Maria Ramirez Uribe, PolitiFact, Oct. 3, 2024 "Temporary Protected Status and humanitarian parole do not provide people a pathway to citizenship. So, people with humanitarian parole or Temporary...
CMS: The Untold Story: Migrant Deaths Along the US-Mexico Border and Beyond October 16, 2024 01:00 PM - 02:00 PM (ET) The Journal on Migration and Human Security will soon release a special edition...
Angelo Paparelli, Manish Daftari, Oct. 3, 2024 "Recent developments have upended many of our earlier predictions of the likely post-election immigration landscape in the United States. These include...
Reece Jones, Oct. 2, 2024 "“Open borders” has become an epithet that Republican use to attack Democrats, blaming many problems in the United States on the lack of attention to the border...
UCLA Law, Oct. 1, 2024 "Today, a UCLA alumnus and a university lecturer, represented by attorneys from the law firm of Altshuler Berzon LLP, Organized Power in Numbers , and the Center for Immigration...
Statement of Former Immigration Judges and Appellate Immigration Judges regarding H.B. 4/S.B. 4, Nov. 10, 2023
"We are former Immigration Judges with decades of experience as experts in Immigration Law. We were appointed by and served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Our personal politics may vary, but we dedicated our careers to the equal and fair administration of federal immigration law. The proposed Texas legislation, which would allow a state court magistrate judge to issue a removal order, is not lawful. Immigration is plainly a federal function. State legislators cannot enact immigration laws for the same reasons that the United States Congress cannot enact Texas state legislation. State magistrate judges cannot conduct immigration proceedings for the same reason that federal Immigration Judges cannot adjudicate Texas state criminal cases. As the bill’s sponsors must know this, the point of the exercise is unclear. Furthermore, persons in the United States who entered unlawfully have rights and protections under federal law, including the right to apply for asylum. To the extent that the proposed state “law” conflicts with these rights, it is unconstitutional and in violation of our nation's treaty obligations. The proposed law should offend those who treasure our constitutional protections. It will undoubtedly lead to lawful permanent residents and United States citizens being deprived of their rights as well. And legislators should consider the long-term repercussions of their essentially proclaiming that the Constitution, federal law, and due process can simply be ignored. ... "
[Media coverage here and here.]