MANAGING PARTNER AT WEAVER SCHLENGER MAZEL LLP. The business community has long heralded the vital role immigrant-owned startups play in creating American jobs. This month, it seems like someone at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was listening. USCIS recently hosted its first in a series of summits dedicated to gathering expertise on how U.S. immigration law can enable foreign innovators to come to or remain in the U.S. lawfully while they start and grow businesses that benefit the U.S. economy. The informational summits, part of USCIS’s new Entrepreneurs in Residence (EIR) initiative, will result in the creation of a team of entrepreneurs and experts who are charged with designing and implementing USCIS policy that eases a path to the U.S. for talented immigrant entrepreneurs. Read More
All gifts are matched dollar for dollar
No one should face the immigration system alone
