Providing Free and Low-Cost Legal Services to
Detained Asylum Seekers in Texas
Learn About Our Work


In This Issue:


Briefing Submitted to Federal Court to Support Ending Title 42 Expulsions

May 5 - We joined 57 organizations in submitting an amicus brief in Arizona v. CDC, the case currently before the Western District of Louisiana challenging the Title 42 wind-down, being brought by 21 states. See this litigation tracker for more.

May 10 - A statistical analysis of Title 42 expulsions and COVID cases in the U.S. between March 2020 and February 2022 found no relationship between the number of expulsions under the Title 42 and the number of COVID cases in the U.S. Public health experts, including America’s top physician, Dr. Anthony Fauci, have been saying that Title 42 order has no scientific nor public health rationale.

May 20 - The District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction keeping the Title 42 expulsion policy in place. The judge ruled that the CDC did not follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement of notice and comment. The Department of Justice appealed.

May 21 - CBP issued a memo that clarifies previous guidance implementing the CDC Order to ensure that it is consistent with Huisha Huisha v. Mayorkas, which found that the government may expel family units only to places where they are “not likely to be persecuted or tortured.”

Fox News Interviews Us on Why U.S. Should End Title 42 Expulsions

May 20 - Martha MacCallum interviewed our Executive Director Sara Ramey, where she spoke about the misuse of our public health authority to deny case processing to asylum seekers who are vaccinated, test negative, or otherwise can be quarantined, while we simultaneously allow in business travelers and tourists. She also spoke about how these expulsions funnel millions of dollars to the cartel. Read Jason’s story and our Key Takeaways on this issue.

Some in Congress are seeking to reduce or block funding to fight COVID-19, while others proposed tying the continuation of Title 42 to the Surgeon General’s authority to declare or end a Public Health Emergency (PHE), wresting the authority to make public health determinations away from the CDC. See S.4036 and H.R. 7458. Ending the recently-renewed PHE is expected to result in over 12 million Medicaid beneficiaries losing coverage, along with countless consequences for COVID-19 related programs that serve all Americans. Read a summary of the bills. Relatedly, on May 13, 17 Republican Representatives introduced the Border Safety and Security Act (H.R. 7772), which would force DHS to control the flow of illegal migration at our southern border.

Urge Congress to uphold asylum law here (not customizable). Customize a letter to your elected representatives. Tell Biden to stand strong here (and not replace with other bad policies).

Senators Introduce Bill to Restore Access to Public Programs after Migrant Center Sends Letter of Support

May 25 - 10 Senators introduced the LIFT the BAR Act (S.4311). The Migrant Center, along with more than 750 national, state, and local organizations sent a letter of support in September 2021, renewed on June 1, for removing the 5-year bar. The bill is the Senate companion to House legislation (HR 5227) sponsored by 80 Representatives. The LIFT the BAR Act restores access to public programs like Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP, by removing the five-year bar imposed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and other barriers that deny critical care and aid to people who are lawfully present and their families. This includes people who hold “green cards,” Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, crime victims, child maltreatment victims and orphans who hold Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), and other noncitizens residing lawfully in the United States. Polling finds that about 70% of Americans favor the policy change proposed by the LIFT the BAR Act.

Public Comment Submitted on New Asylum Processing Rule

May 31 - We submitted a Public Comment on the new asylum processing Interim Final Rule, published on March 29. Unlike the public’s response to the August 20, 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (read our Public Comment) which received 5,235 public comments, only 60 were received) this time around. The Interim Final Rule went into effect on May 31  in two Texas detention facilities, including the South Texas ICE Processing Center where we work. The credible fear interview will take place in detention, with the individual then paroled out to live with relatives / friends to do their Asylum Merits Interview in one of six cities: Boston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Newark, San Francisco.

The goal is to shift cases away from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) and speed up processing. It is estimated to cost EOIR $470.62 to decide a case (credible fear merits plus master hearings from FY 2016 through FY 2020 was about 97 minutes, or 1.6 hours). Approximately 92% of asylum officers are currently employed at the GS-12 pay level or lower (2021 base salary ranged from $66,829, at step 1, up to $86,881, at step 10). EOIR data indicate that the average salary for immigration judges was $155,089 in FY 2021; $71,925 for Judicial Law Clerks (“JLCs”); $58,394 for Legal Assistants; and $132,132 for DHS Attorneys.

