Skip to Content

Press Releases

07/28/10 | Arizona Judge Delineates Between State and Federal Authority

Washington, D.C. - Today, Phoenix district court judge Susan Bolton enjoined key provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB1070. The judge recognized that the federal government has primary authority over making and enforcing immigration law, and that while states have limited authority in this arena, they cannot interfere with federal enforcement or undermine federal priorities. The decision acknowledges the complex nature of immigration law and the harmful consequences of local police attempting to make immigration determinations. The judge also recognized the serious strain that the Arizona law would place on federal resources, which would detract from the federal government's ability to enforce immigration laws in other states and target resources toward serious criminals.

The following is a statement from Benjamin E. Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. 
 
"It is clear that the Judge Bolton has a strong grasp on the complexity of immigration issues and the challenges facing the state. She blocked the most controversial and troubling parts of the law that not only intrude on the Federal government's authority over immigration, but were also likely to violate the civil rights of legal immigrants and U.S. citizens.  While it is important to acknowledge that there are serious problems in Arizona, if Arizonans truly want to target human trafficking, human smuggling, and other serious crimes, they must focus their efforts and resources on those criminal networks, and nothing in today's decision prevents them from doing so.
 
Now the question is whether politicians at the state and federal level will stop playing politics or start solving problems. Arizona must start focusing on serious criminals and the federal government must assume its Constitutional duty of fixing the broken immigration system. America needs real solutions that make our communities safer, our border more secure, and creates an immigration system meets the needs of our Nation."

###
 
For more information contact Wendy Sefsaf at 202-812-2499 or wsefsaf@immcouncil.org

View Release
07/20/10 | Lawsuit Filed Against DHS and USCIS Seeks Transparency Promised by Obama Administration

The American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) seeking the public release of records concerning agency policies and procedures for the "H-1B" visa program - a program which allows U.S. businesses to temporarily employ highly-skilled foreign workers.

View Release
07/19/10 | AIC/AILA Litigation Institute

Strengthen your litigation skills in Leesburg, Va., this fall, via our hands-on, educational format! Now more than ever immigration lawyers need to be equipped to litigate issues on behalf of their clients. This Institute will enable both neophytes and experienced practitioners to acquire new skills, to practice their technique, and to become confident and knowledgeable about litigation in immigration court and in the federal courts. Please see http://www.aila.org/li for registration information.

View Release
07/06/10 | FAIR's Distorted Fiscal Snapshot of Unauthorized Immigrants

Washington D.C. -  Today, Fox News is reporting on data provided to them by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) which amounts to a highly misleading fiscal snapshot of the costs allegedly imposed on U.S. taxpayers by unauthorized immigrants.  However, in its rush to portray unauthorized immigrants as nothing more than a drain on the public treasury, FAIR completely discounts the economic contributions of unauthorized workers and consumers.  Moreover, FAIR inflates their cost estimate by indiscriminately lumping together native-born, U.S.-citizen children with their unauthorized parents.


FAIR's report suffers from three fatal flaws:

  • The report notes that the single biggest "expense" it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be tax-paying adults.  It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents.
  • The report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs.
  • The report ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.

In contrast to FAIR's report, the Perryman Group estimated that if all unauthorized workers and consumers were somehow removed from the U.S. economy, the United States would lose $552 billion in total economic activity ("expenditures"), $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 2.8 million jobs. 

FAIR's data is meant only to reinforce their vision of "attrition through enforcement." It is not rooted in an effort to move the immigration debate forward. The public and the President have made it clear that deporting 11-12 million immigrants isn't reasonable or feasible. Therefore, passing comprehensive immigration reform - which would yield a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years - is the only sound economic decision the United States can make. 

View Release
07/06/10 | The United States v. Arizona: Drawing a Clear Line Between Federal and State Immigration Authority

Washington, D.C. - Today, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona in federal court. The lawsuit, prompted by passage of SB 1070 in the Arizona legislature, will argue that federal law trumps the state statute and enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility. The Department has requested a preliminary injunction to delay enactment of the law, arguing that the law's operation will cause "irreparable harm."
 
