Immigration 101
Immigration in the United States is complex and ever-evolving. Start here to understand the fundamental aspects of immigration policy, its history, and its impact on both individuals and the country at large. Learn commonly used terms about immigration law and how the U.S. immigration system is designed. Explore layered topics like how and whether immigrants can become citizens, as well as what individual protections look like under the law.
Steve King’s Tall Tales About Immigrants and Crime Don’t Add Up
There is no denying that Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has a vivid imagination. As he sits in Border Patrol vehicles at night, he apparently sees hundreds of DREAM Act-eligible drug mules with muscular calves hauling heavy loads of marijuana across the border. How does he know these drug mules would meet the rather stringent criteria for legalization under the DREAM Act? Hard to say. How does he know these drug mules outnumber their valedictorian counterparts by a ratio of one hundred to one? No one can say. What is certain is this: when it comes to the topic of immigration and crime, nativists like King have no need for facts when there is so much fear and innuendo at their disposal. Perhaps this is because the facts are so stacked against them. 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’s DOMA Decision Good for Economic Competitiveness
In the global economy of the twenty-first century, a globally mobile workforce is critical to remaining competitive. Yet for LGBT employees, their families, and their employers, significant barriers remain in place. The Supreme Court’s June 26 decision in United States v. Windsor finding part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional has clear and direct benefits for married same-sex couples, including bi-national couples. But beyond the benefits to married couples themselves, the Court’s decision is also a win for economic competitiveness. Specifically, the DOMA ruling makes U.S. businesses more globally competitive because they now can attract and retain foreign-born employees who want to stay in the United States with their same-sex spouses. Read More
USCIS Approves First Green Cards for Same Sex Couples
On June 26, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of United States v. Windsor, in which it struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal laws. This law meant that the immigration agencies would not recognize lawful, same-sex marriages for any immigration purpose. Since the Court’s decision, the Obama administration has moved rapidly to allow U.S. citizens to petition for immigration benefits for their spouses, providing hope to an estimated 28,500 bi-national same-sex couples in the United States who might otherwise be separated by our immigration laws. 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
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
What Does the Success of the Mark-Up Tell us About the Coming Full Senate Vote on Immigration?
One year ago, with the presidential race in full swing and proponents of self-deportation making the headlines, it would have been difficult to predict the extraordinary vote that took place Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ten Democrats and three Republicans voted to pass S. 744 out of committee and send a comprehensive immigration bill to the Senate floor. This could never have happened without the overwhelming support for immigration reform that the public has shown, particularly since the November 2012 election. Even with that support, however, there was no guarantee that the long, slow process of negotiating and drafting a bipartisan bill that could succeed in committee (and then the Senate floor) would ever come to fruition. And once a bill is introduced, getting it through committee requires a mix of political acumen to keep the bill alive. Read More
Former Bush Administration Official Explains Why Immigration Bill Is Good For The Economy
Following the introduction of the Senate immigration reform bill earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing about the measure today. It gave the senators a chance to air their various complaints about the bill – that it does not protect LGBT couples or that the bill micro-manages the hiring process for foreign workers – but largely, committee members asked about the ways immigration reform will impact the U.S. economy, from the agriculture industry to high-skilled industries. Read More
The Associated Press Stylebook Drops “Illegal Immigrant,” The Times Debates Following Suit
On Tuesday, the Associated Press (AP) posted a blog saying that they are no longer going to advise writers to use the term “illegal immigrant” in the stylebook. The AP stylebook is considered the standard among American journalists, so the change is likely lead to a marked drop in the use of the controversial term over time. On Wednesday, as responses to the AP’s decision were still coming in, the New York Times blogged that they, too, are reconsidering the use of the term, though the Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan said she did not expect them to completely “ban the use of “illegal immigrant,” as The A.P. has done.” Read More
All gifts are matched dollar for dollar
No one should face the immigration system alone