Among other issues, under the Interim Final Rule, processing times are significantly sped up: the regulation requires the Asylum Office to schedule a merits interview within 21 to 45 days of the positive credible fear determination (this will constitute an application for asylum). The asylum seeker must submit any documentary evidence 14 days before the scheduled interview date (in other words, 7 to 31 days after the credible fear determination). The asylum officer may exercise discretion to grant a “brief” extension, but this will stop the work permit clock. Studies of past initiatives to fast-track immigration cases have found that “shorter continuances systematically prevent pro se respondents from finding counsel.”  The Interim Final Rule will also make it incredibly difficult to gather evidence and prepare the facts and legal analysis for an asylum case.

The government expects the Asylum Office to grant asylum in 15% of these expedited removal cases, based on affirmative asylum grant rates (however, this is much lower than EOIR grant rates which hover between 38% and 52% if represented) and to refer the remaining 85% of cases to EOIR.  In Immigration Court, master calendar hearings will be held within 35 days and a new status conference procedure will take place within 35 days of the master calendar hearing. Dedicated dockets for these cases will be established.

In litigation in both Texas and Louisiana plaintiff states have contested the legality of the Interim Final Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, filing motions for preliminary injunctions to stop the rule from going into effect.  In both cases, the government filed a motion to transfer for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the District Court for the District of Columbia was the sole federal court with jurisdiction over this case.  On May 18, the judge in the Louisiana case denied the government’s motion to transfer, and calendared discoveries and briefings for the end of June prior to the ruling on the preliminary injunction. Arizona v. Garland was filed in the Western District of Louisiana and includes 20 states, Arizona and Louisiana among them.

Read our Public Comment for more about the Interim Final Rule and how we think it will play out in practice. See also the Public Comment by UNHCR and by AILA. Read all the comments here. Here are the e-mails for Asylum Office scheduling. 

Contribute to Our Work



EOIR's Friend of Court Program in Practice

May 5 - EOIR published Director’s Memorandum 22-06 to provide guidance on accommodating the Friend of the Court model in immigration courts to encourage participation of individuals or organizations, who are neither a party nor a representative, in order to facilitate information sharing. The Friend of the Court model is intended to assist pro se respondents with navigating the immigration court system, better understanding court proceedings, and creating greater efficiencies. This memo rescinds Policy Memorandum 20-05, the Trump administration’s memo on the participation of non-parties / representatives. The Chief Immigration Judge is directed to designate a Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judge who will be responsible for coordinating the courts’ practices. Here are the highlights:

“Immigration Judges are strongly encouraged to be flexible, particularly in the scheduling of hearings in which a Friend of the Court may wish to participate. Where practicable and appropriate, Immigration Judges should give Friends of the Court priority scheduling at master calendar hearings when requested, as well as consider creating a “friend of the court docket” for a particular time of the week or month to accommodate and foster the participation of Friends of the Court.”

“Where EOIR video teleconferencing is available in conjunction with a scheduled hearing and the request to use the equipment is reasonable, courts should allow the use of EOIR video teleconferencing equipment to communicate with the respondents, as long as the use of video teleconferencing by Friends of the Court does not disrupt essential court operations.” It is unclear if this includes speaking with respondents off the record in a confidential manner, ie where the judge, OPLA, and others in the courtroom would not listen in.

“A Friend of the Court may call attention to law or facts that may be helpful to the court.” This can create issues where a Friend of the Court provides information that is not in the respondent’s best interest. There are no guidelines around this regarding the weight that the Immigration Judge should give to this information considering the source and content of the information.  Non-lawyers may be unfamiliar with the law in such a way that they may not realize the legal impacts of statements they make. It is also unclear whether lawyers who are not representing respondents have ethical duties to them to not complicate their cases, considering that as a Friend of the Court their role is to assist the court, and not necessarily the respondent.

“To the extent possible, the Immigration Judge should establish for the record that the respondent understands that the Friend of the Court is not her or his attorney.”