"The federal government is taking an important step to reassert its authority over immigration policy in the United States," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. "While a legal challenge by the Department of Justice won't resolve the public's frustration with our broken immigration system, it will seek to define and protect the federal government's constitutional authority to manage immigration."
 
Although states have always played a role in federal immigration enforcement, over the last 10 years more and more states have chosen to impose their local policies, priorities, and politics on our national immigration system. America can only have one immigration system, and the federal government must make clear where states' authority begins and where it ends. The federal government must assert its authority to establish a uniform immigration policy that it can be held accountable for. In the current environment it is unclear who is responsible for setting immigration enforcement priorities and who is responsible for their success or failure.

Also, while we applaud the administration's decision to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona law, we urge it to also look inward and correct other policies and programs that confuse the relationship between federal and state authority to enforce immigration laws. For example, the Department of Justice should rescind an Office of Legal Counsel memo issued in 2002 which opened the door for greater state action by reaching the politically motivated decision that states had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security should rescind the 287(g) agreement in Maricopa County, Arizona where it has become clear that the agreement is being abused.
 
At the end of the day, a lawsuit alone will not end the vacuum created by the lack of workable immigration laws. While the Department of Justice takes up the legal challenge, the Obama Administration and Congress must put the immigration issue squarely back where it belongs - in the halls of congress and on the desk of the President of the United States.

View Release
06/30/10 | President Obama’s Moment to Reassert Federal Leadership on Immigration Reform

Washington, D.C. - Tomorrow, Thursday, July 1st, President Obama will make what is being described by the New York Times as “a major speech on immigration” at American University in Washington, D.C. The President is expected to step forward to reassert the leadership of the Federal Government on the issue of immigration.

While a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s SB1070 now seems imminent, the President must address the underlying issues that led to passage of the Arizona law. We hope the President will squarely address the public’s frustration with a lack of workable solutions on immigration.  He must place this frustration in context—lack of federal action leads to growing impetus in the states to pass laws, no matter what their cost, simply to try to resolve the impasse. The President should address this frustration, but should also address the undisputed polling that shows that Americans want comprehensive immigration reform. This can be his moment to bring people together by laying out a framework that will actually move Congress to complete workable legislation.

We also hope that the President avoids some of the typical election chatter on immigration, which tends to turn the issue into a political contest of who can talk the toughest. Rarely does the debate move beyond the issue of further fortifying our southern border. While border security is a necessary component of comprehensive immigration reform, we cannot stop there. Real reform must look past campaign politics and find solutions that will allow communities to live and work together without the anger and recriminations that have dominated this issue for years. We hope the President’s speech will go beyond issues of border security and discuss with the same enthusiasm strategies to create a 21st century immigration system—a system which invests in ideas and programs that support family and community cohesion, promotes fairness and individual accountability, supports immigrant integration, and helps us attract the best and brightest from around the world.

“The crisis in Arizona was created by an absence of leadership and commitment by the Federal Government to fix our broken immigration system. My hope is that the President will use this speech as an opportunity to reassert federal authority over immigration law and policy, and lay out his vision for a path forward,” said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, who will attend the speech on Thursday. “Enforcement of our laws is important, but the President must rise above the angry and misguided political rhetoric that creates and then feeds a never-ending appetite for punishment. While a lawsuit by the Department of Justice is a necessary legal step, a lawsuit alone will not end the vacuum created by the lack of workable immigration laws and leadership to make that a reality. Over the last year, the President and his administration have expressed a willingness and desire to pursue a comprehensive reform strategy. Sadly, too few politicians have had the courage to stand with him on this important issue. The true measure of the President’s commitment to this issue is whether he will create his own strategy for moving reform forward and whether he will expose those in both parties who refuse to step forward and create a workable, humane immigration policy that will strengthen America.” 

As the Department of Justice takes up the legal challenge, President Obama—through this speech and continuing actions—can place the responsibility for immigration reform back where it constitutionally belongs: in the hands of the Federal Government.

View Release
06/22/10 | Defining Roles: Federal vs. State Immigration Authority

Washington D.C. - Today, the small town of Fremont, Nebraska is in the headlines after passing an ordinance that requires among other things that renters apply for an occupancy license - which also requires a legal immigration status check - before renting an apartment or home.

