CENTER FOR

IMMIGRATION LAW, POLICY AND JUSTICE

Border Security Citizenship Detention Immigrants' Rights

NJ ‘Iimmigrant trust’ directive affects number of deportations

NEWARK – The state directive limiting cooperation by New Jersey police agencies with federal enforcement of civil immigration violations slightly reduced the number of people going from jails to federal custody and deportation though isn’t being followed consistently, says a new report out of Rutgers Law School. A study released at a Tuesday symposium said the number of removals of unauthorized immigrants through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was down slightly in 2020 for people with the most serious convictions and basically level for people without them. There was a notable decline in removals through the Secure Communities fingerprint and […]

More info

Center for Immigration Law Director Prof. Rose Cuison-Villazor will be testifying before the NJ Assembly in support of A4225 and remove immigration status as a barrier to getting professional licenses in NJ

Prepared Remarks in Support of A4225 New Jersey Assembly July 20, 2020  Rose Cuison-Villazor Vice-Dean, Chancellor’s Social Justice Scholar and Professor of Law Director, Center for Immigration Law, Policy and Justice   My name is Rose Cuison-Villazor and I am the Vice-Dean and Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School in Newark and I teach, research and write about immigration law.  I am also the founding Director of the Center for Immigration Law, Policy and Justice.  The Center for Immigration Law explores and supports the adoption of equitable and more inclusive laws, regulations, policies, and practices for all people, citizens […]

More info
DACA DREAMERS

DACA Victory!

We at the Center for Immigration Law, Policy and Justice (“Center for Immigration Law”) are extremely pleased with the Supreme Court’s opinion on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of California, 591 U.S. __ (2020), the majority of the Supreme Court held that the federal government’s rescission of DACA was “arbitrary and capricious.”  It recognized that DACA was a policy that did more than provide deferred action, but also provided benefits such as allowing DACA recipients to work.  By arbitrarily revoking DACA, the federal government failed to consider DACA recipients’ legitimate reliable interests on the policy.   This historic […]

More info