“Friend of the Court is not intended to be a substitute for a legal representative. Immigration Judges and Court Administrators are still encouraged to allow time for respondents to obtain counsel and to facilitate pro bono representation.”



Co-hosted by the Migrant Center, the San Francisco Bar Association, and CILA, this webinar begins with a brief overview of EOIR’s Director’s new Memorandum 22-06, as well as a discussion of how to be an effective friend of the court, and -- for non-profits, clinics, and firms -- how to organize a program which coordinates Friend of the Court services for pro se respondents. The panelists also discuss ethical considerations that should be taken into account when providing Friend of the Court services, including confidentiality, clearly communicating the difference between limited scope representation vs. full scope representation, and practice tips for working with minor pro se respondents.
Help Us Advocate for a More Humane Immigration System
As of May 18, under the Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) program USCIS has received 29,000 I-134 applications from sponsors, and has reviewed 25,000, and CBP has issued 14,000 travel authorizations. USCIS asks stakeholders to share recurring questions and concerns by contacting To read other key takeaways from the meeting, see this document.




CBP Eliminates Critical Incident Teams

May 3 - CBP Commissioner Magnus issued a memorandum terminating Border Patrol’s Critical Incident Teams (CITs), secretive units that often arrive at the scene when agents may have misused force or otherwise behaved in a way that could involve local law enforcement, by October 1. A critical incident is defined as “any incident that involves CBP personnel that results in, or is intended or likely to result in, serious bodily injury or death; a use of force; or widespread media attention.” Border Patrol has described these teams as conducting investigations for “mitigation of civil liability.” There is no known equivalent to such a team in other law enforcement agencies. CITs stood accused of altering crime scenes, interfering with law enforcement investigations, and coming up with exculpatory evidence to protect agents. 160 internal reports of misconduct and abuse by DHS officers, mostly CBP agents, demonstrate the rampant abuse within the agency. Advocates have documented the deaths of over 200 people either in CBP custody or as the result of an encounter with agents since 2010. No Border Patrol agent has ever been prosecuted for use-of-force that resulted in a death. CITS are a key piece of a larger problem of overall impunity for Border Patrol misconduct. CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), a department specifically assigned oversight authority of CBP employees, will assume responsibility for critical incident response. Earlier this year, CBP issued interim guidance requiring that OPR supervise any use of specialized teams to respond to critical incidents. Congress has already funded OPR to hire as many as 350 new personnel. CITs have existed in some form since 1987 under various names. But they have received limited media attention due to their secretive nature. They are not mentioned in federal statutes or regulations, public government documents, or the Department of Homeland Security acronyms list. The only agencies with legal authority to investigate CBP misconduct are state and local law enforcement agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the DHS Office of Inspector General, and in some limited circumstances, OPR. In 2013, an external review of CBP’s use-of-force policy recommended defining the authority and role of BPCITs. Instead of following the recommendation, the agency removed all mentions of the teams from the policy. In January, 10 House and Senate committee and subcommittee chairs called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate. The same day, the House Committee on Homeland Security and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform announced their own joint investigation. See the “Critical Incident Teams” tag.

Utah Partners Launch Task Force to Increase Inclusion

May 3 - The Governor’s Office, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the World Trade Center Utah launched a New American Task Force to develop a comprehensive strategy to maximize opportunities for inclusion and belonging in the state: economic, social, educational, civic and beyond. This follows several other initiatives for inclusion in the state. New research found that immigrants are both creating jobs as entrepreneurs and more likely to be of prime working age (25-54) than their U.S.-born neighbors (contributing $572.7 million in state & local taxes in 2019). Immigrants make up about 8% of the state’s population, and are 10% of the state’s STEM workers, nearly 13% of physicians, and nearly 19% of manufacturing workers. In 2019, 43.6% of college-educated immigrants worked in jobs that didn’t require a bachelor’s degree, compared to 29.6% of U.S.-born Utahns. See this resource for local tips on How to Undo Trump’s Egregious Immigration Policies.

