Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary, Janet Napolitano, recently announced U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is halting some immigrant removals.  See 2011 WLNR 16447604.  

Interpreter Releases is the leading immigration periodical published by West, a Thomson Reuters business, and contains court opinions, administrative and legislative developments as well as legal articles. ICE Director John Morton’s memo clarifying enforcement policy can be found at  88 NO. 32 INTERREL 1961.  Here, Director Morton notes that many students and “low priority” foreign nationals are becoming beneficiaries of prosecutorial discretion as ICE concentrates on apprehension and removal of only those immigrants posing a criminal danger or a national security threat. Faced with the reality that between 10 and 12 million immigrants are in the U.S. illegally, Director Morton initially announced the enforcement shift in July 2010.  See  87 NO. 26 INTERREL 1370.

To retrieve immigration judge decisions in Interpreter Releases on WestlawNext involving students with F-1 visas, search:

advanced:(immigration-judge i.j. /15 decision decid! rul! order! & f-1)

These enforcement changes bring a smile to Illinois Senator Dick Durbin who has been a long-time champion of legislation to cancel removal and adjust status for certain students. To check the status of DREAM Act legislation introduced by Senator Durbin:

Database: US-BILLTRK

Search – au(durbin) & immigration

 The Obama Administration has articulated a commitment to transforming an immigration system in breakdown. Keep checking White House Press Releases on WestlawNext for a list of the 10 most recent announcements related to immigration.

 Simply go to the universal search box and begin typing ‘white house’ to see the ‘Looking for this’ prompt.

Then search:  immigration & DA(last 30 days)

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law continues to yield interesting story lines.  You may remember that the United States Department of Justice sued Arizona, seeking to invalidate several sections of the new law, which resulted in a preliminary injunction granted by an Arizona Federal District Court Judge in July.  Arizona appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Mexico recently filed a brief as amicus curiae.  Arizona and its governor, Jan Brewer, have now asked the court for an opportunity to file a response to Mexico’s brief.  Their motion (available on Westlaw via the docket for the case) states, in part:

Governor Brewer and the State of Arizona respectfully submit that the opinions of foreign governments have no bearing on whether a state law providing for cooperative enforcement of federal immigration law in Arizona complies with the United States Constitution.

Should a U.S. court consider the arguments of a foreign government?  The Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure that governs amicus briefs (Rule 29, found via a search for pr,ca(“appellate procedure” & amic!) in the US-RULES database) says nothing regarding the propriety of a foreign government filing an amicus brief.  It does require that a potential friend-of-the-court, other than the United States (or a U.S. officer or agency), a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia, obtain leave of court or the consent of all parties before filing a brief as amicus curiae.  Mexico sought and obtained permission from the court to file its brief.  Rule 29 also requires that the brief be accompanied by a statement of interest and reason(s) why the brief is desirable and relevant to the appeal.

In its brief (also available on the docket), Mexico cites several reasons for its interest:

Mexico seeks to ensure that its citizens present in the U.S. are accorded the human and civil rights granted under the U.S. Constitution…  The issues raised herein are of great importance to the people of Mexico, including the almost twenty million Mexican workers, tourists and students recently admitted to the U.S., those already present in the U.S., the countless millions whose daily lives and jobs depend on international trade, and those who may also be affected by immigration policies and drug violence.  In addition, Mexico respectfully submits that SB 1070 adversely impacts U.S.–Mexico bilateral relations, Mexican citizens and other people of Latin-American descent present in Arizona.

The Court determined that for the purpose of preliminary injunction analysis the U.S. had demonstrated that section 2(B) is likely to be preempted by Federal law.  The Court described the, likely preempted, section 2(B):

“Subsection 2(B) requires officers to make a reasonable attempt, when practicable, to determine an individual’s immigration status during any lawful stop, detention, or arrest where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. Id. § 11-1051(B). Subsection 2(B) also requires that all persons who are arrested have their immigration status verified prior to release….”

The order goes on to say that while Arizona’s interest may be consistent with the federal government, it is not in the public interest to enforce preempted laws.

var sc_project=5841089; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_security="013ba72d";

Arizona’s attempt to tighten immigration enforcement in the state by passing the “Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” (Senate Bill 2010) has generated an enormous reaction.  Although several states are reportedly contemplating similar legislation, numerous lawsuits have been threatened challenging the constitutionality of the Act, and at least two suits have already been filed.

The session law can be located on Westlaw by doing a find to AZ LEGIS 113 (2010), and the bill drafts and legislative reports are located within the “Legislative History” tab appearing on the left-hand side of that document.  Barring any court action, the act will go into effect 90 days after the Arizona legislature adjourns, and the most controversial provisions will be codified at AZ ST § 11-1051.

Two actions challenging the constitutionality of the legislation have already been filed in Arizona District Court.  The dockets for these suits are found in the DOCK-AZ-DCT data base, and can be located by running the following search:  (Def (Brewer)) & FLD(aft /04/24/2010).  The complaints are on Westlaw at:  2010 WL 1716679   & 2010 WL 1715384