Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 Reintroduced
June 23, 2011 by carolthompson
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 was reintroduced by U.S. Senators on June 22nd. The bill includes the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) which would allow U.S. nationals the right to sponsor foreign-born same-sex partners for U.S. citizenship.
The bill also includes measures that would strengthen border security, require that an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants register with the U.S. government, pay their taxes, learn English, pay a fine, pass a background check, and complete the appropriate paperwork to apply for permanent residence.
The following Senators sponsored the introduction of the bill:
- Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
- Senator Harry Reid ( D-NV)
- Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
- Senator John Kerry ( D- MA)
- Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)
- Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
- Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
To view the entire bill, please visit govtrack.us.
Alabama Joins State Crackdown on Illegal Immigrants
June 15, 2011 by carolthompson
The Chicago Tribune and CNN recently reported that another state has enacted tough new laws to curb illegal immigration. The Tribune and CNN reported that Alabama has surpassed Arizona in creating stricter illegal immigration legislation by passing measures that are even more restrictive than Arizona’s illegal immigration laws. The new Alabama law contains the following provisions:
- Allows the police to arrest anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant if the person is stopped for another reason;
- All businesses are required to use the federal e-verify system to check the legal status of workers;
- It becomes a crime for landlords to knowingly rent to an illegal immigrant; and
- Schools must perform background checks to verify immigrant status of their students.
The CNN article also quoted Mary Bauer, the legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, as stating,”It [the new law] makes it a crime for the U.S. citizens to give people a ride if they turn out to be undocumented. It doesn’t even have an exception for churches that are providing shelter for food or rides.”
Proponents of the new Alabama law believe that it will increase the number of jobs available for U.S. citizens, pointing out that Alabama’s unemployment rate currently stands at 9.3%. However, proponents of the new law fail to recognize that the jobs most illegal immigrants hold are positions that most U.S. citizens are not so eager to take - farm work, chicken processing plants, and heavy labor.
The Alabama law will take effect on September 1st of this year. Once the new law is in effect, Alabama will join Georgia and Arizona in the latest attempt by states to crackdown on illegal immigration.
The Dangerous Road to Freedom: 500 Immigrants Found in Semi-Trailers
May 25, 2011 by carolthompson
Written By: Stephen Batten, J.D.
If you want to read a well-reported, cogently written story about the dangers immigrants from Central America face as they try to make it to the United States, please read the following piece by Catherine E. Shoichet of CNN posted this past Friday on May 20, 2011 11:25 a.m. EDT. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/05/19/mexico.migrants/index.html?hpt=C1) [Read more]
The Basics of Immigration
May 17, 2011 by carolthompson
Written By: Stephen Batten, J.D.
Welcome to the basics of immigration. This blog is about the immigrant experience in the United States - people from other nations who for family, unification, humanitarian, or employment reasons leave their home countries and make the journey to the United States. It is a journey that has become increasingly complicated since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. [Read more]
New Means Test Information for Chapter 7
April 25, 2011 by carolthompson
For bankruptcy chapter 7 cases filed on and after March 15, 2011, the following means test figures will apply:
http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20110315/bci_data/median_income_table.htm
Arizona May Be Able to Regulate the Movement of Unauthorized Aliens, Consistent with Federal Law
August 31, 2010 by carolthompson
Written by Gary K. Silberman, Esq.
This section attempted to make it illegal for a person who is already violating the law to knowingly or recklessly: (1) transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in Arizona in furtherance of the alien’s unlawful presence in the United States; (2) conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien from detection in Arizona; and (3) encourage or induce an alien to come to or live in Arizona. The United Stated alleged that this part of the statute should be preempted as an impermissible regulation of immigration and that the provision violated the dormant Commerce Clause.
While the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power[,]” the court acknowledged that the mere fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not necessarily mean that the statute is attempting to regulate immigration. The court found that this section of the law does not attempt to regulate who should or should not be admitted into the United States, and it does not regulate the conditions under which legal entrants may remain in the United States. By so finding, the court found that the United States was not likely to prevail on its claim that A.R.S. § 13-2929 is an impermissible regulation of immigration.
The court also discussed the dormant Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause give Congress the power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” This clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court “to have a ‘negative’ aspect that denies the States the power unjustifiably to discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce.” Where a state enacts a law that implicates the dormant Commerce Clause, the court determines whether the state is treating in-state and out-of-state economic interests differently and, if so, whether that differential treatment benefits the in-state interests and acts to the detriment of out-of-state interests. Even if this is the case, statutes directed at legitimate local concerns do not violate the dormant Commerce Clause unless the burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits.
The court then reviewed the claim that the law “offends the [d]ormant Commerce Clause by restricting the interstate movement of aliens” and found that since the conduct prohibited by state law was already prohibited by federal law, no additional burden on interstate commerce was thereby created. Moreover, the court found that the statute did not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state economic interests or burden out-of-state interests in a way that benefits in-state interests. Finally, the court found that the statute is directed at legitimate local concerns related to public safety. These findings resulted in a very high standard for finding the statute facially unconstitutional. In order to so find, the court would have had to have found that the the burden imposed on interstate commerce was clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. The court compared the local benefit of making this conduct illegal to the incidental burden on interstate commerce and found that the United States was unlikely to succeed on its claim that A.R.S. § 13-2929 violates the dormant Commerce Clause or is an impermissible attempt to regulate immigration.