Ninth Circuit Rules Military Can Assist CBP

May 4 - The Ninth Circuit said that the U.S. military can assist CBP in capturing those suspected of entering the country illegally, rejecting an appeal by a Mexican national who was apprehended with the help of a Marine Corps surveillance unit. The defendant argued that the Marine Corps surveillance violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which codified the longstanding prohibition against military enforcement of civilian law. Rejecting that argument, the panel explained that the military may still assist civilian law enforcement agencies if Congress expressly authorized it, and here, the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act directed the U.S. Secretary of Defense to offer military assistance to CBP. The case is United States v. Hernandez-Garcia.

USCIS Extends Work Permits from 180 to 540 Days

May 4 - Due to processing delays, USCIS published a  Temporary Final Rule that increases the automatic extension period for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) from 180 to 540 days to those individuals who timely file a renewal of employment authorization prior to the expiration of their current document. Beginning October 27, 2023, automatic extensions will revert to the 180 days. USCIS has set a goal of a three-month processing time for EAD applications for the end of FY 2023. The following renewal applicants are eligible for an automatic extension: 

  • Asylees and refugees: (a)(3) and (a)(5)

  • Asylum applicants: (c)(8)

  • TPS holders: (a)(12)

  • TPS initial applicants with prima facie case eligible for EAD as “temporary treatment benefit”: (c)(19)

  • Adjustment of status applicants: (c)(9)

  • Registry applicants: (c)(16)

  • Legalization, LIFE Legalization and SAW applicants: (c)(20), (22), and (24)

  • VAWA self-petitioners: (c)(31)

  • Withholding of deportation or removal granted: (a)(10)

  • Applicants for suspension of deportation and cancellation of removal, including NACARA cancellation: (c)(10)

  • Citizen of Micronesia, Marshall Islands or Palau: (a)(8)

  • N-8 and N-9 nonimmigrants: (a)(7) 

Read AILA’s Practice Alert for more. USCIS created an EAD Automatic Extension Calculator to assist employers and employees with determining the EAD expiration date for eligible employees.

May 4 - Relatedly, a non-citizen asked a federal court to compel USCIS to decide her employment authorization application, saying its unlawful delay past the six-month window required by USCIS caused her to lose her job.

Attorney General Finds Mental Health is Relevant to Culpability, such that a Conviction May, on this Basis, Not Be a Particularly Serious Crime

May 9 - The Attorney General issued a decision in Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 563 (A.G. 2022) overruling Matter of G‑G‑S‑, 26 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2014) and finding that  Immigration adjudicators may consider a respondent’s mental health in determining whether an individual, “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States.” 8 ‍U.S.C. § ‍1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); see id § ‍1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Matter of Frentescu, 18 I&N Dec. 244, 247 (BIA 1982) (setting out multi-factor test to determine whether a noncitizen has committed a particularly serious crime, including “the nature of the conviction, the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, and, most importantly, whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate that the alien will be a danger to the community”); see also Matter of L-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 645, 649 (BIA 1999) (en banc); Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 339, 343–43 (BIA 2014) (“We have held that for an alien who has not been convicted of an aggravated felony or whose aggravated felony conviction did not result in an aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years or more, it is necessary to examine the nature of the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, and the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction to determine whether the crime was particularly serious.”). See AILA’s Practice Pointer

Detention Ombudsman Publishes Complaint Form and Lists Locations for In-Person Complaints

May 10 - The Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO) announced that its case intake form (DHS Form 405) is now available on its website. OIDO is an independent office reporting directly to Congress and the DHS Secretary that is charged with redressing complaints about conditions at immigration detention centers and violations by DHS staff and contractors. Its first quarterly newsletter, which introduces the function of the office, provides information on case management, links to the inspection of the Limestone County Detention Center, and more, including a list of where in-person complaints can be made, which includes the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall.

District Court Approves Settlement to Remedy Harms of Fake DHS College

May 10 - Effective May 3, a District Court granted approval to a class-action settlement involving the University of Northern New Jersey, a purported for-profit college that was created by DHS in 2013, and reverses many of the immigration-related harms suffered by anyone who enrolled and their derivative F-2 spouses and children. See FAQs about the settlement and instructions for obtaining expedited adjudications. The case is Dong, et al. v. Johnson, et al.

