US Immigrant Detention System, NJ Facilities Violate Federal Guidelines

The current immigrant detention system in the United States is deeply flawed, and New Jersey’s newest detention facility offers proof that federal reforms are falling short, immigration advocates said Friday at a conference on the issue.

A report by a coalition of immigration rights groups and New York University’s law school focused on conditions at an immigration detention facility in Essex County as emblematic of problems with immigration detention system nationwide.

The report finds that despite the emphasis by President Barack Obama’s administration on reforming the civil detention system, facilities like the one in Essex County fail to meet several national detention standards for immigrants, issued in 2008 and 2011 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which cover everything from access to attorneys to recreation and health care.

“We feel this is only the tip of the iceberg of what’s occurring,” said Alina Das, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at NYU’s law school, who worked on the report. “We’re very concerned about the conditions in New Jersey.”

In New Jersey, the report’s authors said they received more than 200 detainee grievances from the newly expanded detention facility at the Essex County Correctional Facility and nearby, privately operated Delaney Hall. Arguing that the facilities do not fully comply with ICE standards, the report documents problems with everything from access to legal assistance and worship services to adequate health care, food and other basic services for detainees.

Read More: US immigrant detention system, NJ facilities violate federal guidelines

US unveils new scheme to ease visa renewal for Indians

In good news to American visa applicants, US on Wednesday announced those Indians who are renewing their visas, valid or expired, within 4 years, are likely to get waiver for a personal interview.

"This new programme will permit consular officers to waive interviews for some qualified applicants who are renewing their visa within 48 months or four years, of expiration of their previous visa and within the same classification as the previous visa," Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Janice Jacobs said. 

The new rules will apply to those within categories of B1, B2, C and D. Asked to specify the possible beneficiaries, Jacobs, who is in the country for the 2nd US-India Consular Dialogue, said "it will apply for tourists, business travellers, crew members and for students." 

"Beginning today, our consulates in India are introducing a new programme to streamline the visa renewal process. "Over time, this programme has the potential to benefit hundreds of thousands of visa applicants here in India," she said. However, she also said not all applicants will be accepted for streamlined processing.

"India and US share mutual interest in global security and countering terrorism around the world. "So, maintaining strict security standards in our visa process is a fundamental importance to all of our citizens.

"For that reason, our consular officers may request an applicant to appear in person for interview at any time for any reason during the visa application process," she said. 

"The US is committed to providing an efficient and transparent visa application process," she said adding the US wants to encourage more Indians to visit the US.

Read More: US unveils new scheme to ease visa renewal for Indians

Bill would bar illegal immigrants from colleges

A Georgia legislative committee on Monday voted to approve a bill that would bar illegal immigrants from state colleges, universities and technical schools.

The House Judiciary Non-Civil committee passed an amended version of the bill that passed the Senate chamber earlier this month. It now goes to the House Rules Committee, which will decide whether to bring it up for debate before the full House.

The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Barry Loudermilk, R-Cassville, said the bill is meant in part to clarify the intent of a 2006 law that he says should have been interpreted as prohibiting state colleges and universities from accepting illegal immigrants. It also makes some changes to identification requirements for applicants for public benefits laid out by a law enacted last year to crack down on illegal immigration in the state.

The committee heard from both supporters and opponents of the bill during nearly two hours of discussion. Almost all of the discussion centered on the education provisions of the proposal. Supporters of the bill say it’s necessary to preserve state-funded education for citizens and legal residents. Opponents say the bill unfairly denies motivated illegal immigrant students the opportunity to further their education.

Illegal immigrants already are effectively barred from the most competitive state schools because of a Board of Regents policy created in 2010 that prohibits any institution that has rejected academically qualified applicants in the previous two years from accepting illegal immigrants. That includes the University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, Georgia Health Sciences University and Georgia College & State University. Illegal immigrants may still be admitted to any other state college or university but must pay out-of-state tuition.

University system Chancellor Hank Huckaby told committee members he believes that policy is adequate and asked that it be allowed to work. He offered nearly identical testimony before a Senate committee last month and before another House committee that was considering a similar bill.

Read More: Bill would bar illegal immigrants from colleges

UPDATE 1-US court blocks more parts of Alabama immigration law

A U.S. appeals court ordered the state of Alabama on Thursday to stop enforcing additional parts of its controversial new immigration law, pending review of a federal challenge to the measure that is considered the toughest in the nation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, issued a brief order expanding its initial injunction to include provisions that barred illegal immigrants from obtaining a driver's license and barred courts from enforcing contracts that involved illegal immigrants.

The appeals court in October blocked the state from enforcing another key provision of the law that required schools to check the immigration status of children on enrollment.

The provisions are blocked pending the outcome of the legal challenge by President Barack Obama's administration, which has argued that regulation of immigration should be handled by the federal government and not the states.

In its ruling in October, the appeals court also blocked a provision of the Alabama law, which was passed last year by large margins in both chambers of the Southern state's Republican-led Legislature, that made failing to carry documents proving legal residency status a misdemeanor crime.

That part of the law resulted in some embarrassing incidents when two foreign employees in Alabama's important auto industry were detained briefly for failing to produce proof of legal residency.

Read More: UPDATE 1-US court blocks more parts of Alabama immigration law

Alabama's controversial immigration crackdown heads to court

Two months before the Supreme Court hears arguments over Arizona's controversial new immigration law, another courtroom battle will take center stage, this time over Alabama's immigration crackdown.

On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, will hear arguments over whether a state can pass tough new measures to crack down on illegal immigrants, a power typically reserved for the federal government.

The Alabama law, which took effect in September, requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain and suspect of being in the country illegally. Other parts of the law make it a felony for illegal immigrants to apply for or renew drivers' licenses, identification cards or license plates.

The Obama administration sued in August to block the law, accusing Alabama of interfering with the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration policy.

Alabama's law goes further than Arizona's, requiring public schools to obtain the birth certificates of children upon enrollment, among other provisions. In October, the 11th Circuit temporarily blocked the school reporting requirement. The court also suspended the section that requires illegal immigrants to carry immigration documents at all times.

Whatever the outcome of the two cases, it is sure to add fuel to an already fiery debate over immigration in a presidential election year. Decisions are not expected in either case until summer or later.

A key question in both the Alabama and Arizona cases is the extent of the federal government's power to dictate immigration policies. Under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal laws and regulations trump conflicting state laws. But when Congress passed the major federal immigration laws, it did not clearly indicate whether it intended to bar state laws in the same field.

Read More: Alabama's controversial immigration crackdown heads to court