Legal System
A just and fair legal immigration system upholds due process and adherence to the rule of law, while effectively managing immigration. Our efforts work to uphold the best version of the system, holding government entities accountable for fairly enforcing policies and addressing injustices at all levels of government.
What does the constitution say about due process?
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says clearly that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. Note that this says person, not citizen, and over the years the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Due Process Clause applies to all people in the United States.Do non-citizens have the right to due process in the U.S.?
Yes. The Constitution guarantees due process rights to all "persons," not just citizens. This means non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to fair treatment under the law. This includes the right to defend themselves in court. But recent Trump administration policies that speed up deportations and limit access to legal representation make it harder for non-citizens to get their fair day in court.- Access to legal representation Access to legal counsel is an essential part of our justice system and our democracy. In the criminal justice system, anyone facing even one day in jail gets a lawyer if they can't afford one. But immigrants facing deportation usually don't get that chance.The research is clear – the most effective way to ensure some level of due process for people navigating our complicated immigration system is for them to have trained attorney at their side. But Trump administration is now working to strip attorneys from as many people as possible, all in the name of increasing its deportation numbers. This attempt to eliminate basic due process will hurt people who already have few options.
- Fair day in court Due process guarantees that individuals have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. This includes non-citizens facing deportation.
Why is due process important?
We are seeing right now the importance of due process when it comes to President Trump's actions to carry out the so-called Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law that permits people to be deported outside of the normal framework of immigration law. President Trump has alleged that this law allows him to simply point at any person, declare them to be an alien enemy, and kick them out of the country without ever having a chance to see a judge. Thankfully, the Supreme Court said that is not true, and in a unanimous decision, ruled that people can challenge the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. That is why due process is so important, because it means that no person can be rounded up and sent to another country without a chance to go to court and make the government prove their case.How is the American Immigration Council working to protect due process?
- We serve thousands of individuals in immigration detention centers through the Immigration Justice Campaign, our initiative with the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The Justice Campaign provides free legal services for immigrants who would otherwise have to navigate our complicated immigration system without a lawyer.
- We use the courts to demand a fair process for immigrants. Our litigation team is fighting back against the Trump administration’s blatant disregard for due process including filing a lawsuit challenging their illegal detention of immigrants in El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Local Law Enforcement Not Trained to Enforce Alabama’s Immigration Law
As Alabamans continue to brace themselves for what the New York Times recently described as the “nation’s cruelest immigration law,” state law enforcement agencies said they have not yet been trained to enforce provisions of the controversial law. Signed in June by Gov. Robert Bentley, HB 56 requires local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of those stopped for traffic violations, public schools to determine the immigration status of students, and make it a crime to knowingly rent to, transport or harbor undocumented immigrants. Several parties—including civil rights and religious groups and the U.S. Department of Justice—filed suit against the law, hoping to enjoin key provisions. Today, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn temporarily blocked the law until September 29, 2011 or until the court issues a ruling, whichever happens first. Read More
Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Alabama’s Immigration Law
Today, the federal judge hearing the case against Alabama’s harsh anti-immigrant law HB 56 issued a temporary order preventing the law from going into effect on September 1, 2011. The judge made no ruling on the merits of the pending motions but rather temporary blocked it to buy… Read More
Nation’s Highest Immigration Court Says Government Can Ask Questions First, Explain Right to Silence Later
As any Law & Order enthusiast knows, when a criminal suspect is placed under arrest, no interrogation can begin until police recite the famous “Miranda” warnings required by the Supreme Court: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have a right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. But what happens when federal immigration officers take a noncitizen into custody? Read More
Religious Community Latest to Join Battle Against Alabama’s Extreme Anti-Immigrant Law
Bishop William H. Willimon, United Methodist Church of North Alabama. With only weeks until Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law, HB 56, is slated to take effect (September 1), the coalition of groups challenging the law continues to grow. Shortly after Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed HB 56 in June, several civil rights groups—including the ACLU—filed a class action lawsuit against Alabama’s law. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit as well—much like it did against Arizona’s SB1070—in hopes of a receiving a preliminary injunction against key provisions of the law. This week, faith leaders in the state—who also filed suit against the law—added their voice to the chorus of civil rights, law enforcement, businesses, education, and international communities who vocally oppose the law. Read More
Board of Immigration Appeals Guts Legal Protections for Immigrants Under Arrest
Washington, D.C.—The American Immigration Council strongly condemns last week’s ruling from the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that immigrants arrested without a warrant are not entitled to certain Miranda-like warnings prior to questioning by immigration officers. In a precedent decision, the Board held that noncitizens need not be informed… Read More
Immigration Restrictionists Take SB 1070 to Supreme Court
More than a year after SB 1070 was initially enjoined in federal court, the immigration restrictionists behind Arizona’s misguided immigration law have brought their case to the Supreme Court. Proponents of SB 1070 are likely to hail the state’s petition, filed yesterday, as not only the first step toward reversing the injunction against the law’s most punitive provisions, but toward cementing states’ role as the primary enforcers of federal immigration law. While we won’t know whether the Justices will even hear the case until at least October, the petition already foretells an uphill climb for Paul Clement, the attorney representing Arizona and former Solicitor General under President Bush, to persuade the Court to overturn long established principles. Read More
Department of Justice Seeks Injunction Against Alabama’s Anti-Immigrant Law
Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed yet another lawsuit against extreme state-level immigration laws—this time against Alabama’s HB 56. Already the subject of a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other immigrants’ rights groups, Alabama’s HB 56 would require local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of those stopped for traffic violations, public schools to determine the immigration status of students, employers to use E-Verify and makes it a crime to knowingly rent to, transport or harbor undocumented immigrants. In its motion for a preliminary injunction, however, the DOJ argues that Alabama’s law, much like Arizona’s, interferes with the federal enforcement of immigration laws and places undue burdens on local schools and federal agencies. Alabama’s law was signed into law by Governor Robert Bentley in June and slated to take effect September 1. Read More
Immigration Case Backlog Reaches All-Time High, Report Shows
As the U.S. continues to pour money into immigration enforcement and detention, the resources necessary for the immigration court system to keep up with enforcement have not been appropriated. In fact, a record number of immigration cases—275,316 as of May 2011—are in the Immigration Court backlog according to a recent report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). In four months, the case backlog grew 2.8%, and it has grown 48% since FY2008. Read More
ACLU, Civil Rights Groups File Suit Against Alabama’s Immigration Law
More than just stars fell on Alabama last week when civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit against the state’s restrictive immigration law, HB 56, charging that the law unconstitutionally interferes with federal law and will lead to racial profiling. Filed on Friday, the lawsuit makes Alabama the fifth state (joining Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia) to defend itself against a costly legal challenge to Arizona-style immigration laws. Federal courts have blocked key provisions of restrictive immigration enforcement laws in every state that passed them, save South Carolina, which only recently passed a copycat law. Read More
New Data Shows Government Still Prioritizing Immigration Prosecutions over Dangerous Crime
Two recent reports by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a research center out of Syracuse University, confirm that the federal government is prioritizing immigration enforcement over potentially far more dangerous activities, such as gun smuggling. While prosecutions for illegal re-entry are up in criminal courts, prosecutions for weapons-related offenses are down in the last year. Not surprisingly, this prioritization of immigration prosecutions over dangerous crime has largely gone unnoticed by immigration restrictionists who routinely underscore “violence along the border” as a reason to bolster a border-only agenda. Read More
Make a contribution
Make a direct impact on the lives of immigrants.