ICE Restarts Social Visitation in Detention

May 11 - ICE announced a phased return to social visitation in its detention facilities consistent with federal, state, and local guidelines. Requirements include screening for COVID-19 symptoms and applicable personal protective equipment.

District Court Finds that Separated Families Can Sue for Damages

May 11 - A district court rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to dismiss the compensation case of three migrant families who were separated under Trump. The Biden administration broke off talks in December 2021. The court rejected the administration’s argument that the government cannot be held liable for government employees’ compliance with the law and that the families could therefore continue to seek compensation for the harms they suffered. There are at least 22 pending lawsuits in federal courts on behalf of more than 80 parents and children seeking financial compensation for the trauma they endured after being separated during the Trump administration. The Biden administration had been negotiating compensation settlements, but pulled out after news of the negotiations generated Republican backlash late last year. The Biden administration now argues that the families are not eligible to sue the federal government.

Arizona Begins Busing Migrants to D.C.

May 11 - Arizona began busing migrants from the U.S.-Mexico border to Washington, D.C., joining Texas in a protest over the Biden’s policies on immigration and border control, the first bus arriving with 20 migrants who volunteered for the trip.

House Committee Passes Bill to Make Immigration Courts Independent

May 12 - By a 24-12 vote, the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 6577, The Real Courts, Rule of Law Act of 2022 (H.R. 6577), which will transition the nation’s immigration court system into an independent judiciary consistent with Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The immigration court system is currently an office within the Department of Justice – known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review – that lacks procedural and structural safeguards to protect it against political influence. The full House and Senate can now vote on the bill. Tell your representatives to support this bill. 

Fourth Circuit Vacates Order Requiring ICE to Prove Flight Risk or Danger to Detain Someone and that Ability to Pay Should be Considered in Setting Bonds

May 12 - The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction order and held that under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1), the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue class-wide injunctive relief that restrained the process used to conduct Section 1226(a) bond hearings. Further, the court held that the detention procedures adopted for 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) bond hearings provide sufficient process to satisfy constitutional requirements. The district court determined that the plaintiff class had a likelihood of establishing that those procedures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and ordered that to continue detaining an immigrant under 1226(a) the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the immigrant is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. The district court also required immigration judges to consider an immigrant’s ability to pay and consider alternatives to detention. The case is Marvin Miranda v. Merrick Garland.

Supreme Court Rules Appellate Courts Cannot Review Clearly Erroneous Findings of Fact

May 16 - In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary relief proceedings under INA §245 and the other provisions enumerated in INA §242(a)(2)(B)(i) regardless of how egregious the error is. Only constitutional claims and matters of law can now be considered. A Georgia man who has spent decades in the United States was denied adjustment of status for misrepresentation after checking the wrong box on a driver’s license application stating he was a U.S. citizen even though the charges were dropped and he had testified that there was no reason for him to make that accident as he was otherwise eligible to seek a driver’s license. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals said he had not shown that his decision to check the box was an innocent mistake. The Eleventh Circuit said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim and Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, ruled that "federal courts have a very limited role to play" in the process. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the dissent, stating that: "It is no secret that when processing applications, licenses and permits the government sometimes makes mistakes… In circumstances like that, our law has long permitted individuals to petition a court to consider the question and correct any mistake… in the last three months of 2021, the government denied more than 13,000 green card applications with nearly 790,000 pending… With so many applications receiving such abbreviated treatment, who can be surprised that DHS sometimes makes serious errors." Justice Gorsuch also found that the decision represented bad statutory construction: “The majority concludes that courts are powerless to correct an agency decision holding an individual ineligible for relief from removal based on a factual error, no matter how egregious the error might be… They read language out of the statute and collapse the law’s clear two-step framework. They disregard the lessons of neighboring provisions and even ignore the statute’s very title. They make no sense of the statute’s history. Altogether, the majority’s novel expansion of a narrow statutory exception winds up swallowing the law’s general rule guaranteeing individuals the chance to seek judicial review to correct obvious bureaucratic missteps. It is a conclusion that turns an agency once accountable to the rule of law into an authority unto itself. Perhaps some would welcome a world like that. But it is hardly the world Congress ordained.” The case is Patel v. Garland.

