Week of October 8–14, 2024

An immigration attorney plays a crucial role in helping immigrants navigate the complex U.S. legal system. According to a 2016 report by the American Immigration Council, only 37% of immigrants facing removal secure legal representation, and this number drops to just 14% for those detained. Immigrants with representation are more likely to be released from detention, avoid removal in absentia, and obtain immigration relief.

Beyond statistics, an immigration attorney ensures fair representation and guides individuals through the maze of immigration processes, including work visas, green cards, and citizenship applications. The immigration process is dense, with overlapping laws, policies, and regulations that can be difficult for individuals to navigate. Attorneys provide in-depth knowledge of legal requirements and evolving policies, ensuring filings are compliant with current regulations.

Specialized immigration attorneys, whether focused on employment-based, family-based, or humanitarian cases, ensure immigrants apply for the right type of relief. They advocate for their clients, inform them of their rights, and help them understand their options.

In immigration court, an attorney is essential for helping immigrants identify relief options and present the best evidence for their case. They also prepare clients for hearings and explain court processes in clear detail, offering reassurance. With the immigration system involving numerous agencies and regulations, an attorney’s expertise is indispensable for ensuring individuals’ rights are protected and cases are resolved successfully.

Immigration is a critical issue in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, ranking third after the economy and democracy protection. The debate centers around policies to address irregular migration, which reached historic levels before President Biden’s executive order in June 2024. Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have opposing views on immigration.

Trump’s platform focuses on reversing Biden’s policies, including mass deportations and the reinstatement of controversial programs like Zero Tolerance and the Migrant Protection Protocols. He also promises to revive the travel ban on certain Muslim-majority countries and end birthright citizenship, though this would likely require significant legal challenges. Trump emphasizes securing the border through stronger enforcement measures, including increasing deportations and restricting asylum.

Harris, running as a more centrist candidate, supports Biden’s immigration policies but has distanced herself from her past liberal stances. She advocates for additional border security measures, such as hiring more border agents, and has supported legislation aimed at increasing asylum standards. Harris also emphasizes addressing the root causes of migration through investments in Central America and expanding legal immigration pathways.

Despite stark differences, both candidates agree on the need to strengthen border security and reform the asylum system. Public opinion supports reduced immigration, with 55% of adults backing stricter policies. If this trend continues, it may encourage bipartisan cooperation on immigration reform, a rare achievement in recent decades.

Both candidates for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District have expressed support for bipartisan immigration reform, but differ on their approaches. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden voted for a bipartisan border deal this year, while Republican challenger Austin Theriault opposed it, citing concerns that it would benefit President Biden politically. Theriault, endorsed by Donald Trump, supports securing the border and reinstating Trump-era policies like the "remain in Mexico" program, which Golden has also endorsed. However, Golden has voted for increased border security funding and called for restoring Title 42 deportation authority.

Despite their differences, both candidates share similar views on immigration, with Golden emphasizing his record of supporting border security funding and Theriault calling for comprehensive immigration reform. Theriault has also criticized the Biden administration for rolling back Trump-era policies, while Golden has condemned Biden’s immigration approach and called for more funding for border patrol.

Theriault and Golden disagree on the waiting period for asylum seekers to obtain work permits. Golden believes it should be reduced, while Theriault focuses on securing the border first. Theriault has also shifted his image to appeal to a broader electorate, presenting himself as bipartisan, while Golden highlights his bipartisan immigration efforts. Meanwhile, write-in candidate Diana Merenda opposes the bipartisan bill, focusing instead on issues like the U.S. role in Israel and labor force gaps in Maine.

Immigration is a key issue in the 2024 election, with candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump offering starkly different approaches. While both aim to restrict immigration, Trump’s plan is more extreme, focusing on mass deportations. He promises to expel millions of undocumented immigrants, a move that would disrupt the U.S. economy, particularly industries like agriculture, which relies on undocumented labor. Trump’s plan has been criticized as unfeasible and potentially harmful to American workers.

Harris, on the other hand, advocates for a more balanced approach. She supports strong border security but also favors providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country. Her stance is more moderate, in line with the historical bipartisan consensus on immigration reform. Harris supports a bill that would tighten asylum rules while creating more opportunities for legal immigration, including 250,000 new visas over five years.

