Border Enforcement
Migration at the border is a multifaceted issue, challenging the U.S. to secure our borders while upholding the human rights of individuals seeking safety and better opportunities. Balancing national security with compassion and our legal obligations to asylum seekers presents intricate dilemmas, and we collaborate with policymakers to advance bipartisan, action-oriented solutions.
Beyond A Border Solution
- Asylum
- May 2, 2023
America needs durable solutions. These concrete measures can bring orderliness to our border and modernize our overwhelmed asylum system. Read…
Read More
Federal Judge Rules to Keeps Key Provisions of Alabama’s Restrictive Immigration Law
Today, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn ruled to keep many of the key provisions in HB 56, Alabama’s restrictive immigration law recently challenged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and civil and immigrant rights groups. While Judge Blackburn ruled to enjoin some provisions of HB 56, she found that the DOJ and civil and immigrant rights groups did not meet “the requirements for a preliminary injunction” in its claim that major provisions—such as the section requiring schools to determine the immigration status of students’ and their parents’—are preempted by federal law. Signed by Governor Robert Bentley in June, HB 56 was challenged by civil rights groups, religious leaders and the DOJ on the basis that the law interferes with the federal enforcement of immigration laws and places undue burdens on local schools and federal agencies. Read More
Despite Lamar Smith’s Claims, E-Verify Is Not a Jobs Bill
BY TYLER MORAN, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER While Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) promises that his mandatory E-Verify legislation (HR 2885) is a jobs creation bill, the mark-up of the bill in the House Judiciary Committee last week proved that it is anything but. Though the bill passed the committee by a 22-13 party line vote, the debate in committee and amendments offered make it crystal clear the bill would actually yield job losses. The debate leading up to the committee mark up also shows just how fractured conservatives have become on this issue—and much of it focuses on concerns over jobs. In fact, an unlikely coalition of progressive and conservative organizations joined together to oppose the bill, turning a host of job arguments upside down. Read More
Next Stop, Napolitano: DHS Committee Approves Task Force Recommendations on Secure Communities
Last week, a task force created to study DHS’ controversial “Secure Communities” initiative issued a report listing a series of recommendations to improve the program. Among other proposals, the task force recommended that federal authorities standardize the use of prosecutorial discretion around the country, make the program more transparent, and decline to initiate deportation proceedings against immigrants who have not been convicted of serious crimes or otherwise pose a threat to public safety. As of yesterday, those recommendations are one step closer actual implementation as the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) voted to approve the task force’s findings and submit them for further consideration to DHS leadership, including Secretary Janet Napolitano. While HSAC agreed (almost) unanimously to submit the recommendations to DHS, the committee was careful to characterize the findings as a good first step rather than a cure to problems with Secure Communities. Read More
Mandatory E-Verify: An Enforcement Proposal Even Conservatives Don’t Like
Rep. Lamar Smith may find himself whistling in the wind this week as members of his own party continue to blast his E-Verify proposal. Smith’s bill, The “Legal Workforce Act” H.R. 2885, which continues to get marked up this week by the House Judiciary Committee, would make E-Verify mandatory nationwide. Conservative lawmakers, Tea Partiers, and Libertarians, however, fear that E-Verify—a electronic system that allows employers to verify work eligibility by checking employee data against Social Security Administration records—will violate civil liberties, hurt small businesses, and destroy the agriculture industry which relies heavily on undocumented labor. Read More
Task Force Submits Recommendations on DHS’s Flawed Secure Communities Program
Anyone following the saga surrounding Secure Communities—DHS’s flawed enforcement program that runs fingerprints through federal databases—can tell you that the program has been rife with controversy since its inception in 2008. As DHS began to stray from the program’s original focus on criminal aliens—state and city leaders, police chiefs, immigration advocates, and congressional members blasted the agency for casting too broad a net and for its dubious implementation process. After tensions reached a boiling point in June, ICE Director John Morton created a 20-member task force to address growing concerns. This week, that task force submitted its final recommendations in a report to the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)—recommendations that some former task force members say don’t go far enough. Read More
Lamar Smith’s E-Verify Arguments Defy Logic and Lack Evidence
Facing opposition from the left and the right, Rep. Lamar Smith appears to be willing to do and say just about anything to pass his “Legal Workforce Act,” (H.R. 2885), which would make E-Verify mandatory for all U.S. businesses. Smith continues to tout E-Verify as a magic bullet that will create jobs for millions of American workers despite all evidence to the contrary. Read More
Illinois County “Just Says No” to Costly Immigration Detainers
As public debate over Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) controversial enforcement policies continues, a county in Illinois recently voted against using one tool in ICE’s enforcement arsenal—immigration detainers. Detainers are requests (not commands) from ICE to local law enforcement agencies that ask local agencies to notify ICE prior to releasing an individual from custody. ICE issues detainers—which allow local agencies to retain individuals for 48 hours after scheduled release—so that they can determine whether individuals are subject to deportation and take them into federal custody. Last week, however, the Cook County Board of Commissioners voted 10-5 against honoring the voluntary immigration detainers, citing the prohibitive cost of detaining individuals. Read More
Ten Years After 9/11, Is the U.S. Deporting Those Who Threaten to Do Us Harm?
This past weekend, the U.S. commemorated the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Life and travel in the U.S. has changed in some significant ways over the past decade, and many observers have noted that immigration policy, in particular, has been deeply affected. The fact that the terrorists were foreign nationals that arrived legally in the U.S. on visas prompted action, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, stepped up enforcement along the border, additional scrutiny for visa applicants, and increased partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies. But ten years later, is the U.S. actually deporting those who threaten to do us harm? Read More
Experts Challenge Conventional Wisdom on Border Security
No one should be shocked by this election season’s default response to immigration questions, “We must secure the border." It's the same tired sound bite as last election cycle. While border security might make for an easy rhetorical punching bag, it seems to be an area the most vocal politicians know the least about and a topic they care little about fixing. If politicians were serious about securing the border, they would be too busy bringing down drug cartels to blame undocumented immigrants for all of our border woes—or so say former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and anthropologist Josiah Heyman in papers released this week. Read More
Guns, Drugs, and Money: Tackling the Real Threats to Border Security
The external borders of the United States matter to security, but how and in what ways is neither automatic nor obvious. The current assumption is that borders defend the national interior against all harms, which are understood as consistently coming from outside—and that security is always obtained in the same way, whatever the issue. Some security policies correctly use borders as tools to increase safety, but border policy does not protect us from all harms. The 9/11 terrorists came through airports with visas, thus crossing a border inspection system without being stopped. They did not cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Future terrorists would not necessarily cross a land border. U.S. citizens and residents, and nationals of Western Europe, also represent an important element of the terrorist threat, and they have unimpeded or easy passage through U.S. borders. Fortified borders cannot protect us from all security threats or sources of harm. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
