CILP, Mar. 13, 2024 "Please join the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at UCLA School of Law for a conversation about challenges at the border and real solutions grounded in welcoming...
CGRS, Mar. 15, 2024 "Al Otro Lado and the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS) have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to compel the government to release information on...
Touro Law, March 2024 "PHOTO CAPTION: Touro Law students Pierre Piazza (left) and Laraib Sarwar (right) pose with their client in the Immigration Rights Advocacy Clinic at Touro Law Center. ...
Ruth Conniff, Wisconsin Examiner, Mar. 14, 2024 "In Wisconsin, and around the country, immigrant rights advocates and law enforcement agencies have been stepping up efforts to bring labor trafficking...
Jeanne Batalova, MPI, Mar. 13, 2024 "This Spotlight offers information about the approximately 46.2 million immigrants in the United States as of 2022, more than three-quarters of whom are in the...
Miriam Jordan, New York Times, Nov. 20, 2018 - "A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.
“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.
... Presidents indeed have broad discretion on immigration matters. But the court’s ruling shows that such discretion has limits, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration scholar at Cornell Law School.
“The ruling is a significant blow to the administration’s efforts to unilaterally change asylum law. Ultimately this may have to go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling,” said Mr. Yale-Loehr."