immigration

A federal district court has ruled that as long as there is a declared national health emergency related to COVID-19, the public charge rule may not go into effect.

Immigrants who are deemed a “public charge” are ineligible to receive green cards/lawful permanent resident status. The most recent definition of public charge, adopted in 1999, included immigrants who demonstrated a need for “institutionalization for...

When President Trump tweeted that he intended to temporarily suspend immigration into the United States due to COVID-19 no one quite knew what to expect.

The presidential proclamation prevents foreign nationals who are outside of the United States now and for the next 60 days (possibly longer if the proclamation is extended) from applying for legal...

In a 5-4 decision in Kansas v. Garcia the Supreme Court held that the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) does not preempt state statutes that provide a basis for identity theft prosecutions when someone uses another person’s Social Security Number on their state and federal tax-withholding forms.

The IRCA requires employers to verify, using a federal work-authorization form, that an employee is authorized to work in the United States....

Sanctuary States Map

Immigration has been thrust into the federal and state spotlight following recent events. The backlog of immigration requests, the wait for a visa, and illegal immigration are issues government officials on all sides of the debate often address. Historically, the federal government has involved state and local officials in the enforcement of immigration laws, more so when public opposition to immigration grows. In 2018, the nation is still faced with solving a perplexing issue that has no easy solution.

In a 5-4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii the Supreme Court ruled in favor of President Trump’s travel ban.

The third travel ban indefinitely prevents immigration from six countries:  Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. Hawaii and others sued President Trump claiming the ban was illegal and unconstitutional.

The Court agreed to decide four issues. First, whether the case is justiciable, meaning whether the legal issues are “fit for review.” Second, whether the third travel ban exceeds the President’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Third, whether the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause because it seeks to exclude Muslims. Fourth, whether the Ninth Circuit nationwide injunction was overbroad.  

Pages