Desperate to flee political unrest, gang violence, extreme poverty, or extreme climate disasters, thousands of people resort to risking their lives every year to seek safety for themselves and their families in the United States. On Monday, June 27, 2022, a tragedy occurred that is “among the worst episodes of migrant death in the United States in recent years.” Sixty-two migrants who had crossed the US border were locked into an unventilated tractor trailer in the scorching heat outside of San Antonio, Texas and left to die. The bodies of forty-six people hailing from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were found dead inside the truck after a person working in the area reported hearing a cry for help and spotted at least one body. Sixteen others, including four children, were hospitalized for heat stroke. Unfortunately, seven more lives have been lost since June 27th, raising the total fatalities to fifty-three at this time.
Read moreCNN: “Judge blocks administration from implementing 'public charge' rule for immigrants during pandemic”
Last week, on July 29, 2020, Judge George Daniels of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York blocked the government from “enforcing, applying, implementing, or treating as effective,” the “public charge” rule during the COVID-19 pandemic. Separately, the court also blocked the government from implementing or taking any actions to enforce or apply the 2018 FAM Revisions, the DOS Interim Final Rule on Visa Ineligibility on Public Charge Grounds (84 FR 54996, 10/11/19), or the President’s October 4, 2019 Proclamation, “Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System in Order to Protect the Availability of Healthcare Benefits for Americans,” during the COVID-19 pandemic. These injunctions apply nationwide.
Read moreThe Washington Post: "Supreme Court blocks Trump’s bid to end DACA, a win for undocumented 'dreamers'"
The Supreme Court today rejected the Trump administration's attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects undocumented immigrants brought to United States as children from removal (commonly called deportation) and provides them work permission. This decision provides a reprieve, if only temporary, for nearly 650,000 recipients commonly referred to as “Dreamers.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote the 5-to-4 decision and he was joined by the court’s four liberals.
Read moreThe 5 Biggest Immigration-Related Acts and Cases in US History
It’s November already, can you believe it? In addition to colder temperatures and the end of daylight savings times (hello, darkness!), it’s also time for the most “American” of holidays—Thanksgiving. While the history of Thanksgiving is much more complicated than what is commonly taught in schools, it’s nevertheless an opportune time to reflect on our presence in this country as immigrants, refugees, and, yes, colonizers, and also reflect on how we have historically treated other immigrants and refugees. To that end, we are looking back at five major acts and cases in US history that have shaped and influenced US immigration law and policy.
Read moreThis Isn't The End
The Washington Post: “How a 1944 decision on Japanese internment affected the Supreme Court’s travel ban decision"
Last week, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii upheld President Trump’s travel ban that targeted several Muslim-majority countries, saying that the president had statuary authority to make national security judgements regarding immigration, despite anti-Muslim statements that he has made. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor says the decision is no better than the one in Korematsu v. United States, the universally criticized and much maligned 1944 decision that allowed for the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. While Sotomayer praises the court for repudiating Korematsu in Trump v. Hawaii, she writes in her dissent: “By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one ‘gravely wrong’ decision with another.”
Read moreThe New York Times: “Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban, Delivering Endorsement of Presidential Power”
In a five to four vote, the Supreme Court has upheld President Trump’s third travel ban against several predominantly Muslim countries, reasoning that the President has broad statutory authority to make such judgments related to national security and immigration, which is not undermined by his previous insensitive and discriminatory statements against Muslims. This decision comes after a federal judge in Hawaii indefinitely blocked Trump’s travel ban earlier this year, challenging its constitutionality and referencing anti-Muslim statements made by the President. This block on the travel ban was upheld by two federal appeals courts, citing religious discrimination as their reason to uphold the decision, before being brought before the Supreme Court.
Read moreNew York Times: “Justice Gorsuch Joins Supreme Court’s Liberals to Strike Down Deportation Law”
Last week the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed the government to deport certain immigrants who have committed serious crimes, calling the law too vague to be properly enforced. This case was decided five to four with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joining the court’s four more liberal members for the first time. In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch writes: “Vague laws invite arbitrary power.”
Read moreNew York Times: “Supreme Court Turns Down Trump’s Appeal in ‘Dreamers’ Case”
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the administration’s appeal of a federal judge's injunction that halted Trump's decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. After President Trump announced last September his decision to end the DACA program, four states filed legal challenges to his decision.
Read moreCNN: “ Supreme Court narrows grounds for revoking citizenship of naturalized citizens”
The Supreme Court last week issued a ruling narrowing the grounds on which naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked. The case involved Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb who arrived in the US in 2000 as a refugee and was granted citizenship and later naturalized; however, in 2013, a jury found her guilty of making false statements on her naturalization application. She was subsequently stripped of citizenship.
Read more