Both candidates acknowledge the need for skilled workers, particularly in STEM fields, where the U.S. faces a growing labor shortage. While Trump’s policies during his first term restricted immigration for skilled workers, Harris’s platform aims to attract and retain top talent.

Ultimately, comprehensive immigration reform is necessary to address the issue, but this remains unlikely to happen under Trump’s plan. While Harris supports reform, Trump’s extreme measures would make it harder to reach a solution.

A recent Pew Research Center survey reveals that 74% of Asian immigrants would move to the U.S. again if given the chance, but over half (59%) believe the nation’s immigration system requires significant reform. Asian Americans, the only major racial or ethnic group in the U.S. that is majority immigrant, represent a diverse segment of the population. Among the 24 million Asian Americans, 54% are immigrants, with the largest groups coming from India, China, and the Philippines.

The survey finds that while Asian immigrants generally rate their lives in America more favorably than in their home countries, they are concerned about the future. While 77% feel their standard of living is better than their parents’, many are less optimistic about their children’s prospects. A majority (51%) believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Immigrants prioritize U.S. policies that attract highly skilled workers, with 86% supporting this focus. The data comes from a nationally representative survey of 7,006 Asian American adults, including 5,036 Asian immigrants, conducted between July 2022 and January 2023. This research highlights both the challenges and positive experiences that shape the views of Asian immigrants on U.S. immigration policies.

Once, Republicans championed immigration, advocating for pathways to citizenship for undocumented Americans. Ronald Reagan, in his 1989 farewell address, praised immigrants as a driving force behind America's energy and innovation. However, the current political climate, marked by Donald Trump’s rhetoric, stands in stark contrast. Trump has dehumanized immigrants, referring to them as "animals" and "poisoning the blood of our country." He has pledged the largest deportation operation in U.S. history.

Historically, anti-immigrant sentiment (nativism) has been present in American politics, with laws like the 1924 immigration quota system aimed at maintaining a white, Protestant nation. Yet, in the 1980s, Reagan supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants, signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to 2.7 million people. This bipartisan approach continued through George W. Bush’s presidency.

However, in the late 2000s, the Tea Party movement and growing racial resentment shifted the Republican stance towards more restrictive immigration policies. By 2015, Trump’s campaign capitalized on anti-immigrant sentiment, promising to build a border wall and implementing harsh policies like family separations and a "zero tolerance" stance on illegal immigration.

Trump’s rhetoric intensified over the years, depicting immigrants as a threat. In 2024, his focus on mass deportation and curbing legal immigration has led to a dramatic shift in public opinion, with increasing support for reducing immigration levels and deporting undocumented immigrants. This marks a stark departure from the inclusive vision that once defined the Republican Party.

Immigration is a key issue in the 2024 U.S. presidential race, with both candidates taking strong positions. GOP candidate Donald Trump has made immigration a central theme, emphasizing mass deportations and targeting migrants with temporary protected status. He has promised a broad deportation effort and the end of birthright citizenship.

Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has shifted rightward on immigration, supporting stricter asylum limits and enhanced border security. Under the Biden administration, migrant encounters dropped significantly after policy changes in 2023. Harris supports a bipartisan border security deal that would overhaul U.S. immigration law, though it failed in the Senate after facing GOP opposition.

Harris has also expressed support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and "Dreamers." While both candidates highlight different approaches, the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and work visas will be crucial under the next administration.

Harris's campaign points to her efforts to reform immigration, while Trump focuses on enforcement, promising large-scale deportations and restricting immigration pathways. Both candidates aim to tackle border security, but their methods and proposed legislation differ sharply, reflecting their contrasting visions for U.S. immigration policy.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has released the newly updated AILA Ethics Compendium: Modern Legal Ethics for Immigration Lawyers. This guide is designed to assist immigration attorneys, both experienced and new, in navigating ethical challenges in their practice. For the first time, it is available in print for AILA members and nonmembers.

The compendium, a decade-long project by the AILA National Ethics Committee, provides a detailed analysis of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct from an immigration law perspective. It includes real-world hypotheticals, annotations, and commentary on each rule.

