In seeking to perpetuate an indiscriminate "war of choice" on Obama's attorney general, whomever he or she might be, the GOP is repeating a grave mistake -- and poisoning what might otherwise be a cordial, or even productive, working relationship.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has a new director, Sarah Saldaña, but she made it apparent on Thursday that the agency is stuck making the same old mistakes. And the timing couldn't be worse.
Why do Washington policymakers frame the arrival of children and families fleeing organized violence in their countries as a threat to national security? Is it possible to restore compassion to our debate about this kind of immigration?
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee showed everybody just how out of touch with reality they are by posting an asinine "press release" that relies on tired misrepresentations about the Obama administration's track record on immigration, wrapped in adorable gifs from your favorite teen movies.
Two policies, if adopted can impact a large group of immigrants currently living in limbo. These policies have either existed in the past, or have enough political and public support to make them a strong possibility in the near future.
Though Maria Garcia has lived in the United States for 20 years, it is only during the past couple that the pursuit of the American dream seemed within reach.
If it sucks to be an adolescent, it sucks more to be an immigrant teenager in a new country. Take all the angst that faces every teen, then add language barriers, cultural confusion, discrimination, and general discombobulation. It's not pretty, is it?
My difficulty with Judge Hanen's massively overwritten 123-page opinion in Texas v. United States is not that Texas got past threshold procedural barriers to judicial review. It is that, in an ideologically driven opinion, Judge Hanen simply gets the law wrong.
I used to say that if you asked an immigrant what her or his dream is, they would say: to save enough money to go back, buy a house, and live in peace. I am not so sure of that any longer.
A new fight is brewing where Republicans are, yet again, injecting immigration rhetoric. If Loretta Lynch is not confirmed, are they expecting President Obama to nominate somebody who will not agree with his immigration policies? This refusal to meet halfway or engage in meaningful negotiations is just politically infantile.
What is likely to bedevil Republicans on this issue is not the amount of toughness they bring to the arena -- Democrats have often gone along with many of the harsh measures -- but the mismatch between what the right-wing base demands and what the public more broadly is ready to embrace.
Operation Streamline is all about besmirching migrants as criminals instead of processing their cases through civil or administrative immigration courts, as in the past.
We've recently urged members of the U.S. Senate to reject an amendment, proposed by Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, which has scheduled for floor action on Monday. Here's why.
Is PII "selling citizenship"? Is the current "at risk" EB-5 program really that different? I believe that the removal of "at risk" from PII would not be a great philosophic change from the existing EB-5 Investment Program.
Undocumented immigrant youth have been at the forefront of the Undocumented, Unafraid and Unapologetic Movement. At the inception of this movement, however, were undocumented parents, fighting the hard fight, regardless if anyone was listening.
Not only have Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform when it had a real chance of passing, they're now trying yet again to bring up unconstitutional bills to drive their point home.