Although Fremont, Nebraska, and Arizona are the latest localities to propose measures designed to control and manage immigration, there have been many more attempts over the past seven years to pass similar bills. Like the other efforts before them, there will be rationalizations for their passage and legal challenges to their implementation. Millions of dollars will be spent as these laws are battled in state houses, city halls, and the courts. However, the larger question is whether the federal government will continue to sit idly by as a patchwork of legislation proliferates around the country or will it finally assert its role, as defined by the Constitution, and delineate local authority with respect to federal immigration law?

States have always played a role in federal immigration enforcement. While the inherent authority of the states was historically limited to criminal violations of immigration law, the federal government could delegate broader authority to the local level. Programs like 287(g) have formalized this delegation process, while still maintaining some level of federal oversight. However, with laws like SB 1070 and local ordinances taking root, the states are taking it one step further and deciding for themselves what role they will play in federal immigration law. In other words, what was once given by the federal government is now being taken by the states. What we are also losing in this process is the ability of the federal government to establish a uniform immigration policy and then be held accountable to it. In the current environment it is unclear who is responsible for setting immigration enforcement priorities and who is accountable for their success or failure.

The federal government needs to act swiftly to re-assert its authority over immigration law and policy," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. "This is why a legal challenge by the Department of Justice against Arizona's SB1070 is relevant and necessary. A federal lawsuit isn't meant to discount the frustration with our broken immigration system, it's meant to define and then protect the federal government's Constitutional authority to manage immigration. The Administration can and should also withdraw a hastily crafted and politically motivated 2002 White House Office of Legal Counsel opinion that opened the floodgates for state involvement in enforcing the civil provisions of federal immigration law."

At the end of the day a lawsuit alone will not end the vacuum created by the lack of workable immigration laws. While the Department of Justice takes up the legal challenge, the Obama Administration and Congress must put the immigration issue squarely back where it belongs - in the halls of Congress and on the desk of the President of the United States.

View Release
06/15/10 | Supreme Court Injects Reason into Immigration Felony Definition

On June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder that a lawful permanent resident who is convicted of minor drug possession offenses does not warrant classification as having been convicted of an "aggravated felony." As a result, the Court held that Mr. Carachuri-Rosendo cannot be deported without an opportunity to make a case for why he should be allowed to remain in the United States. Please view the press release directly below, and you can also read about this case on our Supreme Court Update page.

View Release
06/08/10 | Reality at the U.S. Mexico Border

Washington D.C. - On Monday, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) hosted a teleconference with border and national-security experts who dissected the myths linking immigration and border violence. These experts shared their analyses of the reality of crime and violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, what the real sources of violence are, and how the U.S. should respond.  They all made the point that nearly twenty years of immigration policy focusing on "securing the border first" has failed to address the underlying issues and criminal cartels that are the real cause of violence along the border.  The experts noted that immigration laws and policies of the past two decades have, ironically, made the border less safe and have actually benefitted the traffickers and smugglers who operate at the border.

Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Council stressed the need to disentangle unauthorized immigration and border violence as a means for solving both problems, noting that "we are pursuing a lopsided approach of border-enforcement only and placing the highest priority on prosecuting nonviolent border-crossers rather than dangerous criminals. Everyone wants an easy solution to solving our problems at the border, but the reality is a simple solution does not exist for complex problems."
 
According to David Shirk, Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego,
"the Border Patrol has doubled to 20,000 agents, there are also more than 3,000 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents, 300 National Guard troops (with 1,200 more on their way), and a significant surge in the number of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms personnel. However, border security-only advocates say that this is still not enough. Further saturating the border is costly and ineffective. Indeed, the border-centric approach has encouraged drug trafficking organizations to evolve from relatively small-scale, low-level operations in the 1980s into the highly sophisticated, heavily-armed criminal organizations that are today seriously undermining the Mexican state. The flow of drugs and immigrants continues practically unabated, despite these very costly investments in border security."
 
He added, "the argument that can be made is that we have gone as far as reasonable to secure this part of the comprehensive approach. We have entered into a free trade agreement with Mexico that allows the flow of goods and capital, but we have not figured out how to manage labor. Border security is made difficult by the creation of a haystack of people; 200,000 people were apprehended at the border last year and 200 were found to have criminal histories. In my view, we need to figure out how to get the 99% of people who don't pose a threat out of the way through work-visa programs or other means. This would make the Border Patrol's job much easier by shrinking the size of the haystack."
 
