The federal government has agreed to delay the implementation of a requirement for federal contractors and subcontractors to use the E-Verify program until February 20, 2009. The rule was scheduled to take effect on January 15.
The system has complaints of being overly error prone.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Homeland secuity as reported by AP
WASHINGTON – If you're a criminal and you're not entitled to be in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants you out of the country. Napolitano wants what she calls "criminal aliens" off American streets. She is looking at existing immigration enforcement programs to see if taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.
Emilio Gutierrez Soto had been held in a Texas facility for seven months. He fled Mexico because he said he feared for his life after writing critically of the military. – as reported in LA Times
U.S. immigration authorities surprised press-freedom activists Thursday when they released a journalist -- fleeing alleged Mexican government persecution -- who had been held in a Texas detention center for seven months.
Emilio Gutierrez Soto walked out of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in El Paso late in the afternoon and expressed relief that he would soon be reunited with his 15-year-old son. "I still don't believe it. I need to wake up," Gutierrez, 46, said in a telephone interview.
The case had outraged Reporters Without Borders and other media advocacy groups. They said the journalist -- seeking asylum after purported death threats -- endured the extended detention without a hearing or adequate explanation from the U.S. government.
Emilio Gutierrez Soto walked out of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in El Paso late in the afternoon and expressed relief that he would soon be reunited with his 15-year-old son. "I still don't believe it. I need to wake up," Gutierrez, 46, said in a telephone interview.
The case had outraged Reporters Without Borders and other media advocacy groups. They said the journalist -- seeking asylum after purported death threats -- endured the extended detention without a hearing or adequate explanation from the U.S. government.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Perez v. Brownwell
In 1958, a divided United States Supreme Court upheld these decisions because Perez "became involved in foreign political affairs and evidenced an allegiance to another country inconsistent with American citizenship, thereby abandoning his citizenship."
Two central holdings of Perez v. Brownell found that
The provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," sets forth the two principal modes (but not the only ones) for acquiring citizenship, but nothing in the terms, the context, the history, or the manifest purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment warrants the inference of a restriction upon the power otherwise possessed by Congress to withdraw citizenship.
Congress, acting under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Art I, 8, cl 18, of the Federal Constitution, may attach loss of nationality to voting in a foreign political election, since the means, withdrawal of citizenship, is reasonably calculated to effect the end that is within the power of Congress to achieve, the avoidance of embarrassment in the conduct of foreign relations attributable to voting by American citizens in such elections, and the importance and extreme delicacy of the matters sought to be regulated demand that Congress be permitted ample scope in selecting appropriate modes for accomplishing its purpose.
Two central holdings of Perez v. Brownell found that
The provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," sets forth the two principal modes (but not the only ones) for acquiring citizenship, but nothing in the terms, the context, the history, or the manifest purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment warrants the inference of a restriction upon the power otherwise possessed by Congress to withdraw citizenship.
Congress, acting under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Art I, 8, cl 18, of the Federal Constitution, may attach loss of nationality to voting in a foreign political election, since the means, withdrawal of citizenship, is reasonably calculated to effect the end that is within the power of Congress to achieve, the avoidance of embarrassment in the conduct of foreign relations attributable to voting by American citizens in such elections, and the importance and extreme delicacy of the matters sought to be regulated demand that Congress be permitted ample scope in selecting appropriate modes for accomplishing its purpose.
INS v. Chadha
§ 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1), authorized the INS to suspend deportation of aliens continually resident in the United States for at least seven years where the Attorney General, in his discretion, found that "deportation would . . . result in extreme hardship." After such a finding by the Attorney General, a report would be transmitted to Congress pursuant to § 244(c)(1), and either house of Congress had the power to veto the Attorney General's determination pursuant to § 244(c)(2).
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)[1], was a United States Supreme Court case ruling that the legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers. In INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court held a one-House congressional veto to be unconstitutional as violating both the bicameralism principles reflected in Article I, in Section 1 and Section 7, and the presentment provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of Section 7. The Court's analysis of the presentment issue made clear, however, that two-House veto provisions, despite their compliance with bicameralism, and committee veto provisions suffer the same constitutional infirmity. In the words of dissenting Justice White, the Court in Chadha "sound[ed] the death knell for nearly 200 other statutory provisions in which Congress has reserved a 'legislative veto.'"
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)[1], was a United States Supreme Court case ruling that the legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers. In INS v. Chadha, the Supreme Court held a one-House congressional veto to be unconstitutional as violating both the bicameralism principles reflected in Article I, in Section 1 and Section 7, and the presentment provisions of Clauses 2 and 3 of Section 7. The Court's analysis of the presentment issue made clear, however, that two-House veto provisions, despite their compliance with bicameralism, and committee veto provisions suffer the same constitutional infirmity. In the words of dissenting Justice White, the Court in Chadha "sound[ed] the death knell for nearly 200 other statutory provisions in which Congress has reserved a 'legislative veto.'"