Key features include comprehensive coverage of ethical issues specific to immigration law, expert analysis by Sherry K. Cohen and Theo Liebmann, and practical guidance with real-world scenarios. The compendium is available for free to AILA members as a digital download, and as a printed book and e-book for purchase.

The compendium serves as a vital resource for navigating the complex ethical dilemmas unique to immigration law. It has already been used in national conferences, by ethics counsel, and as an educational tool for disciplinary regulators.

AILA members can access the compendium digitally for free or purchase a discounted hardcopy. Law libraries or other institutions interested in purchasing can find more information on AILA's website. The AILA Ethics Compendium aims to become the premier reference for immigration law ethics.

During the 2024 Fall National Executive Committee Meetings, The American Legion passed Resolution No. 10 on immigration reform, which supersedes and rescinds four previous resolutions. The resolution addresses concerns about illegal immigration and asylum laws. It opposes federal investment in sanctuary cities and programs that undermine the rule of law, calling for full reform of asylum processes to prevent abuse by ineligible individuals.

The resolution highlights concerns about the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. and over 850,000 individuals with expired visas. It also advocates for laws to reduce visa overstays and illegal residency, emphasizing the expedited removal of violators.

Furthermore, the resolution supports efforts to streamline legal immigration processes, particularly through employment-based visas, to benefit the U.S. economy. It also calls for increased investment in the Department of State’s initiatives to strengthen global democracy and stability while holding accountable countries that may encourage illegal immigration.

This resolution reflects The American Legion’s commitment to improving immigration policy while ensuring national security and economic stability.

A recent study on the 2024 presidential election shows immigration is the second-highest concern for Trump supporters, while only the 10th most important for Harris supporters. UCLA sociologist Roger Waldinger, an expert on U.S. immigration, explains that immigration works to Republicans’ advantage due to differing views on the issue between Democrats and Republicans.

Both parties agree on controlling immigration, but Democrats favor more open policies, while Republicans support stricter measures. The divide has grown as the GOP, influenced by Trump, shifted towards populism, distancing itself from business interests favoring expanded legal immigration.

The key difference lies in immigrant policy. While Republicans focus on immigration policy—particularly issues surrounding mass migration driven by global events—Democrats emphasize policies for immigrants already in the U.S., such as the ‘Dreamers.’ This issue gives Democrats an edge when it takes center stage, as seen with family separation controversies under Trump.

However, immigration policy dominates voter concerns, benefiting Republicans. When global events drive migration to U.S. borders, politicians like Trump amplify the perceived threat, casting immigrants as a danger. This strategy forces Democrats to show they also support border control. Trump and his allies exaggerate threats (e.g., claiming there are 25 million undocumented immigrants) and target specific immigrant groups to sway voters, especially those with limited information, by evoking strong emotional reactions.

Aureliano Dominguez has operated a hot dog stand in Phoenix for 33 years. While he believes undocumented immigrants who commit crimes should be deported, he worries that mass deportation, as proposed by former President Donald Trump, could hurt his business. He notes that immigrants spend money in local businesses, creating a ripple effect.

Immigration remains a key issue for voters, with a CBS News poll showing that 52% of Arizona voters believe recent immigrants have worsened life in the state, up from 35% in 2020. Trump has vowed to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, using military force if necessary. A recent poll found 53% of voters support his plan.

In contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris supports increased border security funding and a legal pathway to citizenship for some undocumented migrants. She has criticized Trump’s deportation plan, questioning its feasibility.

John Ladd, a Republican rancher, supports Trump’s tough stance but also believes law-abiding immigrants should stay. He sees illegal border crossings daily on his ranch but values the contributions of productive immigrants.

Dominguez, a registered Democrat, remains undecided, frustrated by years of broken promises from both parties to resolve the immigration issue. He questions the effectiveness of political promises, noting little progress has been made.

Donald Trump and his Republican allies have claimed that Democrats are attempting to allow illegal immigrants to vote in U.S. elections. Since September, over 100 Republican ads on Facebook and Instagram have highlighted this issue, despite it being illegal for non-citizens to vote. While some Republicans push for stricter citizenship requirements for voter registration, studies show instances of illegal immigrants voting are extremely rare.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, with penalties including prison and deportation. Most states use a common registration form requiring people to confirm their citizenship, and voter rolls are cross-checked with various records to prevent non-citizens from voting. If a non-citizen attempts to vote, they are either turned away or given a provisional ballot that requires proof of citizenship.

Research from both conservative and liberal sources indicates that illegal immigrant voting is virtually non-existent. For example, the Brennan Center found only 30 suspected cases of non-citizens voting out of 23.5 million votes in 2016—about 0.0001%. Republicans cite isolated incidents, such as a glitch in Pennsylvania’s voter registration system, but experts argue these are not significant enough to affect election outcomes. Despite this, Republican ads continue to stoke concerns about voter fraud and the potential involvement of non-citizens in elections.

Donald Trump visited Aurora, Colorado, on Friday, deviating from battleground states to focus on illegal immigration. His rally marked the first presidential campaign visit to Colorado ahead of the November election, a reliably Democratic state. Trump has consistently made immigration a central issue, particularly criticizing small communities like Aurora that have seen an influx of migrants, fueling local tensions.

Aurora gained attention in August when a video surfaced showing armed men in a building housing Venezuelan migrants. Trump falsely claimed that Venezuelan gangs were taking over the area, despite local authorities declaring the neighborhood safe. He used inflammatory language, describing migrants as “barbaric thugs” and “animals” while blaming President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for the unrest.

Trump reiterated his controversial 2016 remarks about migrants, claiming they bring crime and drugs to the U.S. He called for the death penalty for migrants who kill Americans or law enforcement officers and vowed to launch “Operation Aurora” to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Trump also promised to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens from countries at war with the U.S.

Throughout his speech, Trump painted a bleak picture of the nation, referring to the U.S. as "occupied" and pledging that November 5, 2024, would be "liberation day" for America. His rhetoric and calls for drastic measures underscored his focus on immigration as a core issue in his campaign.

The Saugus Public School Committee recently approved a new admissions policy aimed at streamlining enrollment, but critics argue it could be an attempt to restrict immigrant access to education. The policy requires proof of legal residency, occupancy, and identity, which civil rights advocates say disproportionately harms immigrant families. The debate over immigrant access to public education is growing nationwide, with some conservative politicians calling for challenges to the 1982 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler v. Doe, which guarantees children of undocumented immigrants the right to attend public schools.

In Saugus, the policy requires new students to submit immigration records, complete a town census, and provide various documents. Critics argue that many immigrant families, especially those without legal status, may not have the necessary paperwork. While Saugus officials insist the policy is merely an update, advocates for immigrant rights argue it has caused undue delays for some families.

The issue of immigrant education rights has gained traction in other states as well. Conservative leaders in Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have proposed laws or made statements challenging Plyler v. Doe, citing the strain on local schools due to rising immigrant populations. Despite these efforts, federal law remains clear that schools cannot ask about immigration status or require citizenship documentation, making these challenges controversial.

As the political climate shifts, experts warn that challenges to Plyler v. Doe may continue, potentially reshaping public education access for immigrant children.

The Biden administration launched the CBP One app on January 12, 2023, to manage immigration and reduce illegal border crossings. This free tool allows migrants in Mexico to schedule appointments at one of eight U.S.-Mexico border points to seek a humanitarian permit for legal entry. The app, available in English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole, is an appointment scheduler, not a formal asylum application.

In its first six months, over 170,000 people scheduled appointments, with the highest number from Haiti, Mexico, and Venezuela. By the program’s 21-month mark, around 800,000 migrants had legally entered the U.S. Immigrants who present themselves at designated border crossings may be granted a humanitarian parole for up to two years under Title 8 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, allowing them to continue their proceedings and apply for employment authorization.

With about 1,450 appointments processed daily, demand far exceeds supply. As Vice President Kamala Harris stated, the system must remain orderly and secure. To assist, Mexican authorities provide bus transfers to migrants, enabling safer waiting conditions. Since August, migrants in Chiapas and Tabasco can schedule appointments without needing to travel to the northern border regions.