Jennifer Bernal Garcia of the Center for New American Security explained, "it's true that the U.S. faces a problem of national security relevance at its border. However, focusing on the problem of crime rather than crime and immigration is needed. When you build a fence, you are pushing immigrants straight into the arms of criminal cartels. There hasn't been enough of a focus placed on prosecution and enforcement measures against criminal cartels. Many think that the border is the 'choke point,' but drug cartels are sprawled out. We must think beyond the border. Going after scapegoats at the border does nothing to change or deter the criminal element."  She explains, "what is needed along the border is a coordinated strategy among federal agencies and foreign governments, not incremental acts and feel-good deployments. Such a broad strategy would focus on reducing criminal groups' ability to violently contest state authority, both by diminishing the sources of their proceeds (drugs) and their social base (through a mix of regional law enforcement and social programs)." 

Aarti Kohli of the Warren Institute at California State University at Berkeley noted that programs like Operation Streamline, which places all illegal border crossers in federal criminal proceedings in certain regions, are examples of a misdirected policy.  "All border crossers regardless of their criminal history are pushed through federal district courts rather than through the civil immigration court. One of the unintended consequences is that resources are taken from prosecuting higher-level offenses. In 2009, federal prosecutors in border districts turned away 1,800 drug prosecutions mostly because they did not have enough investigative and prosecutorial resources. We have created an environment where non-violent border crossers are being prioritized over more dangerous criminals like kidnappers, drug smugglers, and others."  In a recent report she found that "between 2002 and 2008, federal magistrate judges along the U.S.-Mexico border saw their misdemeanor immigration caseloads more than quadruple. Criminal prosecutions of petty immigration-related offenses increased by more than 330% in the border district courts, while smuggling and drug trafficking charges were brought less frequently or remained flat."

The panel made the compelling point that "border security first" as a policy choice long ago reached the point of diminishing returns.  Reducing illegal immigration will not be accomplished solely by securing the border, but by a coordinated and comprehensive strategy. Creating sensible immigration policies, while simultaneously and comprehensively addressing the criminal issues that are at the heart of border violence, is the only way to provide genuine security along the border and throughout the United States.

Listen to the telephonic.
 
To read further information see:

View Release
05/25/10 | When is Enough, Enough?

Washington, D.C. - Following a meeting to discuss comprehensive immigration reform with Senate Republicans, President Obama announced that he would send 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border and would request $500 million for additional border personnel and technology as part of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill.

As we have seen time and time again, efforts to overhaul the entire immigration system have taken a back seat to the political expediency of pouring more money into border enforcement.  While it is clear that border violence must be addressed, it is also clear that enforcement alone is not a solution to our country's immigration problems.  

Over the last two decades, the United States has spent billions of dollars on border enforcement.  Since 1992, the annual budget of the U.S. Border Patrol has increased by 714 percent. At the same time, the number of Border Patrol agents stationed along the southwest border has grown by 390 percent.  Interior enforcement has expanded as well, and detentions and deportations are at record levels.  However, during the same time period, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has roughly tripled from 3.5 million in 1990 to 11.9 million in 2008. Yet close family members of American families continue to wait in visa backlogs that routinely last 5 to 7 years, and Americas competitiveness in the global market place is challenged by difficulties recruiting and retaining exceptional foreign workers.  

The President stated that the goal of the additional resources is to quell the violence along the border. While many are frustrated by the continued funding of border enforcement activity to the exclusion of other issues, the only bright side is that this approach seems to acknowledge that the real sources of violence and crime along the border  are  not immigrants but drug cartels and gun trafficking.

"Those Members of Congress who have insisted on 'border enforcement first' for years must now acknowledge that we are pouring ample resources into enforcement and must be prepared to move on to step two-comprehensive immigration reform," stated  Ben Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. "We need to address the root causes of illegal immigration and create a functional legal immigration system for the 21st century. The American people are hungry for real reform.  We can no longer wait for politicians to squeeze every last political point out of this issue; we need real leadership that is focused on solutions, not headlines."

View Release