Biden Restarts Cuban Family Reunification Program

May 16 - DOS announced plans to reinstate the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (CFRP) and increase capacity for consular services in Cuba. Limited immigrant visa processing will resume in Havana, but most cases will still be processed at the U.S. Embassy in Guyana.

Mexico’s Supreme Court Rules Immigration Checkpoints Unconstitutional

May 18 - Mexico’s Supreme Court struck down the policy of stopping and searching individuals to check their immigration status based on their appearance and other characteristics, ruling that it was unconstitutional for being overbroad and disproportionately affecting indigenous and Afro-Mexicans. The case before Mexico’s Supreme Court involved three indigenous Mexican citizens who, due to their appearance and limited proficiency in Spanish, were held for eight days. The 18-year-old brother was tortured until he signed a document indicating he was from Guatemala, even though he could not read Spanish. In 2019, after the Trump administration and the Mexican government reached an agreement for Mexico to create a new military branch to target immigration – the National Guard. Mexico has built new naval bases and increased military and security operations along bus and train routes. In 2021, Mexican police reportedly massacred 19 people near the U.S. border. Hundreds of officials have been fired for corruption, including for participating in human trafficking and extorting migrants. Mexico has been keeping migrants in camps in often horrific conditions in Tapachula. In February 2022, some migrants sewed their mouths shut in protest.

TPS Designated for Afghanistan

May 20 - DHS designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghans who have continuously resided in the United States since March 15 to stay in the country legally for 18 months starting May 20. USCIS will host an engagement on June 16 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm (ET). Email questions regarding the designation by 4:00 pm (ET) on Friday June 3, 2022, to with "TPS Afghanistan" in the subject line. Register here

Table: Ryan Serpico / San Antonio Express-News | Source: U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

Settlement Reached on CBP Treatment of Children

May 21 - The parties submitted a joint motion for preliminary approval of a settlement under which CBP agreed to a wide range of protocols requiring that detained minors be held in safe and sanitary conditions. The settlement requires that detained minors not be separated from relatives; have access to showers, hygiene kits, age-appropriate meals, clothing, mattresses, and blankets; and have access to medical evaluations and prompt medical treatment when needed. The settlement also requires that CBP treat minors in custody with “dignity, respect and special concern for their particular vulnerability as minors,” and that it place each detained minor “in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the class member’s age and special needs.” The case is Flores, et al. v. Garland, et al.

DHS Issues Guidance on Prosecutorial Discretion in Cases of Military Service

May 23 - DHS issued a policy directive explaining how it will exercise its enforcement discretion with regards to noncitizen military members and immediate relatives. This policy includes the requirement to evaluate whether a military member may be eligible for naturalization under 328 / 329 and a monthly reporting requirement.

Massachusetts Governor Vetoes Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented

May 27 - Massachusetts Governor Baker vetoed a bill that would have given driver's licenses to 60,000 undocumented immigrants with the goal of increasing safety on the roads. The state House initially passed the bill, 120-36 and the Senate voted in favor, 32-8. The Governor said: "I cannot sign this legislation because it requires the Registry of Motor Vehicles to issue state credentials to people without the ability to verify their identity. The Registry does not have the expertise or ability to verify the validity of many types of documents from other countries… Consequently, a standard Massachusetts driver's license will no longer confirm that a person is who they say they are." Sixteen other states and the District of Columbia have passed similar laws. A two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate will override his veto.  An override vote is scheduled for June 8.

Support Us Bringing You Important News and Analysis

We work to ensure that all immigrants facing removal from the U.S. understand their rights under the law, have access to counsel, and are treated fairly and humanely.

Stay up to date on the latest news by liking our
Facebook Page or visiting us at
P.O. BOX 90382 San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: 210-802-6061
Copyright © 2022 Migrant Center For Human Rights. All Rights Reserved.

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.


This email was sent to <<Email Address>>
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
Migrant Center for Human Rights · PO Box 90382 · San Antonio, TX 78209-9084 · USA

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp