Muzaffar Chishti and Julia Gelatt, MPI, May 15, 2024 "The Immigration Act of 1924 shaped the U.S. population over the course of the 20th century, greatly restricting immigration and ensuring that...
Nicole Narea, Vox, May 12, 2024 "For all the attention on the border, the root causes of migration and the most promising solutions to the US’s broken immigration system are often overlooked...
Democracy Now! - May 14, 2024 "Amid an intensifying crackdown on asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, we speak to the author of the new book Unbuild Walls: Why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition...
Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the State of Iowa Regarding Unconstitutional State Immigration Law Civil Rights Groups File Lawsuit to Block Iowa’s Unconstitutional SF 2340
Aline Barros, VOA, May , 2024 "President Joe Biden on Thursday proposed a new regulation to expedite the asylum claims process for specific migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, but the plan drew...
Hamama v. Adducci, July 24, 2017 - "In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Petitioners ask this Court to halt temporarily their deportation to Iraq, until they can make their case in the immigration courts that their removal is legally prohibited. The grounds that they will urge in those courts and, if necessary, in the federal courts of appeals will be that returning them to the lawlessness and senseless religious hatred that engulfs much of Iraq would subject them to persecution, torture, and possible death. The Government opposes the motion, principally on the grounds that this Court has no jurisdiction to provide any relief — even temporary relief — and that Petitioners’ only recourse is to seek a stay of removal before the immigration courts. As this Court explained in its earlier opinion on jurisdiction, and as it will explain again below, the Government’s view is inconsistent with the Constitution’s command that the writ of habeas corpus — the fundamental guarantor of liberty — must not be suspended, except in the rare case of foreign invasion or domestic rebellion.
The Government’s view ignores the compelling confluence of extraordinary circumstances presented here. Without warning, over 1,400 Iraqi nationals discovered that their removal orders — many of which had lain dormant for several years — were now to be immediately enforced, following an agreement reached between the United States and Iraq to facilitate removal. This abrupt change triggered a feverish search for legal assistance to assert rights against the removal of persons confronting the grisly fate Petitioners face if deported to Iraq. That legal effort has, in turn, been significantly impeded by the Government’s successive transfers of many detainees across the country, separating them from their lawyers and the families and communities who can assist in those legal efforts.
In these singular circumstances, a federal district court is armed with jurisdiction to act as a first responder to protect the writ of habeas corpus and the allied right to due process, by allowing an orderly filing for relief with the immigration courts before deportation, thereby assuring that those who might be subjected to grave harm and possible death are not cast out of this country before having their day in court.
For the reasons explained fully below, the Court grants Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 77)."