|
Your weekly summary from the Council
LATEST ANALYSIS
Right now, the biggest obstacle for the House is the lack of a speaker. No bill can pass the House of Representatives without one. But even if the House GOP or both parties jointly pick a Speaker, another issue is threatening to cause an impasse: Republicans’ demands to include radical changes to immigration law as a condition of funding the government. Read More »
FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW
-
The American Immigration Council, in collaboration with the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, filed a FOIA request to obtain information regarding the treatment of migrants by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) when they do not have an appointment through CBP One app.
CBP One is a smartphone app that serves as the primary means for migrants to request asylum at the southern border's ports of entry. In May, the Biden administration implemented a new rule, stipulating that migrants lacking CBP One appointments must remain in Mexico until they can secure one, or they risk losing their eligibility for asylum. Although some asylum seekers have successfully used the app to schedule processing appointments at ports of entry, others have encountered significant challenges.
Read more: Council Sues to Get Records about CBP’s Treatment of Migrants without CBP One Appointments
-
Last week, a federal court in California denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction in a legal challenge to the Biden administration’s policy of turning back asylum seekers who request protection without first obtaining an appointment via the government’s CBP One smartphone app. Citing a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Court found it lacked the authority to issue the injunction, which would have required the government to comply with its own policy guidance. The case is not over: the Council and its partners will continue to litigate this case.
Read more: Court Allows Turnbacks of Asylum Seekers Without CBP One Appointments to Continue
-
On Monday, October 16, the U.S. government reached a settlement in the class action litigation titled Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., filed in 2018. This litigation sought injunctive relief for parents and children who were intentionally separated at the southwest border during the Trump administration, spanning from 2017 through January 2021. The settlement establishes crucial new criteria designed to restrict the future separation of immigrant families.
The American Immigration Council has consistently opposed family separation under the zero-tolerance policy since its inception. Throughout this period, the Council and its partners diligently collected and preserved critical emails, memoranda, and policy documents pertaining to family separation, which were obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and litigation.
Read more: Families Intentionally Separated Under Trump Administration Receive Much-Needed Settlement in Class Action Case That Limits Future Family Separations
ACROSS THE NATION
Between 2014 and 2019, the population of Greater Salem increased by 2.6% and the immigrant population grew by 2.7%. In 2019 alone, immigrants in the county held $536.9 million in spending power, paid $144.9 million in federal taxes, and paid $64.3 million in state and local taxes.
Read more: New Americans in Greater Salem
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
“The turnback policy goes against a 2021 Biden administration policy. The commissioner of CBP had issued this memo saying CBP officers should not be turning back or rejecting anyone who comes to a port of entry because they don’t have a CBP One appointment.”
– Suchita Mathur, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council
FURTHER READING
MAKE A CONTRIBUTION
|
