Musings on Immigration

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in State of Arizona v. United States , the case where the United States government has challenged the authority of a state to enact its own immigration enforcement laws instead of following federal regulations. When the Court delivers its written opinion in June, we can expect that the ruling will impact more than just Arizona as five other states have enacted similar enforcement-only laws that promote, explicitly or implicitly, the policy of “attrition through enforcement”. But the ruling could also clear the way for states to enact creative and forward-thinking laws such as Utah’s guest worker law given that the federal government is not stepping up to fix our nation’s broken immigration laws and policies. If yesterday’s oral arguments are any indication of how the Court is likely to rule, it appears that states may have the Court’s blessing to venture deeply into immigration policy, which h...

It’s only April, but the Supreme Court has already had a monumental year.  Today, April 24, 2012, the High Court will referee another major debate between the Obama administration and the states.  Arizona’s SB 1070 has spurred the age-old controversy testing the powers of state against federal government with its significant anti-immigration implications. SB 1070 is dubbed by some as the “show me your papers” legislation. SB 1070 makes it a misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without the required documents, adding an extra burden on aliens who are already required by federal law to register with the U.S. government if they’re above the age of 14 and remain in the U.S. longer than 30 days. The Obama administration challenged the constitutionality of SB 1070 soon after its enactment on April 23, 2010.  Almost two years later to the day, the High Court will deliberate over the constitutional challenges brought forth by the federal government against Ari...

Little did Oscar De La Hoya know, that when he lost his first bout in controversial and memorable fashion to Felix Trinidad, he helped win a deserving fellow his permanent resident status.   On September 18, 1999, Felix Trinidad beat Oscar De La Hoya in a hotly disputed split decision, De La Hoya’s first professional loss.   As fate would have it, that same day, my client, Mr. Rosas arrived in Georgia, completing his long journey from Guatemala to the United States. Fast forward twelve years.   Mr. Rosas was placed in removal proceedings after being arrested for driving without a license in Cobb County.   Having been in the U.S. for more than ten years, never been arrested, and being the father of a U.S. citizen child with Down Syndrome, Mr. Rosas was seeking Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal which would cancel his removal from the U.S. and result in Mr. Rosas obtaining his permanent residency.   There was a catch.   Mr. Rosas is completely illiterate, and...

Earlier this week I had an opportunity to speak at an Immigration and Education Forum in Athens Georgia organized by the University of Georgia College of Education Faculty Senate and the Dean's Council on Diversity. I was honored to be speaking with four other co-panelists who are each on the frontlines of immigration and education, teaching and working with students who are, or who interact with documented and undocumented youth each day.  It was inspiring to hear from them, and to witness the remarkable work they are doing.   Each of these co-panelists spoke from the heart and were so deeply impressive. I wanted to share with my readers the presentation of Ian Altman.  I think you will be equally impressed.             Good afternoon, everybody.  My name is Ian Altman, and I am the English Department Chair at Clarke Central High School.  I am here to talk to you about how and why I bring up the issue of immigration in my...

Just few days ago, on March 30, 2012, USCIS posted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) changing the process for certain inadmissibility waivers in the Federal Register . If you’re interested in reading the entire rule and all the other attachments …here’s the link , enjoy the 60 + pages… So in a nutshell who qualifies and what does the proposed rule say? First of all, the rule applies to certain immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who are eligible for a provisional waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of inadmissibility while they are still residing in the US. The immediate relative must show that being separated from their U.S. citizen spouse or parent would cause that U.S. citizen relative extreme hardship. This proposed rule doesn’t mean that USCIS has lowered or modified their standard of “extreme hardship”? The “extreme hardship” standard remains the same. Ideally, the proposed rule would have created a “one-step” process. Whereby, the I-130, I-601 waiver, I-212 et...